Dan West and Judith Hunter are two local progressives running against incumbents for the State Assembly. Their districts are the two immediately south of Rochester. Dan’s starts in Henrietta & Pittsford, winds south through Livonia, then ends up in Springwater & Naples. Judith’s district is immediately to the west, starting with Avon/Lima, and going southwest through Wyoming & Livingston Counties, and the northern half of Allegany County.

These districts have been gerrymandered at the state level just the same as the US Congressional districts have been, under the “Incumbent Protection Plan” ™. They won’t come out and call it that, but let’s call a spade a spade. So they’re set up geographically to favor their Republican incumbents. The good news is, the organization who polled these areas was blown away at how ripe they are to flip. The quote I heard was something along the lines of “…and they thought it was great last election cycle.”

I haven’t met Judith yet (although I love what I’ve read and trusted sources tell me she’s great), but I have met Dan, and he is a real dynamo. The two of them took part of a candidates forum hosted by Geneseo University on 9/26/06, and although I wasn’t able to be there, a friend of mine from the West campaign took notes. It’s mostly focused on Dan’s comments/responses (my friend’s one of Dan’s volunteers), but Judith had some good stuff in the forum as well. The topics ranged from healthcare, to the economy, to CMCE, among others. Judith’s opponent Dan Burling was there, but Dan West’s opponent Joe Errigo didn’t feel the need to show up.

My friend’s notes follow, but I want to say, these two districts may be ripe, but somebody’s got to help with the harvest. A little money goes a long way, and a little elbow grease does too– state assembly districts are manageably small and Judith and Dan are working like crazy, and their campaign volunteers are too. They’re a fun bunch and getting voters pumped and to the polls will have a synergistic effect up and downticket.

Judith Hunter:

Volunteer Donate

Dan West:

Volunteer Donate

Dan West with interested voter

Well, we forgot the camera, and we forgot the recorder, but Dan definitely brought his game with him! Here is a quick synopsis of what Dan and Judith said in response to questions.

In regards to rising health care costs:

He expressed strong support for universal health care coverage. He said that universal coverage would also reduce worker’s compensation claims expenses, because a lot of litigation in such cases takes place over who should cover the employee’s health care costs. He feels all the players (docs, patients, insurers, business leaders, etc.) should be brought to the table to decide how this situation is to be addressed. I have the partial word Pas written down, but apparently I moved on to his next statement. He said we should work on statewide bidding for prescription drugs. He highlighted that one of his biggest concerns is the high profits being realized by health insurance companies, and tied this into an explanation of why our system is so costly. Lastly, he emphasized that he plans to work closely with Spitzer next year who is also looking into reforming the health care system in NY.

Other thoughts on this topic:

Dan Burling said he was supporting a bill to require pharma companies to report gifts over $25 that are offered to doctors. Burling also made a grandiose statement about Medicaid fraud, but gave no examples and moved on without really addressing the issue. Judith said we should look at funding more home care options when appropriate, in place of more costly options (like nursing homes). Tom Casey said he believes we should leave health care reform to the federal gov’t and use the proceeds from reforming Medicaid to fund health care for those currently uninsured. To be honest, I thought Casey was a Republican until his closing statement.

In regards to the NYS brain drain:

Dan had a killer response to Burling who tried to claim that the Republicans were solely responsible for economic development in Livingston County (lots of claps and laughs from the audience). I actually think that Dan should expand further on this aspect of his of his political career. I’ll let Dan explain further what they worked on, since I didn’t catch the details. He also knocked Burling for trying to talk up his support of TAP, and how he had supported the legislature’s override of Pataki’s veto to increase funding for the program. Dan reminded everyone that funding for TAP had been decreased by the Republicans, before they recently decided to increase funding. This also seemed to go over quite well with the crowd. Dan said we should look to Nelson Rockefeller, who was a progressive Republican governor as a role model for improving our educational system. He said we should look at lowering interest on student loans and providing more grant money. He also said we should consider offering waiving some portion of student loan repayment for graduates who decide to stay in NY after college.

In regards to the burden of school taxes (and property taxes more generally):

Dan made a disclaimer before he addressed the issue that his wife is a school teacher and is the President of a local teacher association’s office. It made for a good opener and people laughed. Referencing a comment made by Burling, Dan said that he didn’t receive NYSUT’s endorsement either. I think Dan might want to consider tying these two statements together more closely, by coming right out and saying that while my wife is a teacher; I did not receive NYSUT’s endorsement, so folks know both statements are tied to his claim of legitimacy/credibility on the topic. As a supervisor, he said that he realized the problem was funding mechanism for our school system. He proffered that we move away from property taxes and toward funding the system with income taxes. This was very popular (lots of claps).

Other thoughts on this topic:

Burling came right out and laid blame on teacher’s unions for increasing our school taxes. He said their benefit packages are too good. He said he voted against a bill that would force all teachers in NYS to join the teacher’s union and pay dues. He also made some vague claim of responsibility by local school boards for the rise in school taxes. Casey thought we should reform the laws governing the teacher union’s benefit negotiation practices. He referenced the Taylor Law and Tri-borough amendments. Judith said something to the effect that our hands are tied by the NYS Constitution and that we should move toward campaign finance reform, which would give special interests less power.

In regards to Clean Money, Clean Elections:

Dan was very, very (he couldn’t say enough verys) enthusiastic about this proposal. He said quite frankly that that he found there was nothing more degrading than the current system in which candidates have to beg for money. He tied this issue to Burling’s prescription drug comment. In that, just as doctors adjust their prescribing habits in response to pharma gifts, politicians also adjust their legislating habits in response to special interest contributions. Again, Dan emphasized that he would work closely with Spitzer who has also officially come out in support of CMCE.

Judith Hunter (in the middle) answers a question

Other thoughts on this topic:

Judith took time to actually explain CMCE’s proposal and how it has worked successfully as a model for other states. She also noted that legislators would have more time to study legislation (what they were elected to do), if they didn’t have to worry about raising money all the time. Burling decided to go on a long tangent about term limits, and explain that he is against term limits. He also came right out and said that he was against public financing for campaigns, because he felt that corporations, just as people deserve a voice in the political process. It was interesting to note that he was the only person on the panel to explicitly take a stand against term limits and pubic financing, and he also happened to be the only incumbent.

In regards to the Medicare Part D donut hole:

Dan emphasized again that we should move toward universal health care coverage, which would address this issue. He felt that we should also lobby nationally to pressure the federal gov’t to improve Part D.

Other thoughts on this topic:

Judith took time to explain the Part D situation to students in the audience who might not be aware of the issue. She also put forth the rhetorical question of who is to blame for the problems with Part D. Burling started his response with some strange claim that the elderly (and folks, in general) in NYS are fortunate to be living in NY, because we provide so many publicly sponsored health care programs. He then went on to admit (as the owner of a few pharmacies) that there are a number of serious problems with Part D, but claimed that it was a start, nonetheless.

In regards to Dan’s closing statement:

I think the headline of his closing statement was a challenge to his opponent to attend a debate with him. He said that it was a duty of all elected officials to openly debate and discuss the issues with their constituents in open forums.

I think Dan was strongest when he talked about waiving student loans, property taxes, economic development in Livingston County, CMCE, and worker’s compensation (in that order, by my judgement).