Oh boy - The D&C news team out did themselves this time.  See, Carl Paladino lost because - well, here is the headline:

Carl Paladino’s gaffes, lack of focus cost him at end of campaign

Really - Lack of focus and gaffes?  Only at the end of the campaign?  That assumes there was a piece of the campaign where Paladino was gaffe-less and focused.  Gaffes is euphemistic for not ready for the political stage.  Here is how the some of those gaffes were characterized in this paragraph:

… His campaign came to be defined by a videotaped altercation he had with New York Post columnist Fred Dicker, by racist and sexist e-mails he is said to have sent before the campaign began, and by his own anger.

I’m pretty sure those emails did get sent by Mr Paladino.  I don’t think he ever denied it.  However, this is bigger than racial and pornographic emails.  It is about lack of a plan.  See, he didn’t have one and, as disengaged as the electorate is sometimes, they saw right through Mr Paladino.  Check out this quote from a tea party guy:

Paladino’s slogan — “I’m mad too Carl” — was printed on thousands of black and orange signs across New York. It became a rallying cry but needed substance behind it, said Steven Poyzer, a member of the Victor 9.12 Tea Party.

“You can still come out and say ‘Yeah, I’m frustrated, but here’s what I’m going to do about it,’” Poyzer said. “I think had he done that, it would have been a whole other campaign.”

Carl Couldn’t do that because he didn’t have a plan other than insult, well, almost everyone.   Basically, the GOP nominated someone who pissed in the wind.  How did that work out for them?

Where I’m disappointed in the article is this:  Take away the insults, barbs and gaffes, heck, even lack of a plan, did anyone know Carl Paladino in the densely populated part of  the state?  How was an unknown going to overcome Cuomo’s name recognition.  I mean, this was not a level playing field from the start.  Yet, no mention of that anywhere.

Instead, we have Bill Nojay saying the way for Paladino to win was for Cuomo to stumble.

In the end, there is no substance behind Carl Paladino.  A candidate that was embraced by the Republican Party and the Conservative Party.  I think the bigger issue is that those parties aren’t looking for substance.

Carl can now go back and continue to use the system that helped make him wealthy.

Saw this over @ Think Progress.   Given the new members of Congress, here is where they stand.  I think it is going to be amateur hour.

A snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010’s extremism:

ENVIRONMENT

- 50% deny the existence of manmade climate change
- 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue

IMMIGRATION

- 39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
- 32% want to reduce legal immigration

TAXES/SPENDING

- 91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business – regardless of deficits or war
- 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax
- 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment

Locally, we have Tom Reed.  Who famously said that given the absence of a Congressional Representative in the NY-29, voters were denied a vote in the confirmation of Elana Keegan (Yes he did.  Conveniently forgetting that Senators vote not Representatives.)  Then there was the Freshman 50 pledge - Promises he can’t keep which center on constitutional amendments and amendment repeal.  Yeah, have fun with that too.

Ugh.

The change I want to see.

Might want to review this.  Point here is that the political cover provided by Blue Dog Dems to the GOP in the form of assumed bipartisanship will not be there in the 112th Congress.

What does this mean?  The GOP nonsense about to be passed by the House won’t look bipartisan so the GOP will get the appropriate credit for it.  (my bold)

More than half the caucus, including two of its leaders, will thus be gone when the 112th Congress is seated in January. The reconstituted caucus will comprise only 13 percent of the Democrats in the House as compared with the 21 percent it does now.

Since the 79-member Progressive Caucus saw only four of its members defeated, the partisan divide likely will be sharper than in the current House and  Speaker John Boehner will find fewer allies across the aisle willing to give cover to Republican initiatives.

…

Blue Dogs hoping their dilute-everything, obstructionist “moderation” would persuade voters to keep them in office found out that works as well as seeking bipartisan harmony with the current crop of elected Republicans. But the silver lining is that those Republicans - now in the majority - have a year or so to make good on their ludicrous vows to fix the economy they deny having done so much to wreck and to make all the other magical fixes they implicitly promised in the just-finished campaign.

yeah, have fun with that. 

My take from the state elections is simply this:  People are fed up with Albany, however the problem is centered around someone else’s representative because they generally act as if “my Incumbent is just fine.”

1.  No surprises here - Cuomo, Schneidermann, etc. At least, Carl Paladino delivered his promise to take out the trash by taking himself out.  Anyone see Carl Paladino’s concession speech?  Enough with the bats.   Ugh.  Trouble with Palidino and all that baggage that came with him is that he was a distraction from Albany and how we got to where we are.

2.  New York State Senate - I think it is still too close to call.  Let’s hope that the GOP does not gain any seats.  Come on, there has to be a bright spot somewhere.

3.  I heard somewhere that the Green Party earned over 50,000 votes and a ballot line for the next 4 years.  How about the other minor party candidates?

4.  Not sure local candidates fared well here in Monroe County.   No Dem judges?  None?  I’m surprised.  Harry Bronson won for the Assembly open seat, but when I went to bed - there was little if any good news. Now that I’m awake - Still none.  David Koon lost, who, I think was the only State Legislature local incumbent from our area to lose.  I’m sure lots of people were fed up with Albany.  Apparently, they were not that fed up.

5.  Voting machines.  Not a lot of problems.  The new machines are a good thing.

Again - off to work - have at it.

Ouch - Well, WOW. The election, save for a few races, is over - the Democrats generally were crushed.  So what do you think?

A couple of things -

1.  Congress - the Democrats were crushed in the House.  Many of those being crushed were Blue Dog Democrats.  Yep.  Blue Dog Democrats.  From my perspective - what is the difference between a blue dog and a Republican?  Not a lot. Some time back I wrote somewhere that there were really three parties in the House, the Dems, GOP and Blue Dogs.  Well - Now there is closer to 2.

2.  What Obama needs to learn - start with this. (via the NYT)

The question is: Will either side draw the right lessons from this midterm election?

Mr. Obama, and his party, have to do a far better job of explaining their vision and their policies. Mr. Obama needs to break his habits of neglecting his base voters and of sitting on the sidelines and allowing others to shape the debate. He needs to do a much better job of stiffening the spines of his own party’s leaders.

3.  The GOP?  same article from above.

John Boehner, the likely speaker of the House, has not provided a clue of how his party will begin to cut the deficit, which Republicans say is their top priority. One of the few specific promises he has made would dig an even deeper hole: extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts.

…

Anticipating a big win on Tuesday, leading Republicans haven’t been talking about substance, only more obstructionism. Mr. Boehner said the other day that the president was welcome to support Republican programs. But as for Mr. Obama’s agenda, he said, “We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

I’m off to work so I have to stop now meaning this isn’t a comprehensive post.  So have at it.

What is your take?

Check out this video.  It should be broadcast round the clock.   Listen closely for the line, I remember which party wants to take the Country back and which one wants to take  to move it forward.

enuf said

Check out this very cool video from the Nachbar campaign.  it is a wonderful montage of videos including clips of former DEC Sean Hanna (Nachbar’s opponent) and videos from various news reports and documentaries.  Nicely done.

Check out the new ad from the Maffei Campaign.

On the positive side of Ms Buerkle - at least she doens’t have to deny she is a witch.  So I suppose she is less of a nut job than Christine O’Donnell.

In another note - I was talking to a female voter the other day.  Just chatting about all the candidates.  This particular voter has not been following the candidates especially the local ones and was asking about the women running against Maffei.  I mentioned all the operation rescue stuff and before I could finish - was told - that’s enough - it’s Maffei.

Another stellar D&C editorial board production.

With the all-important general election just five days away and the political-power stakes high, voters are in the danger zone. Beware: Extreme candidates are willing to win at any cost.

That’s evident from the barrage of candidate mailings and television ads, too often filled with distortions, innuendo, half-truths and outright lies.

So, who are these “extreme” candidates?  Any idea?  Read on you

So no wonder GOP Sen. Jim Alesi and Democratic challenger Mary Wilmot are slugging it out.

So which one is “extreme” ?  As this was the campaign that was mentioned.  Don’ t you wish they would actually give examples?

Can’t to see the next installment of drivel.  Can you imagine..  In other news - bad Politicians are bad which is why you have to vote for the good politicians…

What do you think about a no endorsement strategy?  Recall the D&C choose to endorse a few challengers in some Senate and Assembly races however, they passed on some races.

City News, on the other hand, has chosen not to endorse any candidates for NYS Legislature.  This is the explanation.

Our decision this year: while we are endorsing in statewide and federal races, we are not endorsing any candidates for either the State Senate or the Assembly. We can not dignify Albany’s dysfunction by pretending that local representatives - of either party - will fix it. We are, however, analyzing six races and telling you which candidates’ views are most closely aligned with ours on specific issues, particularly on civil rights and the environment.

So what do you think.

I think this is a cop out.  In any given race - there are people who are running for that office.  The election is a choice between those people (technically, you could write-in a candidate but frankly a write in victory is unrealistic).

Not to recommend a choice or take a position in a particular race simply helps dumb down the system under the guise of attempting to seize some moral high ground.

It doesn’t make sense to me.  We are following a theme is that no endorsement is a protest against a failed political system.  OK , but that system that will yield winners and losers on election day.  Those winners will go on and participate in the the very system City News chooses to protest.

Someone in those races will be elected.  There are better choices than others - why not take a stand?

perhaps it is easier to punt.

Hope you are watching - or listening.  Actually it is kinda cool.  All minor party candidates are represented.  Just a few notes.

Jimmy McMillian - the rent too damn high party.  Frankly, he should in the “talks too damn fast” party.

Kristin Davis  - Anti-prohibition party - Madam Governor wantabe (the governor piece).  She looks terrible.  I mean terrible - the clothes, hair  but hasn’t prevented her from delivering the best line so far  in response increased taxes - business will leave NY faster than Carl Paladino will leave a gay bar.

Howie Hawkins - Green - actually - he is pretty good on issues.  Can’t place the accent.

Charles Barron - Freedom Party  - also impressive,  a bit long winded

Andrew Cuomo - Democrat - well - quite relaxed  - forceful.  On the receiving end of a bunch of barbs from other candidates.

Carl Paladino - Republican - he looks uncomfortable.  I mean uncomfortable.

Warren Redlich - - libertarian - boring.

You watching?  what do you think.

The D&C had a piece about some people laying the blame for the sub-prime mortgage problem at the feet of former HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo.  You have read comments on RT where commenters have laid such claims as well, and to no one’s surprise - It’s complicated.

Well, I’ve been wondering as well and looking for an apolitical explanation of the mess.  This is what I found: Deregulation and lack of oversight is the problem.

In short, in 2000 Cuomo loosened regulations and allowed Fannie and Freddie to make riskier loans.  These looser regulations came in the form of a direction to make more loans.  The Bush administration in 2004 further expanded on this initiative and allowed Fannie and Freddie to make more riskier loans. Meanwhile, the Cuomo initiative didn’t have a lot of oversight.   Again, something that was continued in the Bush administration.

My take - it was 2000, there was a reelection year.  In Dem circles there was an opinion that Gore was was going to be elected and additional work would have been continued.  Unfortunately, the strategic mistakes of that campaign cost us dearly and we ended up with 8 years of Bush that will take us 20 years to dig ourselves out of the various messes we are in.

btw - The NYT addressed this issue a few months back.

That argument, the record suggests, seems overdrawn. The record shows that the mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie during Mr. Cuomo’s tenure had low default rates. More broadly, if Mr. Cuomo was less prescient and gutsy than he now claims, no one seriously argues he deserves some outsize share of the blame for the subsequent collapse.

Far more powerful actors, including the finance industry, its various regulators, two presidents and Congress, helped create the environment and wrote the policies that caused it.

To a certain degree, the clock ran out on Mr. Cuomo’s reform ambitions; within months, George W. Bush was president and Mr. Cuomo was looking for work. And the worst lapses at HUD and at Fannie Mae, most experts and regulators now agree, came years after Mr. Cuomo departed, as Bush appointees set even higher and more perilous goals for personal home ownership.

This Village Voice article from 2008 is more in-depth . Excerpts below -

In 2000, Cuomo required a quantum leap in the number of affordable, low-to-moderate-income loans that the two mortgage banks—known collectively as Government Sponsored Enterprises—would have to buy.

…

Cuomo’s predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the “very-low-income.” Part of the pitch was racial, with Cuomo contending that Fannie and Freddie weren’t granting mortgages to minorities at the same rate as the private market.

…

That June Post story focused its critical reassessment of HUD’s affordable-housing goals on the department’s 2004 decision—during the Bush re-election campaign—to juice them up again, pushing the target to 56 percent by 2007.

Yeah, if 42 to 50 (under Cuomo) worked so well, then 50 to 56 (under Bush) will work even better.  Something conveniently missing from the “blame Cuomo” arguments.  The other piece is mandating regulations and  reporting requirements.  Sometime in 2000, that requirement fell short.

In a Voice interview, Fishbein, who was reluctant to say a critical word about the regulations he and Cuomo developed, did acknowledge that “it would have been a beneficial thing” to have required such data from the GSEs in the 2000 rule-making, though he contended that HUD has “the general authority to collect it” without a rule-making.

“I certainly would have favored more data in hindsight,” he said. But the failure to include reporting requirements that many consumer groups championed at the time was an invitation then—and not just in retrospect—for the GSEs to hide bad loans. Fishbein prefers to blame the lack of verification on the Bush administration, but when Cuomo issued his rules barely a week before the 2000 election, he failed to put any data demands in place that would have alerted the next administration, regardless of who it was, to any risks in the new GSE portfolio. In fact, Bush’s HUD did institute some reporting requirements in 2004, but then never revealed much of what was learned.

So what do we have?  Actions that started in 2000 and were expanded and continued in 2004 and beyond.  The only thing clear to me is, we need additional regulation and reporting requirements (transperency and watch dogs).  We can’t trust industry to self-regulate and the market’s invisible hand usually smacks consumers well before it clears the marketplace of inefficient companies.

In hindsight, I’ll concede that the young HUD secretary could have done better but Cuomo’s fault for the meltdown?  Hope. Corporate Greed?  Sure.

I was cleaning out some old files and discovered this forgotten video from a Tom Reed Q&A session ladkiddo shot back in December 2009.  Just to reset the clock a bit.  The Marcellus shale issue was coming to light in the main stream media,  NY was moving slower than Pennsylvania regarding drilling in shale, Congressman Massa, a drilling opponent, had yet to implode, and there was discussion at the state level of instituting a moratorium on drilling until new information was gathered.   NYC wasn’t too keen on its watershed being contaminated.

Basically, new information on drilling methods was coming to light every day.

So, what is Tom Reed’s stance on drilling?  Drill baby Drill.  He trusted the individuals to make the decision.  Who these individuals are is anyone’s guess - land owners to lease their land to drillers, the drillers themselves.  All this trust without the information we have today.

So that means that a single individual has the power over others?  heck, the headwaters of river start in my back yard so I can piss in the water if I want to and poison others down stream?  Sorry guys - not my idea of individual rights.

This video just shows me that people like Tom Reed will act before they have the information necessary.  I can only imagine their sources of information.  Can you say industry?  Gee - what are the chances of a conflict of interest there?  Think, the various “science” ventures that minimize things like Cigarette dangers, PCB’s, dioxins, climate change, I’ll say again, read the book Toxic sludge is good for you.

So what do we know now about drilling in Marcellus Shale?

Well - let’s start with this From a June PA newspaper

A six-month investigation by Times-Shamrock Newspapers, including a review of thousands of pages of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection documents made available through a Right-to-Know request and interviews with regulators, citizens and scientists, shows the limits of the current regulatory environment to prevent contamination of the state’s land and water during deep gas drilling in the shale.

It reveals costly environmental and safety errors made by a growing industry that has become the state’s economic hope, and details the often frustrated efforts of regulators to police it using outdated laws and incomplete information.

The investigation found:

- There have been hundreds of spills at natural gas well sites in the commonwealth over the last five years, the vast majority of which have never been publicized by DEP.

- The massive effort to exploit the shale has left an indelible mark on the landscape and communities in the state’s Northern Tier and southwestern region, bearing both economic benefits and environmental costs. Experiences in those regions offer a preview of gas development in the seven counties of Northeastern Pennsylvania, where a dozen Marcellus Shale operators hold leases to drill.

- Despite industry claims that it discloses all of the chemicals it uses in the gas-extraction process, DEP documents from a series of spills in Susquehanna County show that the industry’s disclosure is incomplete and insufficient for determining contamination in soil and water.

- A growing chorus of scientists is arguing that not enough is known about the effect widespread gas drilling will have on water supplies, air quality and human health to justify the intensive development of the resource already taking place.

Tom Reed may be good for big oil but he is very bad for our grandchildren.

OK - I have a hard time calling these things “debates’ they aren’t.  They are simply Q&A sessions.  So, for a Q&A session, it lived up to what I know about the candidates.  Joe Robach has difficulty answering questions under a time constraint and splatters words when he talks.  Hats off to Julie Phillip for maintaining time control.  Robin Wilt was in a word, focused.  As someone new to all of this - she was impressively unfazed.

Here is the entire 26 min debate for your viewing pleasure.   A timeline with questions and commentary follows the video.  Julie Phillip moderated.

Timeline with paraphrased questions and answers.

2:00 - what are you going to do about the dysfunction in Albany

JR - passed a few laws regarding transparency.  Need to keep the downstate politicians in check

RW - Well, Joe Robach supported the Senate Coup that effectively shut down the government and installed some of those downstate politicians as their leaders.

stlo7 - Right here is the entire race in a nutshell.  Joe Robach speaks bipartisan but shuts down the Senate in support of a power grab.  As if Albany was an  effective prior to the past two years under Republican control. Um, no.

JP - what else would you do?

JR - Referendum.,  Put measures on the ballot. (like California)

RW - Campaign Finance reform

stlo7 - Gee - actually level the playing field with campaign finance reform.  Of course incumbents don’t like it - they are threatened.

5:38 - Who do you support for Governor -

RW - Andrew Cuomo

JR - It doesn’t matter - I’ll work with whomever.

stlo7 - JR NEVER mentioned Carl Paladino. and didn’t really answer the questions.  JP missed an opportunity to follow-up.

7:55 - Where should spending be cut

RW- consolidate bureaucracy within NYS government.

JR - no real specific - just cut by some percentage

9:12 - What about tax incentives

JR - Cut franchise tax, add a 2500 dollar tax credit for small businesses

RW - double small Business revolving loan, more tax incentives, more funds to women and minority-owned business

10:35 - what about Property taxes?

JR - property tax cap and end unfunded mandates

RW- circuit breaker tax cap

12:05 - What would you do to change the NYS pension system -

RW - Healthcare is 40% of the cost - get that under control see where we are at.

JR - Add another tier to the existing system

13:25 - What about cutting the state work force

RW - we got here after 44 years of GOP control - consolidate bureaucracy

JR - consolidation as well.

15:16 - Why not use local contractors for local jobs

JR - follow the rules that are in place.

RW - create additional jobs - Green Jobs.

JP - what would you do to create jobs

JR - cites - state funded projects as job creation examples.

RW- More on Green Jobs -

stlo7 - How do you cut spending by some standard untargeted percentage yet fund these job creation projects?  JP missed an opportunity for follow up here but then again this was not a debate.

19:36 - What would you do about Urban education? with follow-up on Mayoral Control of Rochester schools.

RW - there are things that can be done outside mayoral control  (the Abbot plan) but school issues are more than simply a governance issue.  Society issues contribute to city school issues.  Mayoral Control is not education reform it is governance reform.

JR - let the voters decide.  put it up for a vote.

stlo7 - re mayoral control.  I’m not sure there is a mechanism to accomplish what Mr Robach is suggesting but notice how he doesn’t answer the question?

So what exactly is a small business.  Well, per John Boehner 3% of small businesses account for 50% of small business income and what is small about small business?  Well, it is the number of owners, S-Corps - those who pay taxes as a pass through.  for example - Enterprise Products (Revenue $25 billion),  Kolberg, Kravis and Roberts (Revenue $445 million), and Price Waterhouse Coopers (Revenue $26 billion)  then there are the Koch brothers - multiple small businesses.

There is more but check out Obermann and tax breaks for small businesses (featuring work by David Cay Johnston).

In the end “small business” is a tax classification not a physical distinction.