A:
From State Senator Eric Schneiderman's State Senate webpage:
"Energy & the Environment
In 2002, I joined with the environmental advocacy organization, Riverkeeper, and other elected officials and activists, in calling on the Director of the Office of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, to conduct an independent investigation of the security measures and evacuation plans for the Indian Point power plant in the event of a terrorist attack or other emergency. That independent investigation has never taken place. In fact, the in-house drills that have been conducted by Entergy, the company that runs Indian Point, fail to take into account factors such as the gridlock and traffic that people trying to escape a nuclear disaster might cause. Without any assurance that a safe evacuation would be possible in the event of an attack or nuclear fallout, I can not support Indian Point’s upcoming application to renew its license as a nuclear power plant.
In the meantime, I have been working on legislation to promote the use and development of other safer energy sources that will make the power produced by Indian Point unnecessary, as well as making it possible to actual transmit that power to New York City. According to the New York City Energy Policy Task Force, the City will need an increase of 25% more electricity by 2008 to prevent summer brownouts and to provide competitive energy prices. That new electricity needs to come from conservation and new technology, more generation and re-powering of older, more polluting plants, and (because of existing bottlenecks curtailing electricity from going into New York City) more transmission lines, not from Indian Point.
I am the sponsor of Senate Bill 4603, The Clean Energy Development Act, which would establish a Clean Energy Fund to improve energy efficiency and provide for the development of clean air technologies. The legislation would also require all retail electric service providers to provide a minimum percentage of electricity generated by clean air technologies to each customer.
I also sponsored Senate Bill 7032, a bill that would authorize the New York State Power Authority to assist developers trying to build much-needed transmission lines into New York City. As a result of deregulation, developers have found it next to impossible to obtain financial backing for additional transmission lines."
Source: State Senator Eric Schneiderman's website through the State Senate
11.09.2008
Q: Where does State Senator Eric Schneiderman fall on the political spectrum?
A:
Transforming the Liberal Checklist
By Eric Schneiderman
February 21, 2008
Check off the boxes, copy the paragraph from two years ago, mail it in. As an election year approaches, I again face the piles of questionnaires that progressive organizations use to evaluate public officials. Environmentalists, feminists, campaign finance reformers, housing advocates and labor unions have all come to rely on these lists of our positions--often on issues that never even come up for a vote. It should come as no surprise that, for the most part, all we get out of this cumbersome process is a long line of "checklist liberals" who answer correctly but do little to advance the progressive causes that underlie the questionnaires.
I respectfully suggest that if we want to move beyond short- term efforts to slow down the bone-crushing machinery of the contemporary conservative movement and begin to build a meaningful movement of our own, we need to expand the job descriptions of our elected officials. To do this, we must consider the two distinct aspects of our work: transactional politics and transformational politics.
Transactional politics is pretty straightforward. What's the best deal I can get on a gun-control or immigration-reform bill during this year's legislative session? What do I have to do to elect a good progressive ally in November? Transactional politics requires us to be pragmatic about current realities and the state of public opinion. It's all about getting the best result possible given the circumstances here and now.
Transformational politics is the work we do today to ensure that the deal we can get on gun control or immigration reform in a year--or five years, or twenty years--will be better than the deal we can get today. Transformational politics requires us to challenge the way people think about issues, opening their minds to better possibilities. It requires us to root out the assumptions about politics or economics or human nature that prevent us from embracing policies that will make our lives better. Transformational politics has been a critical element of American political life since Lincoln was advocating his "oft expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion."
The need for a renewed focus on transformational politics is obvious when we compare the success of the conservative movement over the past thirty years with the collapse of the American progressive coalition. The important thing about contemporary conservatives is not just that they won elections--it's how they won. They didn't win by changing their positions or rhetoric to move toward the voters--or where polls told them the voters were. They won by moving the voters closer to them, paving the way for the last decade of conservative hegemony.
In 1977 most Americans didn't think government was the problem. Neoclassical economics was not our national faith. A serious presidential candidate couldn't denounce the theory of evolution. The profound changes in public opinion on these and other issues were brought about by the conservatives' excellent work at transformational politics. And they didn't just do it. They honored it. They celebrated it. And an entire generation of Democratic consultants made millions by advising their clients to stay away from it.
Think about the transformation of America's ideas about taxes over the past thirty years. There has never been any credible evidence that "supply side" policies promote growth, but the relentless advocacy of this peculiar theory has radically shifted most Americans' basic view of taxes. The history of Grover Norquist's antitax crusade is well-known. It features all the essential elements of transformational politics: identify a set of assumptions that control the public's understanding of an issue; develop a language and message to shift those assumptions; maintain a sustained, disciplined effort to bring about that change over a period of years. From the Laffer curve to the Americans for Tax Reform's Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which all candidates were asked to sign--regardless of whether they would actually have to vote on tax reform anytime soon--Norquist mobilized a bipartisan phalanx of elected officials to preach the gospel of tax cuts. And lo and behold, what had once been considered "politically impossible" became inevitable.
Now let's compare the honors and "access" heaped on Norquist and his colleagues with the way most Democrats have treated transformational work. In 1980 a young Senator Al Gore held the first Congressional hearings on global warming. He challenged the fundamental framework for debates about environmental policy, which too often went something like "clean air and water versus faster economic growth." He offered a new way to think about the relationship between progressive economic policies and the environment. Virtually every Democratic official backed away.
During his 2000 presidential campaign, amid a growing body of evidence supporting his arguments, Gore actually abandoned his transformational stance. He took the advice of the "consultant class" and retreated to his transactional checklist. In fact, as Stephanie Mencimer wrote in The Washington Monthly, "as early as 1997, people inside and out of the [Clinton] White House were urging Gore to steer clear of contentious environmental issues as he positioned himself to run for president. They did not see his visionary efforts on climate change as an asset, but as a huge liability that could galvanize formidable opposition to his candidacy should he actively promote it."
As a state legislator, I deal with the devastating effects of the right's transformational work every day. When I first got to Albany, I received a T-shirt, a cup and a toothbrush from a "tort reform" group, all emblazoned with the slogan Trial lawyers: They don't make the things you use, they make the things you use more expensive. I have seen the NRA work on the public's perception of gun control from Buffalo to the Bronx to stop us from passing legislation to ensure that gun store employees receive proper training and that gun dealers are held accountable for knowingly selling guns to criminals. Last year, after one of the gun lobby's mobilizations, my office was flooded with critical e-mails from New Yorkers who had been convinced that legislation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and convicted felons was a threat to their right to own a hunting rifle.
Let's face facts. Very few checklist liberals will focus on transformational work if they are rewarded or punished only for their transactional work. Questionnaires capture how we vote or promise to vote, and our voting is often predetermined by manipulations of the legislative calendar. For example, legislators often get permission to cast a "checklist" vote against a bill once the legislative leadership has assembled enough votes to ensure that it will pass.
So here's a proposal to inspire a transformational focus by our candidates. On every issue, with every group of activists, politicians who claim to be doing transformational work should be required to prove it. All politicians who seek your support should produce articles, videos, transcripts--anything that demonstrates that they are challenging the conservative assumptions that frame virtually all discussions of public policy among America's elected officials. How do we talk about abortion? As a duel between "prochoice" and "prolife" extremists--or as an issue of basic human freedom for women denied the power to control their own bodies? What do we say about health insurance? That it requires a delicate balance between the free market and socialism--or that it is an essential investment in our most important national resource and a basic right, without which our commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is meaningless?
Here in New York, where we have one of the most regressive tax systems in America, we are finally confronting the trauma produced by decades of right-wing transformational work on this central pillar of the common good. And, I believe, the analysis and language we need to change the debate over taxes is ready and waiting for us. In All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy Jared Bernstein provides a simple but devastating framework for attacking the neoclassical economic assumptions of Reaganomics. Bernstein's catchy narrative is based on an understanding of the economy as a collective endeavor (We're in this together) that can and should displace the Hobbesian basis for economic life proffered by conservatives (You're on your own). Bernstein's framework should be as regular a part of Democratic rhetoric as the mantra of "low taxes produce economic growth" is for Republicans.
Then there's Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has concisely refuted the Bushism that "it's your money." He points out that, in fact, taxes are the government's money, with which we pay for the government services provided to us. Baker points out that anytime someone doesn't pay his fair share of taxes, others have to pay more. The loophole-loving scofflaw is in effect stealing from those who pay their honest share.
The point of the transformational/transactional paradigm is not for everyone to be singing the same ode to change all the time, but for every would-be progressive official to pursue transformational themes as a central part of our conversation with our constituents and colleagues. We will never overcome decades of brilliant conservative propaganda on the economy until our representatives begin to reflect the basic ideas of Bernstein, Baker, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich in our stump speeches to political clubs and our talks at senior centers.
Finally, this is not a proposal to abandon the day-to-day struggles of transactional politics, which are still a central part of our work. Nor is it a proposal for self-immolation. Progressive candidates in tough races or in swing districts may not always be able to lead in transformational politics (although many conservative warriors displayed such self-sacrifice in the course of their movement's march to conquest). But most Democratic officials are in very safe districts, and they should be pressured to pursue transformational as well as transactional work.
The good news in all this is that because conservatives have pushed their agenda beyond most people's sense of decency or reason, pol-friendly opportunities for progressive transformational work are all around us. House Ways and Means chair Charlie Rangel's comprehensive tax reform plan provides an opening to focus on who gains and who loses under our current tax code. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sweeping new urban environmental proposal (PLANYC) and Congressman Jerry Nadler's dogged advocacy for a rail freight system in the city offer the opportunity to move the debate over the future of American urban life away from the elitist narrative of think tanks like the Manhattan Institute and toward a case for shared investment in our infrastructure.
Almost all of us are capable of taking examples of good public policy and placing them in a transformational progressive framework. But history teaches that the overwhelming majority of elected officials follow movement builders outside government when it comes to the new and risky. So it's time for progressive activists to focus their demands on transformational as well as transactional work. Once you recognize it, demand it and reward it, it will happen.
Source: The Nation
Transforming the Liberal Checklist
By Eric Schneiderman
February 21, 2008
Check off the boxes, copy the paragraph from two years ago, mail it in. As an election year approaches, I again face the piles of questionnaires that progressive organizations use to evaluate public officials. Environmentalists, feminists, campaign finance reformers, housing advocates and labor unions have all come to rely on these lists of our positions--often on issues that never even come up for a vote. It should come as no surprise that, for the most part, all we get out of this cumbersome process is a long line of "checklist liberals" who answer correctly but do little to advance the progressive causes that underlie the questionnaires.
I respectfully suggest that if we want to move beyond short- term efforts to slow down the bone-crushing machinery of the contemporary conservative movement and begin to build a meaningful movement of our own, we need to expand the job descriptions of our elected officials. To do this, we must consider the two distinct aspects of our work: transactional politics and transformational politics.
Transactional politics is pretty straightforward. What's the best deal I can get on a gun-control or immigration-reform bill during this year's legislative session? What do I have to do to elect a good progressive ally in November? Transactional politics requires us to be pragmatic about current realities and the state of public opinion. It's all about getting the best result possible given the circumstances here and now.
Transformational politics is the work we do today to ensure that the deal we can get on gun control or immigration reform in a year--or five years, or twenty years--will be better than the deal we can get today. Transformational politics requires us to challenge the way people think about issues, opening their minds to better possibilities. It requires us to root out the assumptions about politics or economics or human nature that prevent us from embracing policies that will make our lives better. Transformational politics has been a critical element of American political life since Lincoln was advocating his "oft expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion."
The need for a renewed focus on transformational politics is obvious when we compare the success of the conservative movement over the past thirty years with the collapse of the American progressive coalition. The important thing about contemporary conservatives is not just that they won elections--it's how they won. They didn't win by changing their positions or rhetoric to move toward the voters--or where polls told them the voters were. They won by moving the voters closer to them, paving the way for the last decade of conservative hegemony.
In 1977 most Americans didn't think government was the problem. Neoclassical economics was not our national faith. A serious presidential candidate couldn't denounce the theory of evolution. The profound changes in public opinion on these and other issues were brought about by the conservatives' excellent work at transformational politics. And they didn't just do it. They honored it. They celebrated it. And an entire generation of Democratic consultants made millions by advising their clients to stay away from it.
Think about the transformation of America's ideas about taxes over the past thirty years. There has never been any credible evidence that "supply side" policies promote growth, but the relentless advocacy of this peculiar theory has radically shifted most Americans' basic view of taxes. The history of Grover Norquist's antitax crusade is well-known. It features all the essential elements of transformational politics: identify a set of assumptions that control the public's understanding of an issue; develop a language and message to shift those assumptions; maintain a sustained, disciplined effort to bring about that change over a period of years. From the Laffer curve to the Americans for Tax Reform's Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which all candidates were asked to sign--regardless of whether they would actually have to vote on tax reform anytime soon--Norquist mobilized a bipartisan phalanx of elected officials to preach the gospel of tax cuts. And lo and behold, what had once been considered "politically impossible" became inevitable.
Now let's compare the honors and "access" heaped on Norquist and his colleagues with the way most Democrats have treated transformational work. In 1980 a young Senator Al Gore held the first Congressional hearings on global warming. He challenged the fundamental framework for debates about environmental policy, which too often went something like "clean air and water versus faster economic growth." He offered a new way to think about the relationship between progressive economic policies and the environment. Virtually every Democratic official backed away.
During his 2000 presidential campaign, amid a growing body of evidence supporting his arguments, Gore actually abandoned his transformational stance. He took the advice of the "consultant class" and retreated to his transactional checklist. In fact, as Stephanie Mencimer wrote in The Washington Monthly, "as early as 1997, people inside and out of the [Clinton] White House were urging Gore to steer clear of contentious environmental issues as he positioned himself to run for president. They did not see his visionary efforts on climate change as an asset, but as a huge liability that could galvanize formidable opposition to his candidacy should he actively promote it."
As a state legislator, I deal with the devastating effects of the right's transformational work every day. When I first got to Albany, I received a T-shirt, a cup and a toothbrush from a "tort reform" group, all emblazoned with the slogan Trial lawyers: They don't make the things you use, they make the things you use more expensive. I have seen the NRA work on the public's perception of gun control from Buffalo to the Bronx to stop us from passing legislation to ensure that gun store employees receive proper training and that gun dealers are held accountable for knowingly selling guns to criminals. Last year, after one of the gun lobby's mobilizations, my office was flooded with critical e-mails from New Yorkers who had been convinced that legislation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and convicted felons was a threat to their right to own a hunting rifle.
Let's face facts. Very few checklist liberals will focus on transformational work if they are rewarded or punished only for their transactional work. Questionnaires capture how we vote or promise to vote, and our voting is often predetermined by manipulations of the legislative calendar. For example, legislators often get permission to cast a "checklist" vote against a bill once the legislative leadership has assembled enough votes to ensure that it will pass.
So here's a proposal to inspire a transformational focus by our candidates. On every issue, with every group of activists, politicians who claim to be doing transformational work should be required to prove it. All politicians who seek your support should produce articles, videos, transcripts--anything that demonstrates that they are challenging the conservative assumptions that frame virtually all discussions of public policy among America's elected officials. How do we talk about abortion? As a duel between "prochoice" and "prolife" extremists--or as an issue of basic human freedom for women denied the power to control their own bodies? What do we say about health insurance? That it requires a delicate balance between the free market and socialism--or that it is an essential investment in our most important national resource and a basic right, without which our commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is meaningless?
Here in New York, where we have one of the most regressive tax systems in America, we are finally confronting the trauma produced by decades of right-wing transformational work on this central pillar of the common good. And, I believe, the analysis and language we need to change the debate over taxes is ready and waiting for us. In All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy Jared Bernstein provides a simple but devastating framework for attacking the neoclassical economic assumptions of Reaganomics. Bernstein's catchy narrative is based on an understanding of the economy as a collective endeavor (We're in this together) that can and should displace the Hobbesian basis for economic life proffered by conservatives (You're on your own). Bernstein's framework should be as regular a part of Democratic rhetoric as the mantra of "low taxes produce economic growth" is for Republicans.
Then there's Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has concisely refuted the Bushism that "it's your money." He points out that, in fact, taxes are the government's money, with which we pay for the government services provided to us. Baker points out that anytime someone doesn't pay his fair share of taxes, others have to pay more. The loophole-loving scofflaw is in effect stealing from those who pay their honest share.
The point of the transformational/transactional paradigm is not for everyone to be singing the same ode to change all the time, but for every would-be progressive official to pursue transformational themes as a central part of our conversation with our constituents and colleagues. We will never overcome decades of brilliant conservative propaganda on the economy until our representatives begin to reflect the basic ideas of Bernstein, Baker, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich in our stump speeches to political clubs and our talks at senior centers.
Finally, this is not a proposal to abandon the day-to-day struggles of transactional politics, which are still a central part of our work. Nor is it a proposal for self-immolation. Progressive candidates in tough races or in swing districts may not always be able to lead in transformational politics (although many conservative warriors displayed such self-sacrifice in the course of their movement's march to conquest). But most Democratic officials are in very safe districts, and they should be pressured to pursue transformational as well as transactional work.
The good news in all this is that because conservatives have pushed their agenda beyond most people's sense of decency or reason, pol-friendly opportunities for progressive transformational work are all around us. House Ways and Means chair Charlie Rangel's comprehensive tax reform plan provides an opening to focus on who gains and who loses under our current tax code. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sweeping new urban environmental proposal (PLANYC) and Congressman Jerry Nadler's dogged advocacy for a rail freight system in the city offer the opportunity to move the debate over the future of American urban life away from the elitist narrative of think tanks like the Manhattan Institute and toward a case for shared investment in our infrastructure.
Almost all of us are capable of taking examples of good public policy and placing them in a transformational progressive framework. But history teaches that the overwhelming majority of elected officials follow movement builders outside government when it comes to the new and risky. So it's time for progressive activists to focus their demands on transformational as well as transactional work. Once you recognize it, demand it and reward it, it will happen.
Source: The Nation
Q: What is State Senator Eric Schneiderman's stance on affordable housing and vacancy decontrol?
A:
From State Senator Eric Schneiderman's State Senate webpage:
"ERIC CALLS FOR REPEAL OF VACANCY DECONTROL
On Tuesday, May 13th, the New York State Assembly passed a package of legislation to protect affordable housing, including a bill sponsored by Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal to repeal high rent vacancy decontrol. We know that vacancy decontrol is responsible for the loss of over 10,000 units of affordable housing each year, and I want to praise Assemblymember Rosenthal and the leaders in the Assembly for taking steps to support the financial health and well being of New York's working families.
High rent vacancy decontrol is a provision of the state's rent regulation laws that permits apartments to be removed from rent regulation if the rent on a vacant apartment reaches $2,000. Once an apartment is decontrolled the rent can be raised to market rate, sometimes two or three times the regulated rent. Approximately 300,000 apartments have been removed from regulation through vacancy decontrol, significantly reducing the availability of apartments that are affordable for low- or middle-income tenants.
Vacancy decontrol has also been criticized by housing advocates and Democratic elected officials for contributing to an increase in tenant harassment. Under current law, every time a rent stabilized apartment becomes vacant the landlord is allowed to raise the rent up to 20%. Because the potential increase in rent can be so immense when an apartment is decontrolled, landlords have a strong financial incentive to encourage frequent turnover of tenants in order to push rents quickly toward the $2,000 threshold for decontrol.
Legislators from throughout New York City hear from constituents almost daily who are being harassed because unscrupulous landlords are trying to push them out and raise rents. This bill attacks the root of that problem by taking away the perverse incentive that landlords currently have to profit by making their apartments unlivable in order to drive turnover.
In order to move this bill in the Senate, I joined 26 of my Senate colleagues in signing on to a letter, addressed to Senator Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, strongly urging that similar legislation be immediately brought to a vote in the Senate.
The Assembly has passed bills, with the governor's support, to ensure that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers have an affordable place to live. If the Senate Majority chooses not to follow suit, they will be giving voters a clear choice in November between a government that cares about affordable housing, and one that doesn't." "
Source: State Senator Eric Schneiderman's Website through the State Senate
From State Senator Eric Schneiderman's State Senate webpage:
"ERIC CALLS FOR REPEAL OF VACANCY DECONTROL
On Tuesday, May 13th, the New York State Assembly passed a package of legislation to protect affordable housing, including a bill sponsored by Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal to repeal high rent vacancy decontrol. We know that vacancy decontrol is responsible for the loss of over 10,000 units of affordable housing each year, and I want to praise Assemblymember Rosenthal and the leaders in the Assembly for taking steps to support the financial health and well being of New York's working families.
High rent vacancy decontrol is a provision of the state's rent regulation laws that permits apartments to be removed from rent regulation if the rent on a vacant apartment reaches $2,000. Once an apartment is decontrolled the rent can be raised to market rate, sometimes two or three times the regulated rent. Approximately 300,000 apartments have been removed from regulation through vacancy decontrol, significantly reducing the availability of apartments that are affordable for low- or middle-income tenants.
Vacancy decontrol has also been criticized by housing advocates and Democratic elected officials for contributing to an increase in tenant harassment. Under current law, every time a rent stabilized apartment becomes vacant the landlord is allowed to raise the rent up to 20%. Because the potential increase in rent can be so immense when an apartment is decontrolled, landlords have a strong financial incentive to encourage frequent turnover of tenants in order to push rents quickly toward the $2,000 threshold for decontrol.
Legislators from throughout New York City hear from constituents almost daily who are being harassed because unscrupulous landlords are trying to push them out and raise rents. This bill attacks the root of that problem by taking away the perverse incentive that landlords currently have to profit by making their apartments unlivable in order to drive turnover.
In order to move this bill in the Senate, I joined 26 of my Senate colleagues in signing on to a letter, addressed to Senator Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, strongly urging that similar legislation be immediately brought to a vote in the Senate.
The Assembly has passed bills, with the governor's support, to ensure that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers have an affordable place to live. If the Senate Majority chooses not to follow suit, they will be giving voters a clear choice in November between a government that cares about affordable housing, and one that doesn't." "
Source: State Senator Eric Schneiderman's Website through the State Senate
Q: Where does State Senator Eric Schneiderman stand on public education?
A:
Public Education:
As the parent of a daughter in the New York City public schools I know that there is nothing more important to our families, our communities, and the economic life of our city than our public education system. Providing New Yorkers with a quality education is critical to creating high-paying jobs and expanding our state's economy. That means keeping college affordable for working families, investing in our schools to raise academic standards and reduce class sizes, and funding universal pre-kindergarten for our earliest learners.
School Overcrowding
As the representative of one of the City’s most overcrowded school districts, I am well aware of the need to construct new school buildings. We cannot possibly instill in city students an appreciation of the importance of learning if we fail to provide them with the facilities that make learning possible. Unfortunately, lack of space has forced many principals to offer classes in inappropriate spaces, including transportable classroom units, bookrooms, science labs and converted bathrooms.
Because I am acutely aware that space for new schools is hard to come by, I have worked to create relationships between the School Construction Authority and local real estate developers who own land where new schools could be built.
In the meantime, I am working with the community to make sure that already-existing school buildings are not inundated by more students than they can realistically hold. In 2003, for example, I worked with the Washington Heights community and other elected officials to keep Gregorio Luperon High School from being placed in a building that was overcapacity according to the Department of Education’s own Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization report.
Additionally, I have continually urged the Department of Education to produce an Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization report that adequately reflects the actual conditions in New York City’s schools. The absence of such a report makes it difficult to reasonably assess the capital needs of New York City’s school system. Last year I worked with other local elected officials to pressure the School Construction Authority to revisit their capacity and utilization numbers.
As a result of our efforts, this year’s capacity numbers reflect some of the changes for which we lobbied last year. Nonetheless, the report is far from perfect and I will continue to exert pressure upon the Department to ensure that their numbers properly reveal the reality on the ground.
Source: State Senator Eric Schneiderman's Official Website
Public Education:
As the parent of a daughter in the New York City public schools I know that there is nothing more important to our families, our communities, and the economic life of our city than our public education system. Providing New Yorkers with a quality education is critical to creating high-paying jobs and expanding our state's economy. That means keeping college affordable for working families, investing in our schools to raise academic standards and reduce class sizes, and funding universal pre-kindergarten for our earliest learners.
School Overcrowding
As the representative of one of the City’s most overcrowded school districts, I am well aware of the need to construct new school buildings. We cannot possibly instill in city students an appreciation of the importance of learning if we fail to provide them with the facilities that make learning possible. Unfortunately, lack of space has forced many principals to offer classes in inappropriate spaces, including transportable classroom units, bookrooms, science labs and converted bathrooms.
Because I am acutely aware that space for new schools is hard to come by, I have worked to create relationships between the School Construction Authority and local real estate developers who own land where new schools could be built.
In the meantime, I am working with the community to make sure that already-existing school buildings are not inundated by more students than they can realistically hold. In 2003, for example, I worked with the Washington Heights community and other elected officials to keep Gregorio Luperon High School from being placed in a building that was overcapacity according to the Department of Education’s own Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization report.
Additionally, I have continually urged the Department of Education to produce an Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization report that adequately reflects the actual conditions in New York City’s schools. The absence of such a report makes it difficult to reasonably assess the capital needs of New York City’s school system. Last year I worked with other local elected officials to pressure the School Construction Authority to revisit their capacity and utilization numbers.
As a result of our efforts, this year’s capacity numbers reflect some of the changes for which we lobbied last year. Nonetheless, the report is far from perfect and I will continue to exert pressure upon the Department to ensure that their numbers properly reveal the reality on the ground.
Source: State Senator Eric Schneiderman's Official Website
Q: Where does State Senator Eric Schneiderman stand on same sex marraige?
A:
SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN NEW YORK
Last month, Governor David A. Paterson did the right thing, legally and morally, by announcing that New York State will fully honor same sex civil marriages that are legally performed in other jurisdictions. The state of New York provides 1,324 rights and responsibilities to legally married couples. My congratulations go out to the couples and families who will now enjoy the benefit of those rights and privileges—at the same time that I am mindful of how painfully long in coming this day has been.
The backlash in some quarters against Governor Paterson’s decision is as predictable as it is misguided. In New York State the recognition of marriages that are legally performed in other jurisdictions, but which would not be legal under our own state law, is well grounded in precedent. I am therefore confident that any legal challenges to the Governor’s action will fail.
As important as this step was, it is also a reminder of how much more work we have to do to protect the civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered New Yorkers. I continue to disagree with the July 2006 court of appeals' decision in Hernandez v. Robles finding that current state law bars the performance of same sex marriages in New York State.
I am committed to working with Governor Paterson and the legislature to enact full marriage equality in our state. Equal protection under the law demands no less.
Source: State Senator Eric Schneiderman's Official Website
SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN NEW YORK
Last month, Governor David A. Paterson did the right thing, legally and morally, by announcing that New York State will fully honor same sex civil marriages that are legally performed in other jurisdictions. The state of New York provides 1,324 rights and responsibilities to legally married couples. My congratulations go out to the couples and families who will now enjoy the benefit of those rights and privileges—at the same time that I am mindful of how painfully long in coming this day has been.
The backlash in some quarters against Governor Paterson’s decision is as predictable as it is misguided. In New York State the recognition of marriages that are legally performed in other jurisdictions, but which would not be legal under our own state law, is well grounded in precedent. I am therefore confident that any legal challenges to the Governor’s action will fail.
As important as this step was, it is also a reminder of how much more work we have to do to protect the civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered New Yorkers. I continue to disagree with the July 2006 court of appeals' decision in Hernandez v. Robles finding that current state law bars the performance of same sex marriages in New York State.
I am committed to working with Governor Paterson and the legislature to enact full marriage equality in our state. Equal protection under the law demands no less.
Source: State Senator Eric Schneiderman's Official Website
11.08.2008
Q: What is Charles B. Rangel's voting record in Congress?
A:
Check out this graph
Charles Rangel missed 891 of 9567 roll call votes (9%) since Jan 5, 1993. The graph below shows the percent of roll call votes Charles Rangel was absent for during the member’s time in Congress.
The absentee rate is in red. The two black dotted lines provide a context for understanding the significance of the absentee rate. The lower dotted line shows the median value for all Members of Congress in that time period. The upper dotted line shows the 90th percentile. A Member who approaches the upper dotted line is in the worst 10 percent of Congress.
Source: govtrack.us
Check out this graph
Charles Rangel missed 891 of 9567 roll call votes (9%) since Jan 5, 1993. The graph below shows the percent of roll call votes Charles Rangel was absent for during the member’s time in Congress.
The absentee rate is in red. The two black dotted lines provide a context for understanding the significance of the absentee rate. The lower dotted line shows the median value for all Members of Congress in that time period. The upper dotted line shows the 90th percentile. A Member who approaches the upper dotted line is in the worst 10 percent of Congress.
Source: govtrack.us
Q: Did Congressman Rangel fail to pay backtaxes and misuse Congressional funds?
A:
According to ABC news:
House Launches Rangel Investigation
September 24, 2008 6:06 PM
ABC News' Dean Norland reports: The House Ethics committee announced today that they are launching an investigation into Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) on allegations that he failed to pay back taxes and misused Congressional resources to fundraise.
Rangel, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, had asked for months that the Ethics Committee review the allegations against him. House GOP leadership had also called for the investigation.
In a written statement, the Ethics panel said they had created a subcommittee with jurisdiction to determine "whether Representative Rangel violated the Code of Official Conduct of any law, rule regulation."
The subcommittee will specifically investigate whether Rangel failed to pay taxes on rental income from a resort condo and whether he got a special deal on at least three rent-controlled apartments Rangel owns in New York (one of which he uses as his campaign office.)
The subcommittee will also look into whether Rangel misused official resources by sending out letters to potential donors of his for public service center on congressional stationary. Finally they will look into allegations that Rangel improperly stored his car in the congressional parking garage.
Many GOP House leaders are calling for Rangel to step down. House Minority leader John Boehner recently issued a statement calling for Rangel to step down temporarily as Ways & Means committee chairman during the investigation and said that the "American people deserve far better than this."
Rangel characterized these calls as "guerrilla tactics" in a letter to his constituents.
Representative Gene Green (D-TX) will chair the investigation but because of timing, it is likely to carry over into the next year.
Source: ABC News Political Radar blog
According to the New York Post:
RANGEL TANGLE
FRIENDS AND FOES ON ETHICS PANEL
The members of the House panel investigating Rep. Charles Rangel's possible ethical lapses are no strangers to the embattled Harlem pol.
Rangel, a 19-term Democrat, has crossed paths with all four members of the special subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee that is probing four possible breaches of ethical rules.
He partied with the chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), at Tony Bennett's 80th-birthday gala.
But the two have also butted heads over tax policy. Green, from Houston, opposed Rangel's attempt as chairman of the powerful tax-code-writing Ways and Means Committee to further tax oil companies.
The second Democrat on the committee, Bobby Scott, of Newport News, Va., received $1,000 from Rangel's own congressional campaign fund on March 28, federal filings show.
"It would be better to give the money back," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "You want this Ethics Committee to instill public confidence."
Scott's office did not return calls for comment.
Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, is no friend of Rangel. He'd been calling for an investigation for months.
The fourth member, Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), has also denounced Rangel's tax proposals in the past.
The Ethics Committee is probing Rangel's four rent-stabilized apartments, including one used as a campaign office; his solicitation for a City College center to be named for him, written on official congressional stationery; his failure to pay back taxes on rental income from his Dominican Republic getaway; and his storage of a broken-down 1972 Mercedes-Benz in a Capitol parking lot.
Source: New York Post
According to ABC news:
House Launches Rangel Investigation
September 24, 2008 6:06 PM
ABC News' Dean Norland reports: The House Ethics committee announced today that they are launching an investigation into Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) on allegations that he failed to pay back taxes and misused Congressional resources to fundraise.
Rangel, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, had asked for months that the Ethics Committee review the allegations against him. House GOP leadership had also called for the investigation.
In a written statement, the Ethics panel said they had created a subcommittee with jurisdiction to determine "whether Representative Rangel violated the Code of Official Conduct of any law, rule regulation."
The subcommittee will specifically investigate whether Rangel failed to pay taxes on rental income from a resort condo and whether he got a special deal on at least three rent-controlled apartments Rangel owns in New York (one of which he uses as his campaign office.)
The subcommittee will also look into whether Rangel misused official resources by sending out letters to potential donors of his for public service center on congressional stationary. Finally they will look into allegations that Rangel improperly stored his car in the congressional parking garage.
Many GOP House leaders are calling for Rangel to step down. House Minority leader John Boehner recently issued a statement calling for Rangel to step down temporarily as Ways & Means committee chairman during the investigation and said that the "American people deserve far better than this."
Rangel characterized these calls as "guerrilla tactics" in a letter to his constituents.
Representative Gene Green (D-TX) will chair the investigation but because of timing, it is likely to carry over into the next year.
Source: ABC News Political Radar blog
According to the New York Post:
RANGEL TANGLE
FRIENDS AND FOES ON ETHICS PANEL
The members of the House panel investigating Rep. Charles Rangel's possible ethical lapses are no strangers to the embattled Harlem pol.
Rangel, a 19-term Democrat, has crossed paths with all four members of the special subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee that is probing four possible breaches of ethical rules.
He partied with the chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), at Tony Bennett's 80th-birthday gala.
But the two have also butted heads over tax policy. Green, from Houston, opposed Rangel's attempt as chairman of the powerful tax-code-writing Ways and Means Committee to further tax oil companies.
The second Democrat on the committee, Bobby Scott, of Newport News, Va., received $1,000 from Rangel's own congressional campaign fund on March 28, federal filings show.
"It would be better to give the money back," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "You want this Ethics Committee to instill public confidence."
Scott's office did not return calls for comment.
Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, is no friend of Rangel. He'd been calling for an investigation for months.
The fourth member, Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), has also denounced Rangel's tax proposals in the past.
The Ethics Committee is probing Rangel's four rent-stabilized apartments, including one used as a campaign office; his solicitation for a City College center to be named for him, written on official congressional stationery; his failure to pay back taxes on rental income from his Dominican Republic getaway; and his storage of a broken-down 1972 Mercedes-Benz in a Capitol parking lot.
Source: New York Post
Q: What are Congressman Rangel's views on "disconnected" youth?
A:
Chairman Rangel Statement on Disconnected Youth HearingExcerpts of the
Rangel submission for the record at today’s
Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee hearing on disconnected youth.
“My generation, now described as 'The Greatest Generation,' was the beneficiary of an American society that bore opportunities for all – no matter what your station in life.
I am a personal testament to the possibilities that this nation presented for young men and women, college graduate or not, to live the American Dream and become productive citizens.
Today, we seem to have lost our way in making sure that all of our young people have a chance to succeed. And that disturbs me greatly. So, as colleges and universities held commencement exercises over the last several weeks, I could not help but think about the millions of young people in our country who don’t have a college education in their future, and by no fault of their own are out-of-school and out-of-work. Are we now going to tell these young people that they are 'out-of-luck?'
The consequences of doing nothing are frightening: research shows that individuals who have not engaged in productive employment by age 25, have a vastly lower chance of ever being economically successful for the rest of their lives.
The case for a comprehensive policy response to the challenge of disconnected youth also has a clear moral dimension: our values compel us to pursue every option to help these young men and women have rewarding and worthwhile lives.
But there are two powerful economic rationales for action as well. The first is simple math: it’s a lot cheaper—and more effective--to address the problems of young people not connected to the economic mainstream when they’re young, than it is to attempt doing the same when they have more responsibility, less time, more immediate need for money and more difficulty learning. The second is that, to the extent that disconnected youth remain outside the world of work and community, they represent a squandered resource. In an increasingly competitive global economy, the United States needs all hands on deck.
I am hopeful that this hearing will jumpstart our efforts to develop a comprehensive policy initiative to support disconnected youth in our nation. I am confident that given the number of talented individuals and groups that are currently serving this population, we can come up with a plan of action that will meet the needs of these young people and serve our national interest.”
Q: Who is Congressman Charles B. Rangel?
A:
If you live in the 15th Congressional District (East and Central Harlem, the Upper West Side, and Washington Heights/Inwood; New York’s 15th covers a broad range of neighborhoods, blanketing Upper Manhattan from East 96th Street and West 91st Street on up. Outside the borough of Manhattan, the 15th stretches to include a small area of the Bronx, as well as Rikers Island, an incongruous appendage located off Manhattan in the East River and home to a New York City prison complex), you're representative in the House is Congressman Rangel.
Rangel, who unseated Adam Clayton Powell Jr, has held the seat since 1970. He lives in Harlem with his wife, Alma, and their two children.
Source: Congressman Charles B. Rangel's official website
According to US News and World Report:
Rep. Charles Rangel (New York)–Ways and Means Committee
By Allegra J. Moothart
Posted 10/26/06
- Rep. Charles Rangel was born on June 11, 1930, in New York City.
- Rangel resides in Harlem with his wife, Alma, a former social worker, whom he met at Harlem's Savoy Ballroom. They have two children, Alicia and Steven.
- He is a Roman Catholic.
- His father physically abused his mother and left the family when Rangel was 6 years old. His mother cleaned houses and worked in a factory. He quit school at 16 and drifted from job to job before joining the Army.
- Rangel served in the Army from 1948 to 1952 and was in an all-black artillery battalion during the Korean War. He received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for heroic action, including the rescue of 40 men from behind enemy lines.
- He earned a bachelor of science degree from New York University in 1957 and graduated from St. John's University Law School in 1960.
- He was elected to the 92nd Congress in 1970 and is serving his 18th term as a representative from the Harlem-based 15th Congressional District of New York.
- He is a founding member and former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. His wife is a founding member of the Congressional Black Spouses Caucus.
- He voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and 2003.
- He has been the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee since 1997 and has the potential to become the first Ways and Means chairman from New York City since 1881.
Source: US News and World Report
According to govtrack.us:
- Charles Rangel missed 891 (9%) of 9567 votes since Jan 5, 1993. The graph to the left shows the number of missed votes over time. Click for a larger chart and a list of recent votes.
- Rangel is a far-left Democrat according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship. (Where do these labels come from?)
Source: govtrack.us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
