Looking at NY Early Voting Bills

During the 2012 election, after redistricting, my wife and I spent over four hours voting in a new polling place. So I decided to track possible early voting bills traveling through the New York Legislature. Here is an update.

S01920
Enacts the "early voting act"; provides to any person early voting for a candidate for public office in a general, primary or special election for any public or party office by paper ballot to take place no sooner than fourteen business days and up the election. Sent to the Senate Elections Committee on 01-09-2013.

S00424
Provides to any person early voting for a candidate for public office in a general election to take place no sooner than twenty days and no later than five days prior to election day, and for a special election to take place no sooner than eight days. Sent to the Senate Elections Committee on 01-09-2013.

S01461
Relates to early voting in the state of New York. Sent to the Senate Elections Committee on 01-09-2013.

A02672
Authorizes early voting at primary and general elections to be conducted at least 7 days prior to the election upon application by the voter and provides that permanent polling places shall be established by the county board of elections for early voting. Sent to the Assembly Election Law Committee on 01-17-2013.

S02634
Provides for early voting in primary and general elections during the 2 week period prior to the election. Sent to the Senate Elections Committee on 01-23-2013.

A03567
Provides to any person early voting for a candidate for public office in a general election to take place no sooner than twenty days and no later than five days prior to election day, and for a special election to take place no sooner than eight days. Sent to the Assembly Election Law Committee on 01-28-2013.

A03644
Provides for early voting in primary and general elections during the 2 week period prior to the election. Sent to the Assembly Election Law Committee on 01-28-2013.

A00689 and A00689A
Relates to early voting in the state of New York. Amended to A00689A. Sent to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee on 04-25-2013.

As we all know, New York's state legislature knows how to create a perfect storm to kill an important issue.

After waiting over four hours to vote, I would take almost any option to reduce long lines at the polls, even though I would still want the polling place experience.

UPDATE
The Assembly is poised to pass an early voting bill that would open up early voting in all elections in New York.

The measure was touted as a way to encourage greater voter participation, shorten waits and lines at polling places, and expand voting access for New Yorkers in a press release issued by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman Tuesday.

“Democracy thrives when as many citizens as possible participate in the electoral process. Yet New Yorkers can only vote for a candidate or a ballot proposition during a set number of hours on a single day. For the health and vitality of our Democracy, our election law must be changed,” said Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said in a press release. “

The bill would open up the polls 15 days early for general elections and eight days early for primary and special elections.

If the measure is adopted by the state, New York would join 32 other states and Washington D.C. that have some form of early voting.

“Early voting will reduce barriers to participation that particularly impact working people, and ensure that all New Yorkers have an opportunity to participate in our democratic process. The time has come for New York to join the dozens of states around country that allow early voting,” Schneiderman said.

Schneiderman added that the measure would help alleviate long lines at the polls on Election Day and strain on poll workers. It would also allow people who have to work on Election Day easier access to vote.

Under the bill, each local Board of Elections would have to open at least five voting sites early and they must be spread out throughout the district to allow equal access to all voters. The polls would be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends. Ballots cast during early voting would be not be counted until polls close on Election Day and included in that night’s tally.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Looking for My Version of the Political Middle

I first registered to vote as an independent in 1966, during my service in the Air Force. I voted with military ballots, as a resident of New York. I have also been a resident of Washington, also registered as an independent. So I have been looking for a long time for something other then the two-party system while I traveled the world. I’ve looked at minor parties, but they all had different issues I did not agree with.

So when I returned to New York in 2000, I began researching organizations proposing the concept of structural political reform and discovered the Independence Party of New York City and became a party member, then an elected member: in the Manhattan county committee and the executive committee; and four terms on the state committee. With the concept of fusion voting used in the New York ballot process, there was an opportunity to work with politicians who agreed with our political reform concepts, which lead to supporting the three terms of Mayor Bloombeg.

As an independent activist, I have found the concept of party, no longer works. Many of us, some say part of the 40%, believe we select candidates not parties. But I still look at other solutions to the two-party system.

Pointing to record levels of public disgust for the political classes, moderates fizz with innovative schemes for grabbing power from extremists of the left and right. Some are wiser than others.

Americans Elect was incorporated on April 6, 2010, by Peter Ackerman and Kahlil Byrd as a follow up to his work on Unity08 for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. It opened its website to begin recruiting delegates for its 2012 Presidential Primary in July 2011. During 2011 Americans Elect was placed on the 2012 Presidential ballot in many states. But it never was able to get enough votes from its members to select a presidential slate.

More than 50 members of Congress have joined the bipartisan No Labels group, chaired by Joe Manchin, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, and Jon Huntsman, a former Republican governor of Utah with 2012 presidential ambitions. Members are called “Problem Solvers” rather than centrists, and insist that staunch conservatives and liberals are welcome. Yet they are only talking about the two major party members being nice in some type of mushy middle.

Books and newspaper columns talk of an “insurgency of the rational” and of the “sane, pragmatic majority” taking charge. A political action committee founded by New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, plans to spend millions backing moderates and independents in state and federal elections, with a nicely balanced focus on promoting gun control (angering the right) and school reform (which makes teachers’ unions seethe).

The Common Sense Coalition, set up by entrepreneurs and fund managers, wants an online “Army of Moderates” to lobby candidates and elected officials.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, launches a group pushing education and immigration reforms, using Republican and Democratic strategists.

The same arguments are cited, repeatedly, to explain why the time is ripe for a centrist insurgency. First, Americans are fed up with both big parties, especially in Congress. Great faith is put in the power of technology to help new groups out-organize and out-campaign incumbent party machines, like small furry mammals scampering beneath dinosaur feet.

The moderate start-ups tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal, keen on free trade and free markets, worried about social mobility and open to immigration. Some talk of curbing campaign spending and involving more ordinary voters in primaries that select candidates. But there is a hitch. Some say they would struggle to win a majority in any statewide or national election in America.

The globe-spanning nature of that rage undercuts claims that American voter disillusion can be addressed by clever, local innovations. Yes, runaway campaign spending is a headache. But the entire 2010 British general election cost less than some individual Senate races in 2012, and furious British voters still think their politicians are money-grubbing thieves. Broadening primary-voter pools is a good idea. But moderates are wrong to think that America’s self-styled independents are inevitably allies. What unites independents is hatred of politicians, which is not the same thing as centrism.

Even the techno-utopians who talk of reinventing politics are missing the point of such digital triumphs as Barack Obama’s White House runs. Team Obama used new technology to pull off something old-school: to help supporters find voters who resembled themselves, then tell them bad things about Mitt Romney.

Billionaires have every right to have opinions and fund their promotion. Politics could do with more reasoned debate. But beware innovative short-cuts designed to turn centrists into kingmakers, or to shunt aside the traditional parties (tempting though that is). Shrill partisans are a menace, but they enjoy a mandate from the angriest voters—and this is a perilous time to start disenfranchising the angry. The rational middle must advance by persuasion, not revolution.

Now we have found someone that is getting closer to my middle.


Charles Wheelan, a former Economist journalist, who not only lectures on public policy and teaches it at Dartmouth College, but practices it as well, he ran unsuccessfully for Congress from Illinois in 2009 has just written “The Centrist Manifesto”, which advocates that a new, centrist political party be created. His book argues that such a party would be potentially capable of winning four or five U.S. Senate seats, and holding the balance of power in the U.S. Senate.

He outlines a realistic ground game that could net at least five Centrist senators from New England, the Midwest, and elsewhere. With the power to deny a red or blue Senate majority, committed Centrists could take the first step toward giving voice and power to America’s largest, and most rational, voting bloc: the center.

The word "manifesto" typically generates more passion, but it's hard to rouse excitement when espousing a shift toward the center. Yet it's central to the argument that rabble-rousing emotionalism is part of the problem in American politics, where candidates in both parties feel that they must throw red meat to the extremists who are more involved in the nominating process than they are reflective of the citizenry at large. Contrary to analyses that see the country as increasingly polarized, the author suggests that most Americans are far more moderate and that they can find agreement on plenty of issues where two-party politics continues to find stalemate or gridlock. "The challenges we have to deal with as a nation are entirely manageable," he writes. "The key is to mobilize America's inner pragmatism." The strategy focuses on the Senate, where a handful of centrist legislators from swing states or a tradition of electing representatives from both parties could become power brokers, essential to the sort of compromise that reflects most Americans.

Though third-party candidates haven't typically fared well, Wheelan argues that the difference here is that the centrists will come from the common-sense middle rather than the radical fringes. Leftists will have trouble swallowing his antipathy toward unions, while conservatives will find his positions on the environment and gay marriage suspect. But as he works his way through flash-point issues to consensus on abortion and guns, he strives for a rationality that all but ideologues can embrace. It's a sign of the times that this sensible plea for moderation can seem so radical.

But we just said we do not like parties or want centrists, or a mushy middle. What happened to the intelligent independent individual? I want to take away the opportunity for a majority in 2014. Thanks to quirks of Senate arithmetic, a handful of independents could hold the balance of power.

Senators Not Running in 2014

Max Baucus - (D) Montana
Saxby Chambliss – (R) Georgia
Frank Lautenberg – (D) New Jersey
Car Levin – (D) Michigan
Mike Johanns – (R) Nebraska
Tim Johnson – (D) South Dakota
John Rockefeller – (D) West Virginia

Do you think we could take away the majority in Congress with intelligent, independents?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

A New Look at Voter Suppression in 2012

During the 2012 election cycle, all manner of voter suppression was a major topic. But it looks like an uninspired candidate was the reason for the suppression.

Blacks voted at a higher rate than other minority groups in 2012 and by most measures surpassed the white turnout for the first time, reflecting a deeply polarized presidential election in which blacks strongly supported Barack Obama while many whites stayed home.

Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press. Last year’s heavy black turnout came despite concerns about the effect of new voter-identification laws on minority voting, outweighed by the desire to re-elect the first black president.

William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, analyzed the 2012 elections for the AP using census data on eligible voters and turnout, along with November’s exit polling. He estimated total votes for Obama and Romney under a scenario where 2012 turnout rates for all racial groups matched those in 2004. Overall, 2012 voter turnout was roughly 58 percent, down from 62 percent in 2008 and 60 percent in 2004.

The analysis also used population projections to estimate the shares of eligible voters by race group through 2030. The numbers are supplemented with material from the Pew Research Center and George Mason University associate professor Michael McDonald, a leader in the field of voter turnout who separately reviewed aggregate turnout levels across states, as well as AP interviews with the Census Bureau and other experts. The bureau is scheduled to release data on voter turnout in May.

Overall, the findings represent a tipping point for blacks, who for much of America’s history were disenfranchised and then effectively barred from voting until passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

But the numbers also offer a cautionary note to both Democrats and Republicans after Obama won in November with a historically low percentage of white supporters. While Latinos are now the biggest driver of U.S. population growth, they still trail whites and blacks in turnout and electoral share, because many of the Hispanics in the country are children or non-citizens.

The 2012 data suggest Romney was a particularly weak GOP candidate, unable to motivate white voters let alone attract significant black or Latino support. Obama’s personal appeal and the slowly improving economy helped overcome doubts and spur record levels of minority voters in a way that may not be easily replicated for Democrats soon.

Romney would have erased Obama’s nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey’s analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.

More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.

“The 2012 turnout is a milestone for blacks and a huge potential turning point,” said Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University who has written extensively on black politicians. “What it suggests is that there is an `Obama effect’ where people were motivated to support Barack Obama. But it also means that black turnout may not always be higher, if future races aren’t as salient.”

Whit Ayres, a GOP consultant who is advising GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible 2016 presidential contender, says the last election reaffirmed that the Republican Party needs “a new messenger and a new tone.” Change within the party need not be “lock, stock and barrel,” Ayres said, but policy shifts such as GOP support for broad immigration legislation will be important to woo minority voters over the longer term. “It remains to be seen how successful Democrats are if you don’t have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket,” he added.

The numbers show how population growth will translate into changes in who votes over the coming decade:

-The gap between non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black turnout in 2008 was the smallest on record, with voter turnout at 66.1 percent and 65.2 percent, respectively; turnout for Latinos and non-Hispanic Asians trailed at 50 percent and 47 percent. Rough calculations suggest that in 2012, 2 million to 5 million fewer whites voted compared with 2008, even though the pool of eligible white voters had increased.

-Unlike other minority groups, the rise in voting for the slow-growing black population is due to higher turnout. While blacks make up 12 percent of the share of eligible voters, they represented 13 percent of total 2012 votes cast, according to exit polling. That was a repeat of 2008, when blacks “outperformed” their eligible voter share for the first time on record.

-Latinos now make up 17 percent of the population but 11 percent of eligible voters, due to a younger median age and lower rates of citizenship and voter registration. Because of lower turnout, they represented just 10 percent of total 2012 votes cast. Despite their fast growth, Latinos aren’t projected to surpass the share of eligible black voters until 2024, when each group will be roughly 13 percent. By then, 1 in 3 eligible voters will be nonwhite.

-In 2026, the total Latino share of voters could jump to as high as 16 percent, if nearly 11 million immigrants here illegally become eligible for U.S. citizenship. Under a proposed bill in the Senate, those immigrants would have a 13-year path to citizenship. The share of eligible white voters could shrink to less than 64 percent in that scenario. An estimated 80 percent of immigrants here illegally, or 8.8 million, are Latino, although not all will meet the additional requirements to become citizens.

“The 2008 election was the first year when the minority vote was important to electing a U.S. president. By 2024, their vote will be essential to victory,” Frey said. “Democrats will be looking at a landslide going into 2028 if the new Hispanic voters continue to favor Democrats.”

Even with demographics seeming to favor Democrats in the long term, it’s unclear whether Obama’s coalition will hold if blacks or younger voters become less motivated to vote or decide to switch parties.

Minority turnout tends to drop in midterm congressional elections, contributing to larger GOP victories as happened in 2010, when House control flipped to Republicans.

The economy and policy matter. Exit polling shows that even with Obama’s re-election, voter support for a government that does more to solve problems declined from 51 percent in 2008 to 43 percent last year. Whether the economy continues its slow recovery also will shape voter opinion, including among blacks, who have the highest rate of unemployment.

Only once in the last 60 years has a political party been successful in holding the presidency more than eight years: Republicans from 1980 from 1992.

With the current dysfunction of congress, will the electorate give Obama the house and senate for the rest of his term?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

The Shareholder Protection Act

I have been talking about this issues since the Citizen United v. FEC case. The shareholders, not the CEO or the board of directors, are the real owners of any publicly traded corporation.

If you or someone you know has a 401(k), a similar retirement account or other investments, the corporations funded by these investments could be among those that secretly distort our elections by funneling money, your money, toward tilting our elections to favor corporate-friendly candidates.

My option would be the ability to opt-out, the percent of the value of my shares, from the corporation's political funding.

The Shareholder Protection Act, which was re-introduced yesterday in Congress, by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), is a modest corporate accountability measure that would empower shareholders to decide if executives can spend the corporation’s money on political campaigns.

Specifically, the Act would:
 Mandate prior approval by shareholders for an annual political expenditure budget chosen by the management for a publicly held corporation.
 Require that each specific corporate political expenditure over a certain dollar threshold be approved by the Board of Directors and promptly disclosed to shareholders and the public.
 Require that institutional investors inform all persons in their investment funds how they voted on corporate political expenditures.
 Post on the Securities Exchange Commission web page how much each corporation is spending on elections and which candidates or issues they support or oppose.

Corporate propaganda outfits claim that such measures undermine “corporate speech” rights.

But the truth is that the language of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission actually emphasizes the power of shareholders to hold corporations accountable.

Make sure you have to power to make sure your retirement savings aren’t being used to elect politicians that let Big Business do whatever it wants.

So Public Citizen has created a process to Enter your Zip Code and tell your members of Congress to support the Shareholder Protection Act.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Falls Church VA Bails Out of Preclearence

The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement with the city of Falls Church, Va., that will allow for the city, a covered jurisdiction under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, to bail out from coverage under these provisions. Bailout will exempt the city of Falls Church, along with the Falls Church City Public School District, from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The agreement is in the form of a consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and must be approved by the court.

The city of Falls Church filed its bailout action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 15, 2013. Counsel for the city contacted the Attorney General prior to filing the action, indicating that the city was interested in seeking bailout. The city provided the Justice Department with substantial information, and the department conducted an investigation to determine the city’s eligibility. Based on that investigation, the department is satisfied that the city of Falls Church meets the Voting Rights Act’s requirements for bailout.

“In the department’s view, the city of Falls Church has met the requirements necessary for bailout. We reached this conclusion after thoroughly reviewing information provided by the city and information gathered during the Department’s independent investigation,” said Matthew Colangelo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We appreciate the city’s cooperation in the resolution of this matter.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

New Investigative Unit to Oversee the NYC Board of Elections

The New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) says it is establishing a six-person unit to focus on "fraud, waste and corruption" at the New York City's Board of Elections.

The DOI, is one of the oldest law-enforcement agencies in the country, formed in the 1870s following a scandal in which the corrupt William “Boss” Tweed and his unscrupulous cronies skimmed millions from the City coffers. The agency investigates and refers for prosecution City employees and contractors engaged in corrupt or fraudulent activities or unethical conduct. Investigations may involve any agency, officer, elected official or employee of the City, as well as those who do business with or receive benefits from the City. Because the Board of Elections is staffed by city employees, the DOI has jurisdiction over the agency.

It announced today that it received $824,000 to start up the investigative unit and has begun filling positions.

DOI Commissioner, Rose Gill Hearn, said in the announcement that the decision to create the unit followed the agency's review of the November 2011 election. That investigation was labor-intensive and pointed out the need for more consistent oversight of the BOE. "The newly created unit will provide the capacity to investigate possible waste, fraud and corruption in an expanded way that was not possible before," she said in a statement.

Alex Camarda, the director of public policy at Citizens Union, a good government group, commended the DOI for establishing the unit. “While there are hard working staff at the Board, we also know that many jobs are awarded based on patronage rather than merit," he said. "A top-to-bottom review needs to be done to ensure the city only spends money on employees and positions that are necessary to carrying out an effectively run election. The DOI should start by getting a listing of every position within the Board and the responsibilities for each."

In its review of the November 2011 election, the DOI found that the city could have saved $2.4 million if the BOE had effectively managed the process, including by consolidating election districts.

Hearn said the DOI was "not casting aspersions on anyone and NYC BOE plays a very important role, and many people do their jobs at the BOE well and honestly".










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

The New York City Independence Party Political Reform Package

Today the New York City Independence Party released its comprehensive political reform package, "The Antidote to Corruption is Democracy", to the press which included the statement:

"Over the last few weeks, it has become evident that such reform is desperately needed. The current political scandals expose structural weaknesses in the system that need to be addressed, but not in ways that entrench the powerful and preclude a more nonpartisan process."

The package contains the following sections:

1) Nonpartisan Elections and Fusion
2) Initiative and Referendum
3) Term Limits for State Legislators
4) Voter Mobility
5) Nonpartisan Administration of Elections
6) Campaign Finance Reform
7) Nonpartisan Redistricting Reform
8) Full Public Hearings on all Reform

CLICK HERE to read their package of reforms to address the remedial proposals offered by the Governor and others since the recent wave of New York scandals became public.

As an independent activist, I strongly agree with nonpartisan municipal elections, open primaries, and ballot access for candidates and voters alike.

Let’s use this moment of scandal and dysfunction to do something revolutionary with our political system. Let’s make it inclusive, nonpartisan and truly competitive.

After reading the reform package, let me know what you think we need to reform our political process.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Join The Global Food Revolution

For me, POVERTY of all kinds, is my most important issue. But there are many ways to help. Here is another way.

The food we eat, because it often lacks the proper nutrients, is killing us. This year alone over 2 million people will die because they are obese, while over 2 million children will die from malnutrition. That’s just insane, and something has to be done.

In just a matter of weeks, world leaders, including the US, are meeting to tackle the issue of food. Let’s make sure they don’t just talk, but they act. It’s time for a global food revolution. It’s time to save millions of lives.

Some facts:

-Every year, poor nutrition claims the lives of more than 3.5 million children. That’s more than one in three of all child deaths.

-44 million people pushed into extreme poverty due to food price increases in 2010-2011.

-165 million children under the age of five were stunted from chronic malnutrition in 2011.

-2.3 million children died in 2011 in part due to malnutrition.

-In 2050, 7 out of 10 people will live in a country that doesn't produce enough food for its population.

-1.3 billion people make less than $1.25 per day, two-thirds of them in rural areas.

CLICK HERE to sign a petition to world leaders, asking them to make measurable commitments to reduce chronic malnutrition for 25 million kids by 2016 so they can reach their full potential.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Changing of the Guard: NYC's Next Mayor and the City's Finances

First some history. This is my 6th year blogging. I cover everything political from an independent view and poverty, in all its forms. This year my blogging went worldwide, and now appears on the Independent Voter Network (IVN) and internationally through the subscription services of Newstex. This has opened blog comments to a world audience with me answering comments on politics from China and poverty from South Africa. Avery unique experience. So being asked to cover today's event as PRESS is another new experience.


In full disclosure, as a member of the Executive Committee of The New York City Independence Party and a supporter of Adolfo Carrion,Jr., I hope to still bring my independent view to this coverage.


The event is The Bond Buyer's 3rd Annual TRI-STATE AREA PUBLIC FINANCE CONFERENCE. The audience included institutional investors and rating agency analysts covering the City and its agencies. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are home to more than 20% of the nation's 100 largest bond issuers and five of the top 10. The conference will cover how the market is meeting the unique needs of these major public-sector organizations and helping to keep the country's most densely-populated region functioning and growing.

I covered the Keynote Panel - Changing of the Guard: New York's Next Mayor and the City's Finances. The moderators were:

Robert Kurtter - Managing Director, States, of Moody's Investors Service
Richard Kolman - Managing Director, Head of Municipal Securities Group, US Bancorp
Stan Ladner - Partner, Fulbright and Jaworski L.L.P.

All the New York City Mayoral candidates were invited, but only three took part:

Adolpho Carrion, Jr. - Former Bronx Borough President, President Obama's first Director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs
John Liu - New York City Comptroller
William Thompson, Jr. - Former New York City Comptroller

The panel began with opening remarks.

John Lui first gave a current review of the New York City finances and his accomplishments. He proposed issuing $407 million in so-called Green Apple Bonds to speed the cleanup of toxins in 772 schools. He said the money raised by the general-obligation bonds would allow the city to remove light fixtures carrying polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, by 2015, six years ahead of the current schedule. The plan would also reduce the Education Department’s energy bills and cut carbon emissions. The proposal adds to a plan to accelerate spending on infrastructure, including bridges, roads, schools and libraries. He took up most of the time for opening remarks.

William Thompson, Jr. spoke about the hope to build a campaign of ideas and advance a long-overdue discussion on the challenges facing the city. He mostly agreed with Lui about the detail financial numbers with some minor changes. His main thrust was the coming population growth that will put a stress on the city's infrastructure.

Adolpho Carrion, Jr. spoke in detail about the need for a better education system to handle the future job needs of the state and country. He also spoke about the need to prepare for the upcoming population growth and cooperation with business to define the required future workforce.

Question #1 - What changes or adjustments would you make?

Adolpho Carrion, Jr. spoke about the need for a better quality of education and skill set to jobs match.

William Thompson, Jr. also spoke about education and a better match of jobs to skill sets. He is afraid of the ticking bomb when all city contracts will come up for renewal next year.

John Lui also spoke about education with better accountability, test scores and teaching methods, and education should not be run under a corporate model. He would redo tax breaks and subsidies, and have more transparency and review.

Question #2 - How would you handle the future debt load? Talk about PAYGO (Under the PAYGO rules a new proposal must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds. The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint.)

William Thompson, Jr. would change how PAYGO was used. He would create a "Rainy Day Fund", and use the low interest rates better then the current administration.

John Lui would refinance the current $14b debt, work closer with the rating agencies, and is producing a $39b Capital Plan.

Adolpho Carrion, Jr. discussed the difference between infrastructure and speculative debt, and would look at better use of PAYGO.

Question #3 - Talk about Health Care for Municipal and Retired workers

John Lui says current $85b and PAYGO debt not funded. He would create a uniform accounting standard and renegotiate workers health contribution.

Adolpho Carrion, Jr. also talked about the need to change the cost structure.

William Thompson, Jr. acknowledge the need to change the current municipal cost structure.

Question #4 - Talk about Public Safety (Stop and Frisk) and Quality of Life

William Thompson, Jr. was for Stop and Frisk but would change how it is used. It needs to be better controlled and any quota system needs to be removed.

John Lui is not a fan and would abolish it to save a bad allocation of resources. He used a statistics that 1,000 stops only found 1 gun. I could not verify numbers.

Adolpho Carrion, Jr. gave a history of Stop, Question, and Frisk. Moral questions need to be addressed.

Question #5 - Are you for or against Police Inspector General Office?

William Thompson, Jr. was for but with changes to how it would function.

John Lui was against the office.

Adolpho Carrion, Jr. was against the office.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us