There's a great debate in New York State right now -- great because it reflects a larger debate around the country: shouldn't the wealthiest New Yorkers pay their fair share?
As this video shows, there's some confusion already over who is paying what:
All New Yorkers earning over $20k, pay the same rate. Fair Share Tax Reformers in NY are calling on the Governor to follow the President's lead and ask those earning $250,000 to pay a higher rate.
One counter argument: "If we raise taxes on the rich, they'll move away."
The good news: the city's wealthiest resident isn't going anywhere -- in fact, he changed the law to ensure that he could stay in office 4 more years...and giving us 4 more years to raise his taxes.
This open letter to the Netroots from Netroots New Yorkers is posted by other signatories on The Albany Project and Daily Gotham
Democrats are on the ascent, nationally and in states like ours, where the decades-old Republican stranglehold on Albany may finally be broken in less than one week.
If the Democrats are victorious, then the real battle will begin: how do we hold them accountable to progressive values against the enormous pressure they will face to play it safe?
As you may well know, they've led many of the big battles over the last ten years, from raising the minimum wage to putting paid family leave on the map, to fighting for affordable healthcare for all, public transportation, and most recently taking on Mayor Bloomberg's extremely undemocratic plan to extend term limits without a public vote.
New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has scheduled a vote for thus Thursday on extending theirs and the Mayor's term limits.
One argument for term limits is that incumbents may misuse the power of their office to stay in office. Regardless of whether you believe in term limits in principle, you see that concern come true in the case of New York.
Council Member Bill de Blasio, who along with the Working Families Pary's Its Our Decision campaign, has been leading the charge against the change, outlined the process concerns at a forum last night: Council members are voting on their own jobs; the publishers of the major dailies were on board with the Mayor before their editorial boards were approached; the major proponent of term limits in the past has been offered a seat on the review commission in return for his cooperation now; there are reports that the Speaker has threatened to strip committee chair posts from recalcitrant members; the Mayor's advocates have hired people to sit in hearings as supporters; and all of this is being rushed through an uncustomary two-week process that has left hundreds of New Yorkers who have come to testify closed out of the hearing rooms.
To de Blasio, it's not about term limits -- it's about the problems of corporate media, self-funded candidates and a willingness to ditch democratic process.
Mayor Bloomberg is usually pretty calm and confident, one of the many qualities that has given him impressive approval numbers among New Yorkers.
So why has he been snapping at reporters? He lost his cool as a reporter asked about the pressure he and Speaker Christine Quinn were putting on Council Members to rush through their proposal to extend their own term limits.
Look I am not here to debate you; ask your question and I'll answer it...When you get done with your speech, let us know. You can write it out. Whenever you have a question, I'll be happy to answer it.
Imagine if affairs in Iraq took a negative turn, or -- the worst case scenario -- there was a threat, or even attack, here at home, and President Bush announced that since he's the best "War President" we've got, he thought we should postpone the elections until things got better.
What would we do? We'd laugh him out of office faster than New Yorkers turned on "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani, when he suggested delaying the '01 elections shortly after the 9/11 attacks.
While seven out of ten (70%) voters support the idea of limiting the terms of California's elected officials, likely voters in next February's primary election also support, by a 59% to 39% margin, an initiative that would modify the state's term limits law.
I have to admit that term limits for non-executive elected officials is one of the few issues where I can honestly see both sides of the debate. On the one hand, it makes sense to limit individual power in a representative form of government, especially since the power of incumbency is extremely difficult to overcome in an era of enormous legislative districts and expensive, paid media campaigns. However, on the other hand, elections themselves are supposed to be a check on the expansion of individual power in a representative democracy, and just because someone has been in office for a while does not necessarily make that person corrupt or otherwise dangerous to democracy.
I know there are other arguments on both sides of this debate, but I want to cut right to the chase. I think, in the end, if I am forced to choose, I am in favor of term limits for all city, county, state and national executive offices, mainly because executive offices are of questionable value for representative government in and of themselves. However, when it comes to parliamentary or congressional elective offices, I think in the end voter enthusiasm for term limits mainly strikes me as a form of whining and shirking of personal responsibility on the part of the voters. Elections are supposed to serve as term limits, and it seems to me that many voters are blaming the politicians who are elected by the people for staying in office, rather than the people who keep electing those same politicians. In other words, if the public favors term limits, but keeps electing the same politicians again and again, it feels like they are blaming someone else for their own problems, and I can't support that.
The current ballot initiative in California seems to justify me view of a confused electorate shifting responsibility elsewhere:
An initiative likely to appear on the February 5th presidential primary ballot will ask voters to reduce the total years a legislator can serve in both legislative houses from 14 to 12 years, but allow legislators to serve their entire 12 years in either the Assembly or the Senate. By a 59% to 30% margin, likely voters support this proposal. This represents a slight increase in support from last March when the initiative was favored 53% to 39%. Currently, majorities of Democrats, Republicans and non-partisans are backing the proposed initiative.(…)
One consequence of the new term limits initiative, should it pass, is that many current legislators, including the present leaders in the Senate and Assembly, would avoid being termed out of office next year. This is because the initiative contains a provision allowing legislators to serve up to 12 years in the legislative body in which they are currently serving, and while many have served a total of 12 years in both houses, they have not reached this threshold where they currently serve.
After voters were informed of this and asked what effect this would have on their support or opposition to the initiative, more than two-thirds (68%) say this has no effect on their opinion of the initiative. This compares to one in eight (13%) who say this information makes them less inclined to support the initiative, while as many (14%) say it makes them more inclined to support it.
So, let me get this straight-and I admit I could be reading the new proposed law incorrectly. Even though 70% of Californians are in favor of term limits, 59% are also in favor of a law that would allow every sitting member in the state legislature to avoid being term limited out for another twelve years, including many members who would have been term limited out next year. Wow-I mean, wow. What a bunch of whiners those who support term limits are. I mean, they like term limits, but also support a law that will allow their representatives not to be term limited out. It sounds like another case of where teachers suck, or Congress sucks, but people think their local teachers and local members of Congress are good. Basically, people are scapegoating an abstraction, and unwilling to look into the mirror. Or am I just being too harsh?
