The question shouldn't be "can". Of course they can, but they also greatly risk their political future. Now, "will" they? Because of the risk to their own agenda, of course they won't.
Maybe, as long as they don't have to cut into their own pockets!! In my opinion thats were the cuts need to be made. I've had enough of watching them sit around, day after day, suckin up the hours on the clock, getting next to nothing done, but getting payed a pretty penny out of the taxpayers pockets.
No. Just look at what Hypocrit-Hawley was pandering as budget cuts: unspent pork funds and the hope of consolidating government. A typical bait and switch move. Don't touch anything that might bite back! This isn't fixing; this is bandaid politics! Get with the program Hawley!
A friend on mine sent my an e-mail calling for the removal of every incumbant, elected official from office, including City, State, and Federal. It would be an interesting experiment to see how long the new electees would stay pure to their alleged values(which should be ours). The over/under on this would be about 1 year, tops!!! Remember, the fish stinks from the head down! Chris Lee is having a "Town Hall" meeting, by phone no less, but it's just another bit of pandering to insure his Caddilac insurance, life-time pension, and all the other perks we pay for, oh well.
One of my pet peeves is people thinking that "throw the incumbents out" will fix everything.
I will change NOTHING. So long as your have two major political parties grumbling over who gets the bigger corner offices and best parking spaces (the perks of majority), nothing will ever change. If you elect an all new set of Republicans and Democrats, you will get the same exact government you have now, just the names on the scorecard will change. They will pursue the same agendas, both in their faux policy efforts and partisan political agendas.
Until true independents take over, people with a pure and honest interest in serving their local communities, nothing will change.
And that's not a knock on the current individuals in elected office. I think most of them are well intended, and certainly start out that way -- the problem isn't the people who serve, it's the two-party system.
First off Howard, my comment was a pseudo joke (or in your world- faux), and my point was that there would be no difference, and that includes your Independents as well! Absolute power corrupts absolutely!, and they're over/under might be a little longer, but the same result will happen. Secondly, we actually have a ONE PARTY system running the State and Country now, and how is that working? If we add another party, or two, or three, and outcome just becomes more diluted, not better. We need to vote with our brains, do a little research, and not just pull the lever because of a certain affliation.
Howard, this is an old discussion for us, but I still disagree. Throwing out the incumbents will change things, albeit temporarily. I believe we need to crack the wall the parties have built and then independents will be able to start winning some seats. Until we get out these career politicians, Nothing will change.
Sorry Howard, I have to respectfully disagree with your position that nothing would change if every (or the majority) of incumbents were voted out.
IF that were to happen (and that's a huge IF) don't you think that would get the attention of the so-called political power brokers? If the citizens of this state would just stick together and (as stupid and ill-informed as it sounds) vote out EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT in the next election I have to believe that we would have their attention.
As I've posted here several times before...how much worse could it be than what's going on right now?? I'm willing to take that chance and that's how I'll be voting in the next election.
Oh and as regards C.M. Barons' comment above. Does anyone recall at about this time a year ago, our fine assemblyman was pictured in the Daily Snooze with a $2000 check that he was presenting to the Lions Club to help defray expenses for the holiday lights that the club puts up.
C.M., you're absolutely right. He IS a hypocrite.
I appreciate the holiday lights that the Lions put up as much as the next guy, but New York State has NO BUSINESS subsidizing that effort and our assemblyman has no business doling out our tax money as if it was his own so that he can get his picture in the paper. Now all of a sudden, he's a fiscal conservative.
Bye bye Steve.
One assumption that should be addressed is that the politicians, the elected officials, run Albany.
I've never worked in Albany, but I don't imagine it's much different from Sacramento, where I do have a couple of years experience.
The politicians run NOTHING. Sacramento, and I've gotta believe Albany is no different, is run by STAFF.
When I worked for a State Assemblyman in California, I really worked for Assembly Majority Services, and primarily a guy named Bill K. I reported indirectly to Bill through Sandy F. I got my orders from Bill through Sandy on how the district business would be conducted. Now, I really respect and like Bill and Sandy, but the fact of the matter is, they are lifer political operatives. And their first order of business was NEVER, NEVER, EVER, getting legislation passed because it was good for the people in the district. It was always, always about re-election. Every bill my boss "authored" was drawn up in Majority Services with an eye toward what would play best come campaign season in the district.
When I said, "well, Tom would really like to get this piece of legislation through." Well, no, he couldn't do that, because the surveys of the district showed it wouldn't resonate with voters. The excuse was, "we have to maintain majority if we want to do the good things we think our party can do." (this, btw, was the Democratic party). But there was never any real effort to do anything really meaningful that would fit either with Democratic ideals or even with the more conservative nature of the district we happened to represent, except for what would play well in the district.
It was that experience, along with something a Republican did at the time, directed at me personally, that turned me off forever on partisan politics.
And like I said, it's nothing against the politicians themselves. Most of them are well meaning. But both parties are just machines with only one function -- perpetuating their own power.
You can turn over every elected official in Albany, and I don't care whether the Republicans are a majority, or the Democrats are a majority, NOTHING will change. Because the staffs, and the lobbyists who buy them drinks, will still be there. If the Democrats are in power, than there will be fewer young Republicans working in Albany, and if the Republicans are in power, there will be fewer young Democrats working in Albany -- but all of the lifers will still be their, with their $100K+ salaries, their expense accounts and their nice offices. They really don't care which party is in power, except that the get larger staffs and slightly better expense accounts when their own party is in power.
I can say this with 100 percent confidence -- throw out all of the current incumbents, and absolutely nothing will change. No message will be sent. No sense of urgency created. No alarms raised about the people being pissed off. Nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, will change.
You could elect an entire GOP of rookie Abraham Lincolns and an entire Democratic party of young JFKs, and nothing, absolutely nothing, would change.
The party machines run and control everything, and they don't have your best interests at heart. They never will.
Howard- regardless of who shuffles the papers in Albany or Sacramento, "throw the bums out" is the only answer. To truly demonstrate public dissatisfaction, bouncing the encumbents is not only the messenger; it is the message. We must shake up the unshakeable; we must eliminate the two-party stranglehold on government in general. These cynical democrats and republicans have no goal beyond retaining seats and status quo.
Hypocrit-Hawley talks about saving $3.5 billion by cancelling some pork projects, consolidating and streamlining. That's ridiculous. It doesn't cut expenses, it only eliminates some discetionary spending for this year and pins hope on overcoming mass inertia: consolidation. If the Town/City of Batavia is any indication of merger speed, we MAY see savings in the year 2050.
Hypocrit-Hawley doesn't have the cajones to actually suggest cutting the budget.
C.M., the only way you're going to throw the bums out is to vote for third party and independent candidates. If you keep voting for Republican or Democrats, nothing will change. If you keep voting for GOPs or Dems, you're keeping the real bums -- the staff lifers -- in place.
Just curious how this would work.
There would be no senior members in either house in Washington?
No senior members in the state houses?
City, county, town and village governments will have all new people?
So, do you have to eliminate civil service jobs as well to get rid of those who don't lose their jobs but keep the wheels of government turning - from the local level to the top spot in Washington?
Will there be term limits? After all, if they can run again, then they have to start raising money for their next campaign on their first day in office.
Bringing in inexperienced people to run the government - from top to bottom sounds like an interesting experiment.
I wonder how happy everyone will be in the end?
Are you saying you prefer the status quo, Bea? You're happy with high taxes, out-of-control spending, over regulation and an ever more intrusive government?
Howard, I'm playing devil's advocate.
Looking at the nuts and bolts of replacing all.
Just curious how it would work. No more, no less.
No personal comment at all.
How about this. How about having government employees wages modified down to a logical rate. Wouldnt this help to close the budget defecit? There has been a wage "FreeForAll" in government for FAR TO LONG Every other Working Joe has had to take cuts, why not the ones who hold all the power, and control the budget, and our tax money. They have ridden on our backs for far to long, and in my opinion, it is the answer to help close the defecit. I'd love to see what is being payed out weekly, to all that hold government positions. Im sure the totals are "Threw The Roof"and exorbitant. I've had enough of the "Fat Cats" getting Fatter, at our expence.
Howard- I'm registered Green Party. I don't vote for Dems/Repubs. ...Even when I vote for a candidate affiliated with those parties, I vote on the co-endorsed third party line. If there is no alternative, I use my pencil. I have made my feelings known as to two-party deadlock for aeons. I left the Democratic Party decades ago.
Hi John, I mean Capital Hill, Congress, and the amount of money "We The People" pay them off the sweat of are brow to screw things up. Corporate Giants reaping all the rewards of the money tree growing wild for their harvesting, while the very ones contributing to their success, are suffering financialy. John I'm talking every state in the union, Federal, State, workers. In my opinion, that is where if cuts are made, we would see true change. No defecit, and truth, justice and the pursuit of happiness for all. I guess a kind of balance, never acheived before. Wishful Thinking.......
Karen,
I get your message, but I wonder how many of those workers are just like your neighbors? They have a job that pays their mortgage, puts food on the table, clothe their children, pay their taxes (by the way, in a sense they pay their own salary), etc. Are you saying that they don't deserve a living wage?
Without those workers, who will plow the streets and do the other hundreds of jobs these people do?
I understand your frustration, but do you really believe that because a person works in a civil service job that their salary should be cut?
Everyone involved in this budget issue needs to come on-board. If unions and management cooperate, budget cuts do not necessarily need to result in personnel cuts. An across-the-board, 10% cut in supplies and equipment would go a longway toward balancing expense/revenue gaps. A freeze on new, non-maintenance-related construction would also help. There are ways to do this without dramatically impacting services and livelihood: increase employee contributions to health insurance, curtail travel reimbursements by teleconferencing instead, group bid on supplies, re-open contracts and put a freeze on automatic raises, lower thermostats and zone heat... The problem is, most agencies merely submit a budget based on the previous years expenditures; they do not evaluate or prioritize spending. To do this right, our public agencies need to voluntarily re-invent how they operate. As in- get off the status quo and get tough on reducing costs. Therein lies the problem, it will take work and cooperation from all levels to make it work.
I worked at a school district where student artwork was ruitinely laminated, hundreds of dollars in supplies and man-hours to preserve student ephemera- absolutely wasteful. Lights were left on in unoccupied rooms. Space heaters were used to heat office spaces, along with window-mount air conditioners. Multiply these wasteful practices by all the schools in the state, and add up the wasted tax dollars. This kind of thoughtless waste is rampant. Eliminating it would not cost jobs, but save thousands of dollars.
The biggest expenses in the public sector are health insurance, energy and transportation costs. These costs could be drastically lowered without slashing jobs.
The legislature needs to enforce a statewide cut for all departments and let those departments hash out how to survive with less.
Howard, my father wrote exactly the same thing in a letter to the editor of his local newspaper last year. Both parties are in a constant power struggle and completely forget to "represent" and carry out the will of the majority that placed them into office. Independent thinking instead of the "party line" agenda is what would breathe a breath of fresh air into our lives.
While elected officials can listen to the majority, they shouldn't bend to the will of those who elected them. Politicians should explain their stances before they're elected and stick with them, even if it's against the majority wishes.
It's up to the voters to elected someone who will represent them well. Elected officials shouldn't change their position on a subject to stay on office.
Normally, elected officials are put there by the majority who heard the politician's stance. That's why they were elected into office because the majority liked what they heard.
There's nothing I dislike more from a politician than misrepresentation. Well, other than lying and corruption..lol.
That's the whole point of my statement though. Politicians are supposed to represent everyone but they're supposed to carry out what they said to get them into office. How can that not be representing the majority? It took a majority vote to put them into office.
Chris, I'm just tired of the two party bickering all the time. It's simply counterproductive. I'm giving serious consideration to registering independent.
The way I interpreted what you said was that if the majority of voters is for or against something, their elected official should also share the same stance, even if during election season, they were on the opposite side of the coin, sort to speak.
The question shouldn't be
The question shouldn't be "can". Of course they can, but they also greatly risk their political future. Now, "will" they? Because of the risk to their own agenda, of course they won't.
Albany= Dysfunction Junction
Maybe, as long as they don't
Maybe, as long as they don't have to cut into their own pockets!! In my opinion thats were the cuts need to be made. I've had enough of watching them sit around, day after day, suckin up the hours on the clock, getting next to nothing done, but getting payed a pretty penny out of the taxpayers pockets.
No. Just look at what
No. Just look at what Hypocrit-Hawley was pandering as budget cuts: unspent pork funds and the hope of consolidating government. A typical bait and switch move. Don't touch anything that might bite back! This isn't fixing; this is bandaid politics! Get with the program Hawley!
A friend on mine sent my an
A friend on mine sent my an e-mail calling for the removal of every incumbant, elected official from office, including City, State, and Federal. It would be an interesting experiment to see how long the new electees would stay pure to their alleged values(which should be ours). The over/under on this would be about 1 year, tops!!! Remember, the fish stinks from the head down! Chris Lee is having a "Town Hall" meeting, by phone no less, but it's just another bit of pandering to insure his Caddilac insurance, life-time pension, and all the other perks we pay for, oh well.
One of my pet peeves is
One of my pet peeves is people thinking that "throw the incumbents out" will fix everything.
I will change NOTHING. So long as your have two major political parties grumbling over who gets the bigger corner offices and best parking spaces (the perks of majority), nothing will ever change. If you elect an all new set of Republicans and Democrats, you will get the same exact government you have now, just the names on the scorecard will change. They will pursue the same agendas, both in their faux policy efforts and partisan political agendas.
Until true independents take over, people with a pure and honest interest in serving their local communities, nothing will change.
And that's not a knock on the current individuals in elected office. I think most of them are well intended, and certainly start out that way -- the problem isn't the people who serve, it's the two-party system.
First off Howard, my comment
First off Howard, my comment was a pseudo joke (or in your world- faux), and my point was that there would be no difference, and that includes your Independents as well! Absolute power corrupts absolutely!, and they're over/under might be a little longer, but the same result will happen. Secondly, we actually have a ONE PARTY system running the State and Country now, and how is that working? If we add another party, or two, or three, and outcome just becomes more diluted, not better. We need to vote with our brains, do a little research, and not just pull the lever because of a certain affliation.
Howard, this is an old
Howard, this is an old discussion for us, but I still disagree. Throwing out the incumbents will change things, albeit temporarily. I believe we need to crack the wall the parties have built and then independents will be able to start winning some seats. Until we get out these career politicians, Nothing will change.
Sorry Howard, I have to
Sorry Howard, I have to respectfully disagree with your position that nothing would change if every (or the majority) of incumbents were voted out.
IF that were to happen (and that's a huge IF) don't you think that would get the attention of the so-called political power brokers? If the citizens of this state would just stick together and (as stupid and ill-informed as it sounds) vote out EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT in the next election I have to believe that we would have their attention.
As I've posted here several times before...how much worse could it be than what's going on right now?? I'm willing to take that chance and that's how I'll be voting in the next election.
Oh and as regards C.M. Barons' comment above. Does anyone recall at about this time a year ago, our fine assemblyman was pictured in the Daily Snooze with a $2000 check that he was presenting to the Lions Club to help defray expenses for the holiday lights that the club puts up.
C.M., you're absolutely right. He IS a hypocrite.
I appreciate the holiday lights that the Lions put up as much as the next guy, but New York State has NO BUSINESS subsidizing that effort and our assemblyman has no business doling out our tax money as if it was his own so that he can get his picture in the paper. Now all of a sudden, he's a fiscal conservative.
Bye bye Steve.
One assumption that should be
One assumption that should be addressed is that the politicians, the elected officials, run Albany.
I've never worked in Albany, but I don't imagine it's much different from Sacramento, where I do have a couple of years experience.
The politicians run NOTHING. Sacramento, and I've gotta believe Albany is no different, is run by STAFF.
When I worked for a State Assemblyman in California, I really worked for Assembly Majority Services, and primarily a guy named Bill K. I reported indirectly to Bill through Sandy F. I got my orders from Bill through Sandy on how the district business would be conducted. Now, I really respect and like Bill and Sandy, but the fact of the matter is, they are lifer political operatives. And their first order of business was NEVER, NEVER, EVER, getting legislation passed because it was good for the people in the district. It was always, always about re-election. Every bill my boss "authored" was drawn up in Majority Services with an eye toward what would play best come campaign season in the district.
When I said, "well, Tom would really like to get this piece of legislation through." Well, no, he couldn't do that, because the surveys of the district showed it wouldn't resonate with voters. The excuse was, "we have to maintain majority if we want to do the good things we think our party can do." (this, btw, was the Democratic party). But there was never any real effort to do anything really meaningful that would fit either with Democratic ideals or even with the more conservative nature of the district we happened to represent, except for what would play well in the district.
It was that experience, along with something a Republican did at the time, directed at me personally, that turned me off forever on partisan politics.
And like I said, it's nothing against the politicians themselves. Most of them are well meaning. But both parties are just machines with only one function -- perpetuating their own power.
You can turn over every elected official in Albany, and I don't care whether the Republicans are a majority, or the Democrats are a majority, NOTHING will change. Because the staffs, and the lobbyists who buy them drinks, will still be there. If the Democrats are in power, than there will be fewer young Republicans working in Albany, and if the Republicans are in power, there will be fewer young Democrats working in Albany -- but all of the lifers will still be their, with their $100K+ salaries, their expense accounts and their nice offices. They really don't care which party is in power, except that the get larger staffs and slightly better expense accounts when their own party is in power.
I can say this with 100 percent confidence -- throw out all of the current incumbents, and absolutely nothing will change. No message will be sent. No sense of urgency created. No alarms raised about the people being pissed off. Nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, will change.
You could elect an entire GOP of rookie Abraham Lincolns and an entire Democratic party of young JFKs, and nothing, absolutely nothing, would change.
The party machines run and control everything, and they don't have your best interests at heart. They never will.
Howard- regardless of who
Howard- regardless of who shuffles the papers in Albany or Sacramento, "throw the bums out" is the only answer. To truly demonstrate public dissatisfaction, bouncing the encumbents is not only the messenger; it is the message. We must shake up the unshakeable; we must eliminate the two-party stranglehold on government in general. These cynical democrats and republicans have no goal beyond retaining seats and status quo.
Hypocrit-Hawley talks about saving $3.5 billion by cancelling some pork projects, consolidating and streamlining. That's ridiculous. It doesn't cut expenses, it only eliminates some discetionary spending for this year and pins hope on overcoming mass inertia: consolidation. If the Town/City of Batavia is any indication of merger speed, we MAY see savings in the year 2050.
Hypocrit-Hawley doesn't have the cajones to actually suggest cutting the budget.
C.M., the only way you're
C.M., the only way you're going to throw the bums out is to vote for third party and independent candidates. If you keep voting for Republican or Democrats, nothing will change. If you keep voting for GOPs or Dems, you're keeping the real bums -- the staff lifers -- in place.
Just curious how this would
Just curious how this would work.
There would be no senior members in either house in Washington?
No senior members in the state houses?
City, county, town and village governments will have all new people?
So, do you have to eliminate civil service jobs as well to get rid of those who don't lose their jobs but keep the wheels of government turning - from the local level to the top spot in Washington?
Will there be term limits? After all, if they can run again, then they have to start raising money for their next campaign on their first day in office.
Bringing in inexperienced people to run the government - from top to bottom sounds like an interesting experiment.
I wonder how happy everyone will be in the end?
Are you saying you prefer the
Are you saying you prefer the status quo, Bea? You're happy with high taxes, out-of-control spending, over regulation and an ever more intrusive government?
Howard, I'm playing devil's
Howard, I'm playing devil's advocate.
Looking at the nuts and bolts of replacing all.
Just curious how it would work. No more, no less.
No personal comment at all.
How about this. How about
How about this. How about having government employees wages modified down to a logical rate. Wouldnt this help to close the budget defecit? There has been a wage "FreeForAll" in government for FAR TO LONG Every other Working Joe has had to take cuts, why not the ones who hold all the power, and control the budget, and our tax money. They have ridden on our backs for far to long, and in my opinion, it is the answer to help close the defecit. I'd love to see what is being payed out weekly, to all that hold government positions. Im sure the totals are "Threw The Roof"and exorbitant. I've had enough of the "Fat Cats" getting Fatter, at our expence.
Howard- I'm registered Green
Howard- I'm registered Green Party. I don't vote for Dems/Repubs. ...Even when I vote for a candidate affiliated with those parties, I vote on the co-endorsed third party line. If there is no alternative, I use my pencil. I have made my feelings known as to two-party deadlock for aeons. I left the Democratic Party decades ago.
Karen, Do you mean regular
Karen,
Do you mean regular State workers like Correction Officers at Attica, or a clerk in the County? Or do you mean-who?
Hi John, I mean Capital Hill,
Hi John, I mean Capital Hill, Congress, and the amount of money "We The People" pay them off the sweat of are brow to screw things up. Corporate Giants reaping all the rewards of the money tree growing wild for their harvesting, while the very ones contributing to their success, are suffering financialy. John I'm talking every state in the union, Federal, State, workers. In my opinion, that is where if cuts are made, we would see true change. No defecit, and truth, justice and the pursuit of happiness for all. I guess a kind of balance, never acheived before. Wishful Thinking.......
Karen, I get your message,
Karen,
I get your message, but I wonder how many of those workers are just like your neighbors? They have a job that pays their mortgage, puts food on the table, clothe their children, pay their taxes (by the way, in a sense they pay their own salary), etc. Are you saying that they don't deserve a living wage?
Without those workers, who will plow the streets and do the other hundreds of jobs these people do?
I understand your frustration, but do you really believe that because a person works in a civil service job that their salary should be cut?
Everyone involved in this
Everyone involved in this budget issue needs to come on-board. If unions and management cooperate, budget cuts do not necessarily need to result in personnel cuts. An across-the-board, 10% cut in supplies and equipment would go a longway toward balancing expense/revenue gaps. A freeze on new, non-maintenance-related construction would also help. There are ways to do this without dramatically impacting services and livelihood: increase employee contributions to health insurance, curtail travel reimbursements by teleconferencing instead, group bid on supplies, re-open contracts and put a freeze on automatic raises, lower thermostats and zone heat... The problem is, most agencies merely submit a budget based on the previous years expenditures; they do not evaluate or prioritize spending. To do this right, our public agencies need to voluntarily re-invent how they operate. As in- get off the status quo and get tough on reducing costs. Therein lies the problem, it will take work and cooperation from all levels to make it work.
I worked at a school district where student artwork was ruitinely laminated, hundreds of dollars in supplies and man-hours to preserve student ephemera- absolutely wasteful. Lights were left on in unoccupied rooms. Space heaters were used to heat office spaces, along with window-mount air conditioners. Multiply these wasteful practices by all the schools in the state, and add up the wasted tax dollars. This kind of thoughtless waste is rampant. Eliminating it would not cost jobs, but save thousands of dollars.
The biggest expenses in the public sector are health insurance, energy and transportation costs. These costs could be drastically lowered without slashing jobs.
The legislature needs to enforce a statewide cut for all departments and let those departments hash out how to survive with less.
Howard, my father wrote
Howard, my father wrote exactly the same thing in a letter to the editor of his local newspaper last year. Both parties are in a constant power struggle and completely forget to "represent" and carry out the will of the majority that placed them into office. Independent thinking instead of the "party line" agenda is what would breathe a breath of fresh air into our lives.
I disagree with that
I disagree with that statement, Doug.
While elected officials can listen to the majority, they shouldn't bend to the will of those who elected them. Politicians should explain their stances before they're elected and stick with them, even if it's against the majority wishes.
It's up to the voters to elected someone who will represent them well. Elected officials shouldn't change their position on a subject to stay on office.
Normally, elected officials
Normally, elected officials are put there by the majority who heard the politician's stance. That's why they were elected into office because the majority liked what they heard.
There's nothing I dislike more from a politician than misrepresentation. Well, other than lying and corruption..lol.
That's the whole point of my statement though. Politicians are supposed to represent everyone but they're supposed to carry out what they said to get them into office. How can that not be representing the majority? It took a majority vote to put them into office.
Chris, I'm just tired of the
Chris, I'm just tired of the two party bickering all the time. It's simply counterproductive. I'm giving serious consideration to registering independent.
Well, I entirely agree with
Well, I entirely agree with that last post.
The way I interpreted what you said was that if the majority of voters is for or against something, their elected official should also share the same stance, even if during election season, they were on the opposite side of the coin, sort to speak.
I, like you, am tired of the bickering as well.
Here's an open letter from
Here's an open letter from the Governor to the legislature -- http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/20245/patersons-open-letter…