Home Page > Editorial and Op-Ed
Searching for a Contract With New York
Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:26:00
Now that the legislative session is over, the battle for the State Senate shifts to individual races. With senators back in their districts, goes the conventional wisdom, the contests will inevitably focus mostly on local issues and on the candidates themselves.
This might prove good news for the Republicans, many of whom believe that voters will favor incumbents who have been fixtures of their districts for decades. Or maybe the focus on candidates will favor the new Democratic challengers, who might be able to capitalize on the national political inclination toward change.
But though the voters will be electing individual senators in November, they will also be electing pieces of a majority or minority.
The Congressional Republicans had their Contract With America in 1994. The Congressional Democrats had their 100-Hour Agenda in 2006. Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate should follow suit.
This should be the first priority for Dean Skelos, who has the difficult task of adjusting to a new job at the most precarious moment in his conference’s recent history. If he really wants to be Senate majority leader for more than a few token months, he should make the case that New Yorkers’ best interests are served by Republicans retaining the majority. Simply presenting themselves as a check on power—though sometimes obstructionism can be valuable—is hardly enough of an argument to preserve the status quo. Senate Republicans have years of collective institutional memory, courtesy of their many long-serving members. Laying out a bold, clear agenda with big ideas and specific policy proposals should be easy for them to do. If they cannot, they do not deserve to keep the majority.
Senate Democrats have an equal burden. So far, Malcolm Smith and his conference have been careful not to be too definitive in what kind of legislation they would pass if they get control of the chamber. They have laid out some general ideas, and some specific plans are being developed. Now the Democrats should go public with the details of what New Yorkers would get with them in the majority. With all the talented, fresh voices they have brought to Albany in recent years, laying out a vision for change and reform in New York should be easy for them to do. If they cannot, they do not deserve to take the majority.
There is going to be a lot of politics this fall. And though the 2008 legislative session proved to be more productive than many had expected, the 2009 and 2010 sessions should and likely will be time for true legislative debate and negotiating on larger issues, from campaign finance reform to gay marriage to a property tax cap. Clearly, it matters which way things go. The Republicans and Democrats looking to lead the Senate through these crucial debates each owe the voters a full explanation of what their direction is and why that direction is better for New York.
This might prove good news for the Republicans, many of whom believe that voters will favor incumbents who have been fixtures of their districts for decades. Or maybe the focus on candidates will favor the new Democratic challengers, who might be able to capitalize on the national political inclination toward change.
But though the voters will be electing individual senators in November, they will also be electing pieces of a majority or minority.
The Congressional Republicans had their Contract With America in 1994. The Congressional Democrats had their 100-Hour Agenda in 2006. Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate should follow suit.
This should be the first priority for Dean Skelos, who has the difficult task of adjusting to a new job at the most precarious moment in his conference’s recent history. If he really wants to be Senate majority leader for more than a few token months, he should make the case that New Yorkers’ best interests are served by Republicans retaining the majority. Simply presenting themselves as a check on power—though sometimes obstructionism can be valuable—is hardly enough of an argument to preserve the status quo. Senate Republicans have years of collective institutional memory, courtesy of their many long-serving members. Laying out a bold, clear agenda with big ideas and specific policy proposals should be easy for them to do. If they cannot, they do not deserve to keep the majority.
Senate Democrats have an equal burden. So far, Malcolm Smith and his conference have been careful not to be too definitive in what kind of legislation they would pass if they get control of the chamber. They have laid out some general ideas, and some specific plans are being developed. Now the Democrats should go public with the details of what New Yorkers would get with them in the majority. With all the talented, fresh voices they have brought to Albany in recent years, laying out a vision for change and reform in New York should be easy for them to do. If they cannot, they do not deserve to take the majority.
There is going to be a lot of politics this fall. And though the 2008 legislative session proved to be more productive than many had expected, the 2009 and 2010 sessions should and likely will be time for true legislative debate and negotiating on larger issues, from campaign finance reform to gay marriage to a property tax cap. Clearly, it matters which way things go. The Republicans and Democrats looking to lead the Senate through these crucial debates each owe the voters a full explanation of what their direction is and why that direction is better for New York.
