Rudy's call for reform

Rudolph Giuliani has called for a state constitutional convention in this op-ed piece in the New York Times.

Over the course of New York’s history, our state has held seven constitutional conventions, one as recently as 1967. Calling another convention would be an extraordinary step, but it is a necessary and effective way to overcome the challenges we face.

Giuliani outlines seven reforms he'd like to see come out of a constitutional convention, whose work would be subject to a voter referendum. His wish list touches on the budget process, term limits, campaign finance and the drawing of state Legislative district boundaries.

Jim Dwyer of The Times has a really good column that traces New York's ills to the gerrymandering that goes on.

For decades, all the fiefs in Albany lived under a political truce that allowed the Democrats to have the Assembly and the Republicans to have the Senate, with the governorship up for grabs. They did this with maps.

Every 10 years, when the results of a new census came out, each party got to draw districts that suited its political needs. And governors, who could have campaigned to unseat legislators from the other party, generally sat back and did nothing to interfere with the power-sharing arrangement. (Mr. Spitzer, during his year as governor, had started to disrupt it, until he was caught paying for sexual services.)

This is how a cartel operates, not a democracy.

Instead of price-fixing, it was vote-fixing. Both sides retained their seats, with the rate of incumbent re-elections hovering around 98 percent.

Meanwhile, the New York Daily News is reporting that Rick Lazio has a provocative idea of his own:

Not content to let his potential rival for the GOP gubernatorial nod (Giuliani) corner the market on beating up the state Legislature and suggesting fix-Albany plans, Lazio today called for doing away with the Senate and Assembly altogether and replacing it with "a new legislative branch comprised of a single body."

What do you think, folks?

Comments

[gary]

I don't know the rules or laws about a consitutional convention but I would guess that the idiots in charge would have to vote on having one. Same with any other changes, so we can probably stop thinking about it ever happening. These guys won't change any rules that don't benefit themselves. Next topic please.

[Rob]

While in theory a constitutional convention is a good idea and should be supported, in practice it might not fix our problems.

Think about it this way: Who is going to be the ones appointed to revise the constitution? The power brokers currently running things. They'll make sure their unions, special interest and such get their piece of the pie at the expense of everybody else. I don't hold up much hope for substantive change.

The only thing you can do about this is move. Go somewhere else, take your business and leave.

[Buffalo Libertarian]

Unfortunately, the process of getting a constitutional convention in New York State is not as easy as perhaps hizzoner would like us to believe. The two ways to change the state constitution are 1) amendment through legislative proposal (the idiots in Albany would have to propose it), which the voters would vote on; or 2) placing the call for a convention on a ballot, which happens every twenty years (whether it has to happen every 20 years or could happen more often may be worth exploring). The next opportunity for a convention, if we follow the 20-year timeline, is 2017. http://books.google.com/books?id=yKk6WluVMrsC&pg=RA2-PA331&lpg=RA2-PA331&dq=Amending+the+New+York+State+Constitution&source=bl&ots=sIyqoPUDKQ&sig=XM9ST5R23UKwd8vnb9_1PIYrSK0&hl=en&ei=idFESp_0NdCMtgeW_fWxAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

Lazio's idea of replacing the bicameral legislature with a unicameral one is interesting. Perhaps, though, we could keep the bicameral legislature and have the Senate represent the counties instead of the people (and have them chosen by the county legislatures), much like the way the United States Senate originally represented the states (and not the people) until the 17th Amendment.

[jd]

I can't believe not one mention on any of the bloggs about todays vote on cap and tax '''After today, if Congress votes for the tax on energy, it won't matter what you do to save energy. Everything you touch, everything you eat, everything you drink, every time you flush, every time you get on public transport, every time you get into your car, every time you want to stay warm, or cool, or , it's going to cost you more.

Why? Energy Tax. That's why. It's not going to bring employment. It's only going to stifle employment and make the American worker accept the kind of wages the Chinese do. Welcome to Cap and Trade!!

[Neil]

Both Rudy's and Mr. Lazio's plans sound interesting and should actively considered. Action on some of these problems would certainly be welcome.

jd.....what the current energy bill really means is a lower standard of living for most Americans while China and India get to whoop it up. It's a meaningless gesture that does more to harm our economy in the depths of "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" than it does to solve the Global Warming, Oopps, I mean Climate Change crisis.

[pgr88]

Call your Congressperson to vote against Cap and Trade.

It is Corporate Welfare - pure and simple. it is wealth transfer from average citizens, to those who can influence the rules. The bill is 1200 pages, which means that no one will read it, except the lobbyists, who will be sure they get the tax-breaks and grants for their projects.

HOLD HIGGINS, LEE AND SLAUGHTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR VOTES ON THIS!

[gravedancer]

Nah, nothing about cap and trade from the News Blogs. Thdey would rather have us blog about idiotic stuff like guy's eyeliner, hair liner, whatever that freak was doing to his head.

[Neil]

There is an interesting article in today's WSJ regarding the policies of Albany in regards to our State's current fiscal situation. It's at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597150183556945.html

In the piece the author begins with, "President Obama has bet the economy on his program to grow the government and finance it with a more progressive tax system. It's hard to miss the irony that he's pitching this change in Washington even as the same governance model is imploding in three of the largest American states where it has been dominant for years -- California, New Jersey and New York."

More good news?

[James]

New York State is a lost cause. Let the state implode because the politicians will not leave until the money is gone. First the entire system has to crash and burn. Then the citizens of New York will finally be free.

[Stan]

Hmmm,,,,Giuliani and Lazio are in the party that isn't a party, in a state that is true blue. Give them a page, then go on. Their "ideas" are DOA. First, there has to be a real democracy.
The reference to Jim Dwyer of the NY Times and gerrymandering goes to the real problem to be handled first. Who's going to correct it? The Bond Vigilantes. Wait until that hits the taxpayers as government tries to raise money to pay unending debts.
Over 5 percent for a mortage now? How about 15 percent in three years.

[Danno]

Rudy is right. A Constitutional Convention is needed to change much of what is wrong with NY. But the posters are right, too: Never happen.

Once the civil service unions and the politicians understood that they could basically rob the treasury and the taxpayers by voting themselves raises, gold plated benefits, and huge pensions, NY's fate was sealed. Reform has been made impossible. Only a miracle can save us.

[Stan]

New York State will be on the "California" plan. Which is to issue IOU's. And they will have to pay all state employees with them. But the banks won't honor them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_us/us_california_budget

[Barton Keyes]

A few comments on Giuliani's suggestions for a Constitutional Convention:
1) Fundamental reform is needed and one way to do fundamental reform is via a Consitutional Convention. Unfortunetly Giuliani fails to tell us of the risks of such a reform: that the three people who will make up the delegates from each voting district to the Constittional Convention will be selected by the policitcal and party apparatus in each electoral district. This strongly suggests that major reform will be difficult to obtain even if the one attempts to get around the disfunctional legislature by creating a convention to re-write the Constitution.
2) Term limits is a solution whose effectiveness is exaggerated. New blood does not automatically mean ideas that are less controlled by lobbyests and are more pro-people. New legislators tend to be less conversant with legislative rules and tend to be more dependent on advise of more experienced legislative aides as well as lobbyests as to what to do and how to do it.
A probably more effective way to ensure the legislature is more responsive to the people is to pass Recall of legislators by the public, allow Referendums on legaislation by the people, and especially the dispersion of power in the legislature among commitee chairman instead of concentrating power in the hands of the Senate and Assembly leaders. Power sharing could give regions like Western New York more influence should they elect legislatorsa with seniourity enough to get key committe chairtmanships. And this dispersion includes significantly reducing or elliminating lulus (money) given to individiual legislators by the two chamber's leaders as this is the key means by which these leaders ensure the legislators vote the way they are told to.
3)Giving the power to reshape electoral districts to a Commission may not ensure there is a fair balance between parties in any district. If the legislature gets to pick the commission's members then Democratic controlled chambers will pick a democratic dominated commission which will, surprise, surprise design districts that favor Democrats.
I suggest a better way, and a way that probably has a better chance of getting grudging support from the legislature: to model the Commission on the Commission used by the Federal Govt to close military bases. It should be required to be manned by bi-partisan experts. And it should be required to design districts as ragularly shaped and continguous and as evenly split between the two parties as possible. Then when the districts are reshaped the legislature has the power to only vote yes or no to the entire package. They cannot vote up or down individual districts. This gives a better chance that the reform will be passed by the legislature as only a minority of members will be adversely effected in all probability, and it will preserve the consitutional requirement that the legisalture is the ultimate decision maker as to its members and make-up. And this last provision is important as once you give the power to effect membership to an independent commission of say 10 members than one only has to corrupt six of those members to reshape the legislature to one's own purposes.
4) Super majorities to pass spending bills is not much of a solution. California inposed such rules of school spending, etc. They still now face, despite these rules, a bankrupt state. And their school system has generally deteriorated to a state where children are housed in temorary trailers for years and years beyond their planned expiration date.
A better plan might be a requirement that any spending provision must be balanced by a spending plan to pay for it. And the spending plan must be approved by a Congressional Budget office that is semi-independent.
5) One might also want to consider a line item veto by the Governor IF the Governor can show the spending item is a budget breaker.
6) One may also want to REQUIRE that a properly funded reserve fund MUST be included in the budget to meet unexpected expenses as in a recession. And that the reserve fund cannot be raided for regular spebding packages.
7) And one needs to look at what can be eliminated from the current Constitution as well as what should be changed. The current Constitution is way too long because it includes rights and obligations that should be included in regular laws that can be changed as circumstances change instead of being enshrined in a virtually unchangeable constitution. Many of those rights have been designed by special interst groups and have no buisness but self-interst in being incorporated into the constitution.

[Former Buffalonian]

Giuliani fixed NYC and he's the only hope the rest of the state has in terms of getting spending under control and restoring the state's reputation as a place to do business, live, and thrive.