Quoted Text

Having leaders in same party is helpful
BY ANTHONY FRANK For The Sunday Gazette

    There is something to be said for party politics.
Especially now, in these dire economic times, it is a bonus for us New Yorkers and Schenectadians to have state and local leaders from the same political party as the president and the majority in both houses of Congress. It gets our voices heard and might bring results not obtained as easily by standing in line with request lists in our hands.
    When Gov. Paterson went to Washington back in October, he was eventually able to procure, with the help of Sen. Schumer (also a Democrat), $24.6 billion in aid for New York from the federal stimulus package. This turned out to be $3 billion more than was originally estimated.
    And then Mayor Stratton goes to Washington, is invited to meet with the president and some of his aides, including Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, and is able to plead his case directly to the holders of the purse strings to release some money to our city. Being one of only 85 mayors out of more than 8,000 in the country invited to the White House to meet with the president was not a random selection, and Mayor Stratton did us well by being there. It may not be as good as a televangelist’s personal pipeline to God, but it ain’t bad.
    While I’m in no position to evaluate the stimulus bill, I am wide-eyed with interest on how the money will be spent in our state and in our city and, of course, how effective it will be in revitalizing our economy. It is curious to me that the voting was divided so decisively along party lines, with almost no Republicans supporting it. There are even some Republican state governors who have pledged not to accept all the money on philosophical grounds or because they believe there are unacceptable strings attached.
COURAGEOUS MOVE
    Gov. Paterson doesn’t want to use the funds to merely balance the state budget. He is insistent that he will continue to push to reduce the state deficit, including implementing spending cuts to do so, rather than using the stimulus money to merely plug the gaps. It is a courageous and wildly unpopular thing to do. His popularity rating has decreased faster than our 401(k)s and he has been, unfairly, vilified on the airwaves and criticized vehemently on his stance to control spending. While he may modify his position somewhat to save some programs and jobs by the April 1 budget deadline, his basic position to hold firm on the cuts is, I think, necessary and frugal. On the local level, there are no figures yet on the amount of money Mayor Stratton will be bringing back from Washington, but it seems that some funds will be open-ended and others will be specifically earmarked. Unlike my opinion on the state budget level, I feel that some monies received on the local level should, indeed, be used to directly reduce the city and county budgets and their respective burden on the taxpayer.
    This is not a contradiction, insofar as I believe that a major part of the solution to our fiscal crisis rests with tax relief at the local level. More money circulating in our communities and folded in our pockets will truly be a stimulus to increase individual spending and revitalize our local businesses, creating more jobs and economic growth.
    It is apparent that a good portion of the earmarked money in Schenectady will go to infrastructure projects including roads, water and sewer projects, streetscape improvements and housing. That will be money well spent and federal help is essential for it to take place. I am somewhat concerned, however, that President Obama’s right-minded push to create jobs by improving the national infrastructure will, in fact, create the right jobs for the right people in our state and here in our city. This money will no doubt stimulate the economy, but if it merely becomes a boon to construction companies and only provides jobs in the construction industry, then a lot of people will be left out.
WHAT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS?
    All of us are hoping that this stimulus package works on the macroeconomic side, revitalizing the stock market and stimulating national growth, but most Americans are equally concerned with the microeconomics of their own well-being and that of their families and neighbors. Will my retirement be solvent?
    Will my city be cleaner, safer and visitor-friendly? Will my house maintain its value? Will my two nephews, both in their 20s, able-bodied, well-educated and eager, be able to find work in their own home town? Is my job safe? My health care? My peace of mind? Is a $65-a-month tax break for the average American family really going to turn the tide? I am optimistic that our president, governor and mayor at least hear our questions. And I am hopeful that the answers are somewhere addressed in the plan. As Speaker Tip O’Neill once said, “all politics is local.” It couldn’t be more true than right now.
    Having a president, a governor and a mayor all of the same political party, then, may prove beneficial to all of us in upstate New York.
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION
    Continuing with the theme of party politics, I am somewhat surprised that it hasn’t become an issue in the upcoming election for the vacant seat in the House of Representatives in the 20th Congressional District between Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco. While party affiliation says nothing about the merits of the two candidates, it may be more valuable for the citizens of the 20th to send a member of the majority party to Congress than a minority-party candidate, especially one who has made a reputation of being a non-conciliatory minority gadfly in his own state Legislature. My guess is that Murphy will get a lot more favorable attention from Speaker Nancy Pelosi than would Tedisco.
    Committee assignments alone can make a....................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar01902

I couldn't help but notice the writer seems to have left out the disadvantages of a one party system such as no accountability, ignoring the demands of the residents, higher taxes, and plenty of patronage jobs to name just a few. Power corrupts and complete power corrupts completely.

Quoted from Shadow

I couldn't help but notice the writer seems to have left out the disadvantages of a one party system such as no accountability, ignoring the demands of the residents, higher taxes, and plenty of patronage jobs to name just a few. Power corrupts and complete power corrupts completely.

Amen to that !

Why bother having elections? Another idiot supporting old Soviet style "Democracy". Coming soon to your election district-one party, cross endorsed by all the others! Newsflash:Jimmy T will trounce his unknown opponent from Missouri. Patterson is finished-only you care what he says. There is a growing backlash to the County Krats and their Metrograft "Authority".

Quoted Text

One-party rule bad for good government

    Re March 1 Viewpoint, “Having leaders in same party is helpful”: Anthony Frank thinks it is a “bonus” to have governments controlled by the Democratic Party. Why? Because Gov. Paterson and Mayor Stratton were able to gain access to national Democratic leaders, enabling them to “bring the bacon” to New York.
    From this he concludes that Democrat Scott Murphy should be elected rather than Republican Jim Tedisco, because Murphy will gain access to Pelosi while Tedisco will not.
    One-party rule is tyrannical. James Madison argued that the tyranny of the majority would be avoided because a diversity of self-interests among the citizens would lead to a diversity of factions (parties). Should we now embrace one-party rule because we are experiencing a serious economic downturn? Are we now to believe that a tyranny of the majority featuring the Democratic Party is desirable?
    If the goal of government is rapid decision-making, then by all means one-party or even dictatorial rule will work. We know from our experience, however, as well as from Lord Acton, that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That is why the framers of the Constitution sought to create a system which is resistant to one-party rule, a system which encourages conflict among the branches and levels of government. We need political parties which conflict with each other. Separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances, fundamental concepts underpinning our political system, lose their force when there is one-party rule. We can infer that Mr. Frank opposes Jim Tedisco because he is thought of as being “non-conciliatory.” This is exactly what Tedisco should be when he has a principled disagreement with the downstate Democrats who are killing the upstate economy.

RICHARD A. EVANS
Burnt Hills     

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....505&ViewMode=GIF

Over in Yugoslavia which parts of Italy where in had the one party rule plus Romania and all those countries north of Italy like Poland for many years and they didnt have the problems we have now with the melt down in the banks from the rich richies and corporate greed -sters so I think the one party idea is good and better then all the fighting. Plus they had the free medical. If the repubs want to fight the leaders they need to arrest them like they do over there for causing the trouble, they would get more work done if they stopped with the arguing like Surhad does and that there and we would see that there is progress for the unions for the workers the kids the minorities and the seniors to. Enough is enough STATA ZEET repubs

Sal.....I'll pay for your plane ticket......

Good one senders! I'll chip in too! However Sal seems to be uninformed about the fact that the government in those countries 'over there' were living high on the hog while the citizens barely made ends meet. Ya know....kinda like the direction this country is going in which is being led by the dems.