"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Power For Jobs Passed - Really?


Senator Aubertine claims to have passed Power for Jobs legislation:

“With the deadline looming, we needed to come together to protect these jobs and pass a bill as quickly as possible to give businesses in the program the certainty they need to plan,” said State Sen. Darrel J. Aubertine, chair of the Senate’s Energy and Telecommunications Committee. “I’m pleased that we were able to work out a deal with the Assembly and the Governor to ensure that we extended this program.”

Read: here or here


But his colleague Democratic Senator Jeff Klein has a different version of Tuesday's events in the chamber:

Sen. Jeff Klein then stood and read into the record the Senate Democrats' argument that any measures passed at the single-house extraordinary sessions called by the governor are basically moot because the other house isn't also present to pass same-as bills.

And here is Democratic Senator Eric Schneiderman saying they have not passed Power for Jobs. Watch few minutes in the Capital Tonight video.
  
Could this just be another misunderstanding by our Senator?

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Clearly lots of confusion going on at the Capitol, so no one really knows what's up. All the more reason not to run out the door and make an announcement that people will rely upon to make investments and hiring decision when the truth isn't clear.

Politics -- and taking credit -- before people.

Dan Francis said...

Call me naive or silly or misinformed, or whatever, but doesn't a bill, any bill, need a minimum of 32 votes to be "passed" in order to go to the other chamber, or if the Senate is the last stop, 32 votes before it can go to the Guv for signature as being "passed?"

Or did I sleep in that class?

If so, how can Sen. Darrel claim credit by saying, "we passed it?"

Did it have the necessary 32 votes or not ... the last time I looked a majority DOES not exist, ergo: it can't pass anything with only 31 votes in a 62-member chamber.

Hi, my name is Larry and this is my brother Darrel and that my other brother Darrel - welcome to the Albany cesspool. I don't remember your name, sorry, I must have a communications problem.

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

Just another misunderstanding to add to the growing list.

Dan Francis said...

The NYS Senate "leaders" (if we can call anyone down there "leader") are the guilty party to this mess ... without question ... and that is why I like Gov. Paterson in this regard:

* In an angry, lectern-pounding appearance outside his office in the Capitol on Wednesday evening, Mr. Paterson also threatened to file a suit to force senators to come back to work, and said he would look into whether he could direct the state treasury to withhold their pay indefinitely.

“You’re not going home. You’re not getting paid. And you’re not going to disrespect the people of New York anymore,” Paterson said.

IMHO, Gov. Paterson is the ONLY one showing any spine or initiative in trying to resolve this mess.

I totally agree: they SHOULD NOT be paid... not one penny.

They damn sure haven't earned it.

But, I guess Sen. Darrel forgot about that little aspect along with his other bragging rights?

~ dmf

Dan Francis said...

One more thing, read this story carefull and highlight the tapdancing and ducking and blaming... that is pathetic.

Those who caused this are looking for scapegoats ... as they try and repaint themselves as just trying to do their jobs.

And, believe me, the Gov. is not the cause.

Defying Paterson, Senators End Session

Interesting article...

~ dmf

Dan Francis said...

From the NYS Constitution - two key provisions:

Two-thirds bills

§20. The assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the legislature shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public moneys or property for local or private purposes.

Article IV, Section 3

Powers and duties of governor

§3. The governor shall be commander-in-chief of the military and naval forces of the state. The governor shall have power to convene the legislature, or the senate only, on extraordinary occasions.

At extraordinary sessions convened pursuant to the provisions of this section no subject shall be acted upon, except such as the governor may recommend for consideration. The governor shall communicate by message to the legislature at every session the condition of the state, and recommend such matters to it as he or she shall judge expedient. The governor shall expedite all such measures as may be resolved upon by the legislature, and shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. The governor shall receive for his or her services an annual salary to be fixed by joint resolution of the senate and assembly, and there shall be provided for his or her use a suitable and furnished executive residence. (Formerly §4. Renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; further amended by vote of the people November 3, 1953; November 5, 1963; November 6, 2001.)

The Guv is on solid ground - the Senate is NOT.

~ dmf

The NYS Constutition is here

Anonymous said...

Dan -- The Senate has different rules than the Assembly. As long as the initial role call was valid, you can pass consent bills without 32 members in the chamber. Essentially, as long as a member is considered "present" for he role call they are automatically voting "yes" on all bills on consent even if they are not in the chamber. Although this is just a technicality, I would think somone who would like to represent us in Congress would know this.

Anonymous said...

Also, for your last post Dan. The Senate technically does not have to "vote" on the bills, they are only required by the constitution ajourn session. They are allowed by law to gavel in and gavel out, or just lay the bills aside.

Also, the Gov has no power what so ever to withhold pay.

He does have the power to call a constitutional convention, but what is the point. The same people who are involved in this whole mess will make a mockery of the constiutional convention as well unless this battle is settled before then.

The constitution is written extremely vague for a reason. Both sides arguments are constitutionally sound for this simple fact. With the courts refusing to rule, it is left up to interpretation.

You need to do some homework Dan.

Anonymous said...

I would like to thank Darrel's staff for responding to Danny's posts

Anonymous said...

I would like to thank Darrel's staff for responding to Danny's posts

Anonymous said...

If you like it or no a resolution was put on the floor on June 8th and a roll call vote started. There was no way the dems could have walked out. I don't care for the guy but I see no way that it was not an official vote to make him president of the senate. Just wonder why no one has went to court to get a ruling on the legal issue of the vote from that day. It would answer a lot of questions.

Anonymous said...

Who says Senators and their staffs aren't working? You can see Drew's fingerprints all over this blob... and that one ... and that one...

Anonymous said...

I am not from Darrels staff by the way, just someone who reads the news closely. If you did the same you would get the same information. And Anon 8:54, they did go to court, the court is refusing to rule on matters of politics, probably the right move for them.

Anonymous said...

They did not go to court to get a ruling on the vote. They went to stop him from taking over if something happens to Patterson. You must not read to much.

Anonymous said...

They went to court 3 separate times now....the court will not rule on anything...genius...

Anonymous said...

And you must have reading comprehension issues. I never said they ruled on whether or not the vote counted, I simply said they will not rule on issues of politics, which means they will not even touch this leadership battle. They have been to court 3 times on different issues and all 3 times dismissed. Idiot.

Dan Francis said...

I don't know who that certain Anonymous thinks he/she is by lecturing me on rules of government in the senate or congress or anywhere else... whoever they are they are dead f**king wrong and I wish they would put their name with their bullshit posts and I hope IV holds their feet to the fire.

Perhaps it is they, not me, who needs to read one more time this document...

The NYS Constitution

I stand by my posts... sadly, you can't, Anonymous Ä$$hølë ...

~ dmf

Dan Francis said...

Anonynous - Anonymous and yet another Anonymous = CAT FIGHT???

They are after all, pussies.

Come out a fight (debate) like a man or woman - stop hiding in the shadows ... stand on your principles - turn on the light of debate.

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

oooooooo-ooo: King Danny, ruling the world from his little keyboard.

"I don't know who that certain Anonymous thinks he/she is by lecturing me on rules of government in the senate or congress or anywhere else... "

These are the words from a man who thinks he is of a temperament to LEAD others.

He has had a running monologue with HIMSELF on this blog for the past several weeks. THEN he challenges ALL comers to a debate. You have already scared off all the other blog followers.

I don't think most people will take you at your word to be the final reference on matters of NYS Constitution or Public Law.

Dan Francis said...

Anon. 3:50: your post in part directed at me >>>>

"I don't think most people will take you at your word to be the final reference on matters of NYS Constitution or Public Law."

Actually, nitwit, the courts would be the final say-so on constitutional matters were there a dispute amongst the three branches re: law and/or anything being constitutional/unconstitutional - not and certainly not you.

Scurry on.

FYI: I do have the temperment [manner of thinking, behaving, and reacting] to lead and/or to follow, too, for that matter. But, while I'm in either of those modes, I will continue to speak out and not tuck tail and blindly follow... that's not my nature.

More important, I have a public record of leadership across many avenues; just not in elected office (yet).

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the NY State Senate.

Anonymous said...

Let us review.
Poster posts crap.
Danny calls him/her on it.
Poster posts additional crap.
Danny calls him/her a pussy.
Poster says Dan hasn't the proper temperment to "lead".

All this proves one thing.
Danny is right.
Poster is a pussy.

Dan Francis said...

Clarification on the "Power for Jobs" passing, being introduced, sidetracked, stuffed back in Sen. Darrel's tunic, or whatever is here:

Aubertine offers a compromise (but doesn't show to support it?)

My comment is stated clearer above.

~ dmf

Dan Francis said...

FLASH from the "Jefferson Democrat"

Senator Aubertine: A True North Country Leader

Sub Heading: Senator Aubertine describes in plain language how to move the NY State Senate forward.

Radio link there about "Aubertine's Plan"

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

Dan -- probably not the best tact to call your future voters, whom yo uinvited to the debate, "pussies."

Shows a certain lack of tolerance/respect for view of others, don't you think?

Dan Francis said...

Anon. 3:50 - my pussy reference meant someone like a soft-fuzzy
little kitty cat (pussy)... did you read something else in there? If so, you missed that boat on that one.

Hiding behind an Anonymous moniker is soft and fuzzy... for whatever reason, IMHO...

Attack me and let me defend myself, but show your face - stand by your convictions like I do, publicly.

That remains my basic point with Anonymous posters no matter where they pop up. To me, it's like facting your accused in court, right?

~ dmf

Live Blogging