Your generous contributions make this work possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| published Monday, February 12, 2007 |
42370 Views |
|
 |
Newsday, NY - February 10, 2007
In the sweeping reform agenda that Gov. Eliot Spitzer laid out in his State of the State address last month, one of the most fundamental and difficult to accomplish is a full public campaign finance system. He should stick to it.
The idea has powerful natural enemies. Incumbents don't like it because it can fund challengers who could not otherwise raise enough money. Conservatives gripe that it would use taxpayer dollars. But taxpayers already fund campaigns - indirectly. The special-interest dollars that flow to candidates too often grease the skids for contracts and other favors that cost untold millions of public dollars.
With full public campaign financing, which backers call "clean elections," there would be a public cost, but it would be in the open. Citizen Action of New York estimates it would cost $20 million a year in our state, based on the experience in Maine and Arizona.
There, citizen-generated referenda created the system. Since that option doesn't exist here, the path to reform in New York is through the State Legislature. So far, the only state legislature to adopt a full system for elected state officials and lawmakers is Connecticut, which acted after Gov. John Rowland went to prison for accepting gifts and vacations from people who did business with the state. In 2000, before his legal problems, Rowland actually vetoed a public campaign finance bill.
Under the system Spitzer supports, public funding would be available to candidates who agree not to take private contributions, after they get enough small initial contributions to show broad support. If privately funded opponents outspend those who have opted to take only public money, the system would provide increased public funding, up to a point.
Beyond reducing the influence of special interests, this system could give a real shot at election to candidates who can't run under the current dialing-for-dollars system, and it could let incumbents spend more time with constituents, instead of begging endlessly for contributions.
To get this reform into law, Spitzer must overcome the reflexive opposition of incumbents. If he gets that done, he'll richly deserve the mantle of reformer.
ENVIRONMENT
Solution for Peppersauce long-term
Pueblo Chieftain, CO - February 10, 2007
More than five months after a torrential rain flooded their neighborhood, Peppersauce Bottoms residents still are waiting for answers.
On Thursday, representatives from the city government and the Pueblo Stormwater Utility announced a comprehensive plan to build retention ponds along the railroad tracks north of the neighborhood and to extend and improve stormwater lines into the area.
But the $4 million plan could take years to complete and residents in the small village, who have spent the past few months repairing their damaged homes, pushed the city to come up with some kind of interim solution to a problem that has persisted for years.
While the Aug. 26 rain caused flooding of catastrophic proportions, residents said the neighborhood floods every time it rains and asked the city to come up with a plan to protect them when it inevitably happens again this summer.
"Our concern as a community is what are we going to do in June and July?" said Teresa Almeda, an outspoken member of the neighborhood since the flood last summer. …
At times during Thursday's meeting, Maroney seemed on the verge of exasperation and noted that none of the homeowners had taken advantage of a program the city offers to help them flood-proof their homes.
The Colorado Progressive Coalition's Margaret Mora, the neighborhood's appointed spokeswoman, suggested that the neighbors probably weren't aware such a program existed.
She also repeatedly asked Maroney how the city planned to force the railroad to cooperate with them on the project. …
|
|
|
|
|