Slings and arrows
Rep. Kathleen Rice speaks during the Bipartisan Heroin Task Force news conference in Washington on Jan. 10. Credit: AP / Bill Clark
Good afternoon and welcome to The Point! Not a subscriber? Click here.
Pencil Point
Double standard?
Daily Point
Will Rice get burned?
Will the wildfire burning intensely around Rep. Kathleen Rice eventually consume her?
The Long Island Democrat is the focus of a national campaign by party leaders pleading for her to stop her threats to mount a floor challenge in January to Nancy Pelosi’s leadership bid. On Wednesday afternoon, Pelosi won the majority of votes in the Democratic caucus, but not the 218 votes she will need to get the speaker’s gavel.
“We remain united behind our goal of new leadership and intend to vote against Leader Pelosi in Caucus and on the floor of the House,” said Rice in a statement.
Rice and more than a dozen other insurgents have been stymied in their attempts to find another candidate for speaker as Pelosi successfully executes a scorched-earth strategy. No other Democrat has come forward to challenge her, and many who previously renounced her have recanted.
If Rice and the other 31 members who voted against Pelosi in the caucus do so in January’s floor vote, many Democrats believe the party will be badly weakened.
By Wednesday night, leading Democrats were implying a 2020 primary challenge to the former Nassau County district attorney, who was just elected to her third term. Take a look at this tweet from Howard Dean, former national chair of the party who retweeted a Politico reporter quoting Rice's statement: “Any Democrat who votes for a Republican for speaker in January should switch parties. I will do all on my power to get you defeated in 2020.”
A spokesman for Rice says that she will never vote for a Republican.
By Thursday, her own county leader chimed in about the unknown risks of her getting this far out on a ledge. “This is dangerous; this is not without cost to Kathleen, to the 4th Congressional District and to the image of the party,” Nassau County Democratic chair Jay Jacobs told The Point.
Rita Ciolli
Final Point
Hiking trail
If there’s going to be any truly consequential input for the state compensation committee to consider on legislative pay raises, it will have to come in Friday’s New York City public meeting.
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie will support hikes and provide economic data to boost his case, but he’s not expected to offer the taxpayer anything in return. Lawmakers have not had a hike since 1998.
Government reform groups and editorial boards, however, are demanding in return a ban on outside income, an issue that has broken down pay-raise negotiations before, including with a very similar commission that was formed and folded with no deal two years ago.
And soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, who in the past has supported an outside income ban and other ethics reforms, isn’t expected to appear at all. Sources said she is not likely to stake out a position on what the new Senate majority will do on ethics reforms until her caucus meets next month after the commission’s Dec. 10 deadline to announce a decision.
At the first public meeting Wednesday in Albany, all four people who spoke shared positions that had either already been made clear — or were somewhat odd.
New York Public Interest Research Group executive director Blair Horner wants any raise tied to restrictions on outside income for legislators and other ethics reforms, long the position of his good-government crowd.
Matthew Rettig, an airline pilot who lost a bid for a Hudson Valley Assembly seat this month, disagreed with outside income restrictions, arguing that it would mean only “professional politicians” could serve.
And Queensbury resident Robert Schulz, known for his past lawsuits against the state on constitutional issues, told the committee he believes any pay raise it passed would be unconstitutional.
Only one speaker came out with an idea that was truly unexpected: indexing pay rates for Assembly and Senate members based on their areas of the state.
Mark Dunlea, a founder of the New York Green Party and its 2018 candidate for state comptroller, rationalized his position by pointing out that the state set different minimum wage levels in different regions when it increased the hourly minimum three years ago. But Dunlea’s own party fiercely opposes this minimum-wage regionalization. A statewide $15-per-hour minimum indexed to inflation is a main plank of its platform.
All of which means that the pay raise commission will get very little guidance on whether lawmakers will vote for ethics reforms next year if they get a pay raise this year.
Lane Filler
Talking Point
The crying around Schumer
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer celebrated the blessing of his first grandchild Wednesday, an interruption from Washington’s bitter politics. And that’s just among Democrats.
The tug-of-war between Democratic activists and party leaders continues this week with a coalition of 17 Indivisible groups banding together to criticize the minority leader.
The national coalition, which includes NYC groups and one from Long Island, was angry that California Rep. Nancy Pelosi (whom they support) has received brutal post-midterm scrutiny as she seeks the House speakership, while Schumer is getting a free ride from his caucus.
Schumer should “step up, unify his caucus, reject corporate politics and join us in the resistance — or step down,” the groups wrote in a statement.
And this was before Tuesday’s flap in which Schumer reiterated the earlier spending deal between Democrats and Republicans, including $1.6 billion on border security. The optics of that rankled some progressive Democrats, given midterm House victories and President Donald Trump’s wall obsession. Schumer spokesman Angelo Roefaro says the funding is for “border security, not a concrete wall or increases in detention beds.”
And now there is talk that Trump might demand even more money for the wall before the president includes funding for the Gateway tunnel project that Schumer is desperately pushing.
The tensions will likely continue between Schumer and protesters on the left looking to turn new organizing energy into policy changes.
Some members of the Indivisible groups have been on Schumer’s case since 2016. Their new statement includes a litany of grievances of what the groups see as Schumer’s unnecessary moderation: chastising California Rep. Maxine Waters for incivility, for example.
Some of the frustration seems to be a question of messaging and degree, given that Schumer has limited votes. The groups point to Schumer allowing Republicans to fast-track some judicial appointments. Schumer’s office notes that only the majority leader of the Senate has power to advance or block judicial nominations. The minority party is largely stuck with delay tactics.
There is also the possibility of government shutdown threats — “political muscle” that the groups want Schumer to use — though some Democrats see that as politically treacherous.
With more spending deadlines approaching, the debate likely won’t go away. Some Indivisible members and other groups also plan on protesting outside Schumer’s office Friday. Between the new grandson and the protesters, Schumer is going to be hearing a lot more noise.
Mark Chiusano
