NYC comptroller hopeful Justin Brannan gets first congressional endorsement from Rep. Velázquez
Rep. Nydia Velázquez, a powerbroker of Brooklyn and Queens politics, is throwing her weight behind Justin Brannan's city comptroller run, giving him his first endorsement from a member of New York's congressional delegation.
In a statement to the Daily News announcing her endorsement, Velázquez credited Brannan's push as City Council Finance Committee chairman to reverse budget cuts to libraries and other public services enacted by Mayor Adams over the past few years.
'Justin didn't just speak up, he led the charge to restore that funding and won … I've seen firsthand how hard he fights for working families, especially in neighborhoods that have too often been overlooked,' said Velázquez, who has represented a section of Brooklyn and Queens in the U.S. House of Representatives for more than three decades.
'Justin has the backbone, the values, and the vision to make sure our city's budget reflects the priorities of the people — not the powerful. I'm proud to endorse Justin Brannan because I know he'll always put working New Yorkers first.'
Brannan, whose Council district spans a part of Brooklyn that includes Coney Island, is facing off against Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine in the June 24 Democratic comptroller primary. Levine has to date raised more money than Brannan for his comptroller run and racked up high-profile endorsements, too, including from Rep. Adriano Espaillat, who's highly influential in Manhattan politics.
Neither Espaillat nor Velazquez have endorsed yet in the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary, which has been upended by incumbent Eric Adams' corruption indictment and a late entry into the race from ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The two congressional lawmaker's endorsements in the down-ballot comptroller race, though, could indicate they're nearing decisions on who to back in the mayoral race, too.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
President Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but Trump's administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5%-25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass. governor's race intensifies as GOP candidates seize on LA protests
If you're a member of the Bay State's political and chattering class, and you needed a reminder that Massachusetts is officially in the thick of a gubernatorial campaign season, then you didn't have to look much further than your email inbox on Monday. There, you would have found dueling press releases from Mike Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve, the two former Baker administration officials dueling for the GOP nomination for the Corner Office in 2026. The target, inevitably, was Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who'd signed onto a statement with her fellow Democratic governors criticizing the Trump administration's decision to federalize National Guard forces in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles. The statement, issued through the Democratic Governors Association, took the Republican White House to task for its unusual decision to sidestep Golden State Gov. Gavin Newsom when it called in the National Guard — which 700 U.S. Marines have since supplemented. The White House's end-run was 'an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the commanders-in-chief of their National Guard, and activating them within their own borders without consulting or working with a state's governor is ineffective and dangerous,' the DGA's statement asserted. Kennealy, who served as Baker's housing and economic development czar, was first out of the gate at little after 4 p.m., arguing that, by opposing the federal response, the Democratic incumbent was 'legitimizing criminal behavior under the guise of protest.' Shortsleeve, who ran the MBTA under Baker, followed up around 6:30 p.m. He got in a similar shot, condemning Healey for appearing to side with 'rioting protesters waving foreign flags' who were 'violently attacking American law enforcement officers.' Shortsleeve also slammed Healey for her management of the state's hugely expensive migrant crisis and, by implication, her criticism of the aggressive tactics of federal immigration agents as they've rounded up undocumented people across the state. 'If cooperation between the federal and state governments is what she wants, you wouldn't know it by her refusal to work in an orderly way to ensure criminal illegal immigrants in our state were delivered to federal law enforcement for deportation instead of released onto our streets,' Shortsleeve said. Kennealy, who didn't explicitly mention the migrant crisis, but who has been publicly critical, observed that 'when the federal government offers help to restore order and protect citizens, we take it — because doing the right thing for our people should always come before scoring partisan points.' Read More: Rümeysa Öztürk chose grace over bitterness. What we can learn | John L. Micek Taken together, the broadsides from the two Republican hopefuls were a reminder that the migrant crisis, which has subsided in its intensity, remains a potent line of attack, and that the Democratic incumbent remains vulnerable on the issue. More than half of respondents (52%) to a UMass Amherst/WCVB-TV poll in February, for instance, said they disapproved of the Arlington Democrat's management of the shelter crisis. Their mood was reflective of national trends. A broader UMass poll in April found Americans to be of 'two minds' on the issue, supporting a path to citizenship, even as they supported the White House's moves against migrants with criminal records. A CBS News poll completed before Saturday's unrest in Los Angeles, however, provided a reminder that public patience for the White House's tactics extends only so far. That's because support for enforcement against non-criminals drops off precipitously, the poll found. While 55% of respondents approved of Trump's deportation goals, only 44% approved of his approach to the deportation effort. Healey, in public appearances, repeatedly has drawn that line. She's stressed that she supports taking criminals off the streets, even as she's decried the apparent shroud of secrecy that's enveloped the apprehension of such noncriminal migrants as Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk and Milford High School student-athlete Marcelo Gomes da Silva. Read More: Gov. Healey demands answers after ICE arrests Mass. high school student 'This is part of the problem that we're seeing with ICE across the country. And certainly here in Massachusetts, people are being picked up. We have no information about their circumstances,' Healey said after an unrelated news conference at the State House last month. 'There have been real questions raised about due process and whether or not ICE and immigration officials are ... complying with due process here and in other states. And we need answers.' It's not clear, however, if the Massachusetts voters were grasping the subtlety of that policy fine line. An internal poll by Kennealy's campaign pointed to a similar vulnerability for Healey on immigration issues, The Boston Herald reported last month. And 49% of respondents to a University of New Hampshire poll last week said they approved of her job performance, compared to 45% who said they disapproved. With the poll's 3.3% margin of error, that's a statistical dead heat. Even still, Healey's loyalists pounced on the UNH canvass, dismissing it as an outlier, as they pointed to other public polling that showed her more broadly popular overall. 'Governor Healey is going to earn reelection because she understands Massachusetts people need someone who's going to fight to lower costs for them, going to fight to increase housing opportunities for them, going to fight back against Donald Trump,' state Democratic Party Chairperson Steve Kerrigan said during an interview on WBZ-TV's 'Keller @ Large' program that aired last weekend. 'And frankly, neither Mike Kennealy nor Brian Shortsleeve are willing to do any of that.' The lingering question is what happens if Massachusetts, which already has been targeted by the White House, finds itself facing a Los Angeles-style protest that results in Trump doing a gubernatorial end-run by federalizing the state National Guard or, at its extreme end, dispatching U.S. troops to Boston or some other city. If elected, would Kennealy or Shortsleeve acquiesce in the face of such an action? Or would they protest a usurpation of their executive authority? At that point, the question moves from political to practical. Healey staked out her territory with that DGA statement. The responses from Shortsleeve and Kennealy would speak volumes about how they intend to lead during what presumably would be the final two years of Trump's term. That's something that Massachusetts voters would have to decide for themselves. Which makes their answers bear watching. Can the Mass. GOP flip this Taunton state House seat? | Bay State Briefing Mass. lawmakers get bad grades on industry report card. But who's failing whom? | John L. Micek Math is hard. Midterm math is harder. The lessons Mass. needs to learn for 2026 | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kosovo accepts US request to host third-party deportees
By Fatos Bytyci PRISTINA (Reuters) -Kosovo has accepted a request to receive migrants deported from the United States, with an initial plan to take in 50 deportees per year, the government said in a statement to Reuters on Wednesday. "The government has expressed its readiness to participate, with the opportunity to select individuals from a proposed pool, provided they meet specific criteria related to the rule of law and public order," it said. The United States is on the look-out for partners to receive third party nationals as it seeks to deliver on President Donald Trump's promise of record-level deportations. Kosovo, a Balkan country of 1.6 million people, already has a deal to receive 300 prison inmates from Denmark beginning in 2027 in return for 210 million euros over the next decade, and has expressed interest in receiving deportees from Britain. Kosovo-U.S. relations are particularly strong, given the U.S. lead in supporting independence from Serbia in 2008. "We hold their support in very high regard," the statement said.
