Talk:Andrew Cuomo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject New York (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Old comments[edit]

I'm no fan of Andrew Cuomo, but this article definitely appears to include a ton of bias.

This main articles mention of Cuomo's time with HUD appears to be misleading.

Lucy Komisar’s article:

  "Fees for Our Friends: the Scandal that Taints Andre ..." 
  (The Komisar Scoop, August 22, 2006; )

is a very interesting contrast to that taken by the writer of the original bio.

The desire to take people whom did not pay their bills, and/or were on welfare and give them mortgages which everyone else should assume the risk for, was one of the largest contributions to the housing crisis. You cannot mathmatically erase the risk of default on a loan by using calculus. Most people do not understand the "mortgage" market, and thus, here is a quick summary. A person gets a mortgage, that a "bank" wrote, then "the bank" sells this mortgage to the CMO. The CMO refunds the money that the bank loaned, and also pays for some of the future expected interest. They also pay the bank to service the loan (process payments and forclose if necessary, etc). The CMO got the money to repay the bank from a LOAN. Thus, there is NO equity in the CMO. The CMO only contains future interest payments, with expenses which will be deducted. The future interest payments are divided into traunches, which help obfuscate the fact that dividing money does not create money and the final trauches are a ponzi scheme which will fail, because there is no remaining interest only expenses. The initial trauches skimmed all the funds from the CMO. Everything is supervised by the government, and our congressional leaders ignore problems with Freddie and laugh with them when they make congressional reports. This is a system designed to fail every 20 years. The CMO investors are bank accounts, and retirement funds, and these are not "fat-cats". When these "bad" mortgages broke the system, and pushed a stock to a value below zero. The "fix" was for the government to buy these "bad" (toxic) mortgages, and pay full value, and roll these into the national debt. Your children will be paying for these bad decisions for years to come. As another gotcha, anyone who bought into the patriotic sales pitch nature of the CMO investment, was later called a fat-cat, and their investment was in danger of not being returned. Currently the CMO's are a mechanism used indirectly to contribute to QE, since money is spent, that was not fully backed or sold. When inflation kicks in, then housing prices will go up and the CMO's will again be in the black.

Unfortunately, Cuomo as HUD secretary under Bill Clinton damaged the CMO's by high risk loans not being handled as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Komisar is an investigative reporter with 40 years experience, with articles published in the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and many more newspapers and magazines. The person who wrote the above critique should specify which items are misleading. Broadsided attacks are not appropriate. So give at least one example of something that's misleading.


If anyone wants to recover anything NPOV from this, go ahead. Cory.willis 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This stuff below is uncited and controversial. It doesn't belong in a wikipedia article--->> gubernatorial humiliation. Worried about further political damage, he authorized an accusatory public statement about his wife at a time that demanded discretion for the sake of the couple's three children and their relationship with their mother. Career and image trumped family.

"As we wrote then, Cuomo "looks desperate to protect his public image and political career." Such a skewing of values leads to the question of whether, based on character, Cuomo should be entrusted with the responsibility of applying the law evenhandedly to friend and adversary, without calculation as to political benefit. That we feel compelled to ask is answer in itself.",+cuomo+no&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

I suggest you propose a way to include content in accordance with WP policies & guidelines. Cutting & pasted from news articles does not help. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't address this article prior to the election because it was too close to the vote. However, I think this article is highly sanitized. The material referenced above is not limited to one or two sources, but has been published in a number of reliable sources. The definition of a reliable source can, itself, turn into an exercise in POV. Granted, these journalists often have a POV. That is to be expected. Their POV should not prevent a neutralized version of their information being placed in this encyclopedia. I am considering some way to address these issues without a lot of hyperbole or invective, but the article is very one-sided the way it stands now. If someone can get to it before I do, please do.claimman75 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a biased report on Andrew Cuomo. I do not like him and this is more like a campaign than a sterile report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Contradictions[edit]

First you complain that information is not sourced. Then you complain that one should not quote and link to news articles. So which is it? You are getting caught up in your contradictions.

Are you suggesting that other Wikipedia entries are based on original research rather than newspaper articles and other written sources? Where does the information come from?

The Daily News editorial was interesting. I hadn't seen it. So why didn't you post it? Sure gives one a more substantive view of Cuomo than his resume.

Again, please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Large chunks of text cut/pasted from a news article/editorial is not the appropriate method of contributing to an encyclopedia article of a living person. Feel free to present content in accordance to these policies for inclusion in this article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is advocating cutting and pasting news articles into entries. Just that what is in the articles should be made part of the entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Again, then suggest an appropriate reference to this information, rather than just cutting/pasting here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough.
Cuomo has been praised by many leaders in the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton said that Cuomo "led one of the most dramatic and successful reforms of a federal agency in modern U.S. history, with HUD going from the brink of elimination to the forefront of the struggle for justice in America." Despite this, many people think differently of Andrew Cuomo. An article by Lucy Komisar claims that while at HUD, Cuomo got rid of a system which was designed to award contracts on the merits in order to be able to give contracts to his political friends. The New York Times and New York Daily News editorial boards say that he is more interested in his political career than the greater good. The New York Times editorial board gave as an example a $685,000 book paid for by taxpayers to highlight his accomplishments, while the Daily News editorial board says that he put his political career before his wife and children during his divorce. A Village Voice article by Wayne Barrett claims that Cuomo, while at HUD, encouraged a favorable settlement for a company, and later received millions of dollars from one of heads of the company. These are a few examples among other claims about him.
      • I added a "Controversy" section to the article to indicate some of the criticisms of Mr. Cuomo. I excluded some issues to avoid making this section ponderous and disproportionately large. The Komisar reference was left out because I do think it is from a blog and I doubt it has editorial oversight. The citation to Catherine Fitts' article in "From the Wilderness", basically, covers the same information and "From the Wilderness" does have editorial oversight and an excellent fact-checking record. I think this strikes a balance between a campaign poster entry and a POV rant.claimman75 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More Information[edit]

Personal experiences by Catherine Austin Fitts with Cuomo as head of HUD.

   "Unanswered Questions about Andrew Cuomo" by Catherine Austin Fitts
   (, September 21, 2006; )

There are many discernable facts and leads contained this article to constitute many NPOV. But because it happened to Ms. Fitts she definitely has a POV.

Problems with bare links for references[edit]

I have replaced the links used as references for this article with full citations. I removed three broken ones (out of seven!) and replaced two of them with {{fact}} tags because I could not find any substitute reliable source for them:

The essential problem is the use of bare links; i.e., a URL with no other identifying information. These frequently break, and without data like news article titles or website page titles, it is often impossible even to know where to look for a replacement source. (Archive sites like the Wayback Machine or Google sometimes help, but often do not.)

In short, bare links should be never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. You don't necessarily have to create a fully filled-out citation, but at least include basic title or descriptive information with the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clinton Cabinet position[edit]

So Andrew Cuomo caused the subprime mortgage crisis? Fascinating. Plesse cite the Republican talking point you got this from. Jperrylsu (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever it was you were responding to lo so many years ago may have been referring to that republican bastion known as the Village Voice. -- (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

64th NY Attorney General[edit]

According to, Andrew Cuomo is the 64th attorney general, not the 74th. I've changed the infobox to reflect this. NY state does not count people who serve non-consecutive terms twice. This has consistantly been a porblem in the infoboxes for NY elected officials.EMT1871 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That NY state would not count non-consecutive terms, is the opinion of somebody who is not well-informed. In the case of the Att. Gen. there have been 62 persons who have held this office, two of them held it twice (Matthias Hildreth and Abraham Van Vechten), nevertheless the official count is 64th, meaning that AGs are counted like US Presidents. The erroneous notion that NY state would not count twice persons who served non-consecutive terms is derived from a different type of list at the governor's site which does not list the governors in chronological order but lists non-consecutive terms out of order at the single name entry... Kraxler (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

This section needs to be rewritten. I will probably do it myself, but I propose we keep the tag up until then. -Phil5329 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs a section on the charges that companies have been induced to contribute to Mr Cuomo's possible 2010 campaign with theats of legal action - tens of thousands of Dollars have been contributed by companies that have been "investigated" by Mr Cuomo's office. (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tirade against Usenet[edit]

Why isn't this mentioned at all? --TIB (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy family category[edit]

He divorced his wife who is a member of the Kennedy family, so would one say he is no longer a "member" of the Kennedy family.--Levineps (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


Do you think it should be mentioned that Cuomo's advisers is a very powerful lobbyist in NYC?[1] Truthsort (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Swearing in vs. taking office[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Issue is closed, The current version is fine and does not violate any policy or guideline, including WP:CRYSTAL. This discussion is closed, move on. Dreadstar 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Cuomo had a small swearing in ceremony just before midnight on Friday evening, 12/31/10, he officially took office on Saturday, 1/1/11, and held a public inauguration on this day as well.[2] [3] This fact is undebatable, and the primary point at which we should acknowledge his term in office. Please see this as a warning to those who desire to continue defying the facts. Sinisterminister (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please check the source for this fact -- Article is dated 12/31/10 and makes no mention of "assuming office." Only "swearing in." Please don't make threats and stay cordial. STICK TO WHAT THE SECONDARY SOURCES SAY. No egos please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The New York Constitution says when an elected Governor & elected Lieutenant Governor assume office. Midnight, new year's day following the previous November election. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the New York Constitution says nothing about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay makes a very good point, and the cited source is actually very clear about this: "Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, officially becoming governor at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday." This renders his swearing-in ceremony inconsequential to the point at which he technically, legally assumed office. Sinisterminister (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
When citing sources, it is advisable to stick to the facts as reported in the newspaper. It is not up to encyclopedia editors to put their own interpretation on the facts, whatever the US constitution says. --Kudpung (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but under that interpretation, the US Presidency would've been vacant for roughly 10-15 minutes every Inauguration Day. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Kudpung, while I appreciate your input, I think you are missing the point of the debate, which is the legal distinction that has been made between a swearing in ceremony and the official, legal point at which an elected official has taken office. That said, I agree with GoodDay. Ceremonies are just that - ceremonies. And the cited source (here) reveals BOTH that while the swearing in ceremony took place on the evening of 12/31, but Cuomo did not officially become governor until 1/1. This was all stated in one sentence in one New York Times article cited. I am not "interpreting" anything, and am not sure where you are seeing this. The facts are quite clear. Sinisterminister (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sinisterminister, the source you cite is dated and filed 12/31/10. There is no way this article could possibly report that the governor assumed office on 1/1 because it was written before that. Or, are you saying that it is wikipedia policy to cite sources that speculate about future events happening? (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the bottom of the source, it says "A version of this article appeared in print on January 1, 2011, on page A13 of the New York edition.". The current version is fine and does not violate any policy or guideline, including WP:CRYSTAL. This discussion should be closed. Dreadstar 16:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to blog, but New York would save us all a headache, if its Constitution would change it so that gubernatorial transition occured a Noon EST January 1, every inugural, instead of the current situation. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong disagree on "crystal ball"[edit]

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." The article is dated December 31 and while a version appeared in print January 1, the portion you quote is clearly not in the past tense and is clearly speculating on a future event (albeit an event that may simply be hours away). Since the New York Times article does not cite any source, this quite clearly appears to me to be original research under the definition of CRYSTAL you provide. Frankly, I think you are too emotionally involved in this topic to make ultimate verdicts about it and I would ask that another editor find a different source that is not original research. Seriously, how hard can that be? Or do we not care about wikipedia's policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The facts as outlined in the article are incontrovertible, there can be no serious objection to the article content. Clearly the source was updated on Jan 1st, is an accurate description of what occured, and is an adequate source for the article's content on that subject. The source was relocated per WP:LEAD to the article body. Lastly, WP:OR applies to Wikipeida editors adding content not published in reliable sources, not the content of those sources. Continuing to pursue this as you have been will result in your being blocked for tendentious editing and disruption. Dreadstar 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to add that 'midnight' describes a time-frame from 11:59pm to 12:01am; details can be found here: Midnight#Start and end of day. Dreadstar 02:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Cuomo is positioning to run for President in 2016[edit]

Governor Cuomo is positioning himself to become the 2016 Democratic candidate. (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not that is his true intention we will not know for years. This can go into a section about how he has governed, but without the talk of a presidential campaign that is speculation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the mainstream media is now talking about his presidential leadership skills, after leading the gender-neutral marriage equality movement to victory in NY (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Pushing for loans unwisely Footnote 4 is File Not Found[edit]

"He also pushed government-sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more home loans issued to poor homeowners, in an attempt to end discrimination against minorities.[4]"

This seems suspect to me so I tried to look up the source. It is not working. Do we rewrite, or find an alternate source? The idea that Democrats pushed for loans for poor people, unwisely, needs an actual and not implied argument. Cause pushing for loans for poor people can be wise. Mtkoan (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tagging for Reliable Sources[edit]

The article contains a large number of blog and editorial articles as cited sources. Per WP:SPS:

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

I am tagging the article so active editors can remove these sources (hopefully finding reliable sources to replace them). As I am uninvolved in the article, I imagine that others will do a better job of locating sources that do not contravene WP:SPS. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The previous comment may have been based upon an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia policy. The cited section of WP:SPS links to a relevant section of WP:BLP, which reads as follows: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogstweets, and —as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." I have reviewed the footnotes in this article, and it appears to me that they would meet this standard.
I do not see what the concern is regarding opinion articles, as I do not see them mentioned in the policy.
A relevant section of WP:V reads as follows: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Thus, even a questionable self-published source is a reliable source of information not about Governor Cuomo, but about itself (e.g. reactions to Gov. Cuomo's policies by others).
I will leave the tag in place for a while, but I respectfully disagree with its validity. (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to put together such a complete response. I will take a further look at this, and I hope to get some additional editors comments as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The tag seems inappropriate. Perhaps I'm missing something but looking at it there appears to be only one blog used a source here. And it's to back up "Governor Cuomo was criticized for describing the viewpoints of same-sex marriage opponents as being 'anti-American.'" This is precisely the sort of statement for which self-published material is appropriate. Also that statement has other (traditional media) sources as references.Flyte35 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

gun law[edit]

His passing of the new gun law should be added. It's certainly elevated his national profile. Perhaps there should also be a note on the controversy of how it was passed, since it's gotten him some criticism from hunters and Assembly Republicans. (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the NY SAFE Act, I am thinking of adding something about that and a page on that, wanna help? IronKnuckle (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I added something about it. Feel free to improve. IronKnuckle (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

$1.6 billion tax hike[edit]

It should be noted that Cuomo's "tax cut" anticipated a $1.6 billion increase in tax revenue and should properly be described as a tax hike.

Also, his "tax cap" was largely window dressing as it simply increased the ratio of votes necessary for a tax increase. It also contained an exception if monies were needed for pension contributions, which are one of the key cost increases local governments face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The tax overhaul will create the $1.6 billion increase in tax revenue by creating a new tax bracket for the highest-income residents, while reducing the rate for millions of others. See this article explaining the budget changes. So calling it a "cut" is largely a matter of rhetoric, as is often true of tax changes. 4.4 million New Yorkers (or about 22 percent of the state) will see a tax cut. HIgh income earners also see a tax cut, technically, though not not as much as they would have seen had the existing "millionaires tax" simply been allowed to expire, as it would have done without legislative intervention. It appears most low-income New Yorkers see no tax change.Flyte35 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

resident of ny?[edit]

Where pray tell would Cuomo be a resident of? Messina? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Mt. Kisco, it appears.Flyte35 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)