Well it looks as if the mayor's majordomo, one Kevin Sheekey, is about to skulk away from the whole Caroline Kennedy boomlet that he did so much to set off; or, in the words of the immortal Captain Spalding: "Hello, I must be going." As the NY Post reports: "Mayor Bloomberg's top political aide is pulling back on his lobbying campaign to propel Caroline Kennedy into the US Senate because "it wasn't working," according to sources. "Everything was backfiring," said one source of the intense behind-the-scenes effort by Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey. "He's not out front anymore."
What we had was a behind the scenes bum rush, orchestrated by the entitled crowd of Bloombergistas, whose only real interest-a special one indeed-is in self perpetuation. And for once, they over reached: "They tried to take everybody else out," said the source. "It didn't work. They were out there way, way too early."
But what really tickles us in all of this is Mike Bloomberg's "um-brage" at the media's harsh critique of Kennedy's weak performance: "Bloomberg's defense of Kennedy yesterday also extended to the criticizing the press corps, which he accused of subjecting her to intense scrutiny not visited on her rivals. "Nobody seems to be asking other particular candidates, 'Tell us what you would do in the situation of world chaos or whatever, a Depression, a world war,' " Bloomberg said."
So, let's get this straight. First Bloomberg orchestrates this media unveiling-a real extravaganza of exposure-and now he's critical of the fact that the other candidates aren't being scrutinized? As the Post points out: "Kevin Wardally, of Bill Lynch Associates, who is representing Rep. Carolyn Maloney in the Senate contest, said Kennedy has "sucked the air out of the room," and his client would welcome scrutiny from the press. "We're barely included," said Wardally. "We are the last sentence in most articles in a list with the other candidates." Wardally said he's spending most of his time "just getting out the fact [Maloney is] delivering for New York."
So now that the whole thing's becoming a fiasco, Bloomberg's looking to avoid being stigmatized as the rich puppet master of the entire charade. As the NY Daily News tells us: "There had been huge missteps in the way [City Hall] constructed this," said a source involved in the Kennedy effort to muzzle Bloomberg operative Kevin Sheekey. "It's just a dialing down of anything that would be harmful to her," the source said. "Anything like very public meetings with people in City Hall or inappropriate calls to labor leaders will no longer take place. He'll still be involved, just not in the same way." Another source said Sheekey was being pushed aside so neither Gov. Paterson nor Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver would think Bloomberg was trying to muscle her into the Senate."
So now it's all a ,"hello I must be going moment," with the front man Sheekey-the real Captain Schnorrer in all this-being relegated to the bullpen. Let no one, and certainly not the governor, be fooled by this maneuver. Caroline's candidacy has no substance, and is only propped up by the hot air pumped in by the self serving mayor and his minions.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Senate Somnambulance
With just a little over a week to go before the first legislative session of the new year, little movement has been seen surrounding the choice of a senate majority leader-but not for lack of effort from the Democratic tail waggers. As Liz B points out: "The key players in the Senate leadership battle may be taking a bit of a holiday breather, but the outside forces aligned with Democrat Malcolm Smith aren't letting up in their campaign to convince the so-called Gang of Three to return home to the fold."
As we have remarked before, these forces might be better deployed at getting Smith to assert a leadership persona; something that has been lacking so far. The reality here is that the three dissident senators aren't likely to be influenced by union bogarting-and are more likely to respond to some outreach from the party leaders, an outreach that has been more characterized by its absence.
But the game of Russian Roulette could easily end up with Smith taking the bullet-unless he becomes more aggressive at courting the senators who he embarrassed when the original leadership deal fell through. After all, even with all of the mud that's been thrown at the rebels, it fails to compare with the accusations against Smith's designated Hispanic Caucus head, the former amigo Hiram Monserrate.
At least no one's calling for the other recalcitrants to be barred from being seated in the upper chamber-as the Times Union did for the accused slasher Monserrate yesterday. Here's the paper's take on Hiram (via Liz): "It goes without saying that Mr. Monserrate is entitled to his day in court, and that he's not guilty of anything unless a jury of says so. But neither should he be sworn in as a state senator until this matter is resolved. The last thing the Legislature needs is another member under even the suspicion of such a serious crime. The Senate shouldn't permit it. And the Democrats shouldn't want it. They're already quite marginalized and compromised on the eve of taking power.
But, hey, apostasy is a more heinous crime than any alleged assault. The end result here, however, is that unless they act, Democrats and their interest groups might well discover that they have another two years in the power vacuum universe.
As we have remarked before, these forces might be better deployed at getting Smith to assert a leadership persona; something that has been lacking so far. The reality here is that the three dissident senators aren't likely to be influenced by union bogarting-and are more likely to respond to some outreach from the party leaders, an outreach that has been more characterized by its absence.
But the game of Russian Roulette could easily end up with Smith taking the bullet-unless he becomes more aggressive at courting the senators who he embarrassed when the original leadership deal fell through. After all, even with all of the mud that's been thrown at the rebels, it fails to compare with the accusations against Smith's designated Hispanic Caucus head, the former amigo Hiram Monserrate.
At least no one's calling for the other recalcitrants to be barred from being seated in the upper chamber-as the Times Union did for the accused slasher Monserrate yesterday. Here's the paper's take on Hiram (via Liz): "It goes without saying that Mr. Monserrate is entitled to his day in court, and that he's not guilty of anything unless a jury of says so. But neither should he be sworn in as a state senator until this matter is resolved. The last thing the Legislature needs is another member under even the suspicion of such a serious crime. The Senate shouldn't permit it. And the Democrats shouldn't want it. They're already quite marginalized and compromised on the eve of taking power.
But, hey, apostasy is a more heinous crime than any alleged assault. The end result here, however, is that unless they act, Democrats and their interest groups might well discover that they have another two years in the power vacuum universe.
Reach Impediment
Caroline Kennedy's efforts at justifying her selection for soon to be vacant Senate seat, have been floundering-and now the critics have added her speech style to their panning of her effort. As the NY Daily News reports: "Caroline Kennedy, you know, might need, you know, a speech coach, um, if she, you know, wants, um, to be a senator. Um, you know? Kennedy, who gave a flurry of media interviews on Friday and Saturday, revealed some cringing verbal tics that showed her inexperience as a speaker, experts told the Daily News."
Now if she had anything interesting or unique to say, than it's much less likely that she would be getting this kind of harsh critique of her delivery; which makes her spokesman's rejoinder kind of silly: "Spokesman Stefan Friedman said, "Caroline has acknowledged that she hasn't mastered the art of the political sound bite, but if Gov. Paterson appoints her, she'll fight her heart out to make sure New York families have their voices heard in Washington."
Clearly the bites aren't the problem, rather its the lack of substance in the whole meal. As the NY Post underscores here: "Longtime Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf called Kennedy's "second rollout her second bomb. It's two rollouts now and two bombs.
"She didn't answer questions in the interviews."
All of this reminds us of the apocryphal anecdote about he late Hall of Fame pitcher Dizzy Dean. Dean, known for his zaniness, had been beaned by a pitch and taken to the hospital. The headline in the paper the next day read: "Dean Head Ex-Rayed, Nothing Found."
Now if she had anything interesting or unique to say, than it's much less likely that she would be getting this kind of harsh critique of her delivery; which makes her spokesman's rejoinder kind of silly: "Spokesman Stefan Friedman said, "Caroline has acknowledged that she hasn't mastered the art of the political sound bite, but if Gov. Paterson appoints her, she'll fight her heart out to make sure New York families have their voices heard in Washington."
Clearly the bites aren't the problem, rather its the lack of substance in the whole meal. As the NY Post underscores here: "Longtime Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf called Kennedy's "second rollout her second bomb. It's two rollouts now and two bombs.
"She didn't answer questions in the interviews."
All of this reminds us of the apocryphal anecdote about he late Hall of Fame pitcher Dizzy Dean. Dean, known for his zaniness, had been beaned by a pitch and taken to the hospital. The headline in the paper the next day read: "Dean Head Ex-Rayed, Nothing Found."
Monday, December 29, 2008
Taxing for Health
We've said it for some time now. Once you accept that it is the legitimate role of government to coerce people into healthier living, there's no end to the ways that you can devise in your pursuit of an unobtainable health utopia. So from Bloomberg's green carts (a total failure and waste of government funds) and menu labeling, we proceed now to the obesity tax and the YouTube efforts of the state health commissioner.
Commissioner Daines is now the governor's point man on this purported health intervention. As Liz B tells us: "State Health Commissioner Richard Daines has become the point man for one of the more controversial of Gov. David Paterson's revenue-generating budget proposals: The so-called "fat tax" - an 18 percent levy on sugary drinks like non-diet soda. Daines, a Spitzer administration holdover who generally keeps a fairly low profile, has recorded a YouTube manifesto in defense of the tax, which the administration insists is really more about health care policy than making money off soda-drinking New Yorkers."
And Daines responds to his critics who question why you would pick on soda when there are so many things that are fattening: "Some have suggested that the state is unfairly picking on the soda industry and asked why, if this is indeed a policy initiative, the governor doesn't push things to their logical conclusion by taxing everything that's fattening - from Twinkies to french fries - or perhaps even adopt Assemblyman Felix Ortiz's proposal of cutting to the chase and taxing overweight people themselves. Daines' response was quite Spitzeresque: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Of course, Daines has no evidence that an 18% tax on soda will have the desired result-after all, cigarette taxes that supposedly do work, are as close to confiscatory as you can get. That doesn't daunt Daines, however: "The side benefits, according to Daines, include the fact that cutting down on soda saves money for consumers and whittling the state's collective waistline could save money for taxpayers in the form of fewer obesity-related health problems that need to be treated - particularly for Medicaid recipients."
So what we have here is a classic case of misdirection-with Daines pontificating about health, while Paterson takes your money. Sugar, of course, makes for the best slippery slope.
Commissioner Daines is now the governor's point man on this purported health intervention. As Liz B tells us: "State Health Commissioner Richard Daines has become the point man for one of the more controversial of Gov. David Paterson's revenue-generating budget proposals: The so-called "fat tax" - an 18 percent levy on sugary drinks like non-diet soda. Daines, a Spitzer administration holdover who generally keeps a fairly low profile, has recorded a YouTube manifesto in defense of the tax, which the administration insists is really more about health care policy than making money off soda-drinking New Yorkers."
And Daines responds to his critics who question why you would pick on soda when there are so many things that are fattening: "Some have suggested that the state is unfairly picking on the soda industry and asked why, if this is indeed a policy initiative, the governor doesn't push things to their logical conclusion by taxing everything that's fattening - from Twinkies to french fries - or perhaps even adopt Assemblyman Felix Ortiz's proposal of cutting to the chase and taxing overweight people themselves. Daines' response was quite Spitzeresque: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Of course, Daines has no evidence that an 18% tax on soda will have the desired result-after all, cigarette taxes that supposedly do work, are as close to confiscatory as you can get. That doesn't daunt Daines, however: "The side benefits, according to Daines, include the fact that cutting down on soda saves money for consumers and whittling the state's collective waistline could save money for taxpayers in the form of fewer obesity-related health problems that need to be treated - particularly for Medicaid recipients."
So what we have here is a classic case of misdirection-with Daines pontificating about health, while Paterson takes your money. Sugar, of course, makes for the best slippery slope.
Doddering Dicker
Fred Dicker has now come out with his end of the year list of winners and losers-with one glaring omission in the loser category: himself. The scribe who once got into a fist fight for his renowned journalistic acumen, has apparently lost the ability to count-not to mention the ability to utilize basic deductive reasoning skills.
It seems that Dicker believes, against all evidence, that the Three Amigos are losers and, none other than Malcolm Smith, is one of the year's winners: "The "Gang of Three" renegade Democrats - Sens. Carl Kruger and Ruben Diaz and Senator-elect Pedro Espada - who, seemingly channeling Rod Blagojevich, overplayed their hands by demanding too much power, patronage, perks and pork in exchange for voting for Sen. Malcolm Smith as the new Senate leader."
Well, of course, we're very familiar with historical revisionism, but have never seen it employed before the event in question has even run its course. How else could Dicker, labeling Smith a winner, say the following? "Senate Democratic Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, poised to become the new leader of the Senate despite his heavy-handed and, at times, bumbling approach to fund-raising, a weak and disorganized staff, and continuing trouble from the Gang of Three."
Poised? Poise is the last attribute to be assigned to Smith-the fellow who actually signed off on the "overplay" by the dissidents; and the man who remains three votes short of leadership status. How poised is that, Mr. Dicker? So from our vantage, Dicker becomes one of this year's big journalistic losers-unable to both count, or to exercise sober judgment
It seems that Dicker believes, against all evidence, that the Three Amigos are losers and, none other than Malcolm Smith, is one of the year's winners: "The "Gang of Three" renegade Democrats - Sens. Carl Kruger and Ruben Diaz and Senator-elect Pedro Espada - who, seemingly channeling Rod Blagojevich, overplayed their hands by demanding too much power, patronage, perks and pork in exchange for voting for Sen. Malcolm Smith as the new Senate leader."
Well, of course, we're very familiar with historical revisionism, but have never seen it employed before the event in question has even run its course. How else could Dicker, labeling Smith a winner, say the following? "Senate Democratic Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, poised to become the new leader of the Senate despite his heavy-handed and, at times, bumbling approach to fund-raising, a weak and disorganized staff, and continuing trouble from the Gang of Three."
Poised? Poise is the last attribute to be assigned to Smith-the fellow who actually signed off on the "overplay" by the dissidents; and the man who remains three votes short of leadership status. How poised is that, Mr. Dicker? So from our vantage, Dicker becomes one of this year's big journalistic losers-unable to both count, or to exercise sober judgment
No InFatuation With Gov's Tax Plan
More and more it appears as if New Yorkers aren't infatuated with Governor Paterson's tax plan. As the NY Daily News reported last week: "Tax the rich, not the soda! New Yorkers overwhelmingly oppose Gov. Paterson's so-called obesity tax on soda and other non-nutritional drinks, a new poll shows. The Quinnipiac University poll found that 60% of those surveyed oppose the proposed 18% tax, with just 37% supporting it."
What's fascinating about this, is the fact that the tax is opposed by those who aren't even soda drinkers: "Even those who prefer diet soft drinks, which would not be subject to the tax, say it is all wet by a 58% to 39% margin, the poll found. The fierce opposition runs across the political spectrum. "Voters aren't swallowing the proposal to tax non-diet soft drinks," Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said Wednesday when releasing poll results."
And overall, the plan gets a considerable thumbs down from a great many. As the NY Post pointed out: "New Yorkers are turning thumbs down on Gov. Paterson's tax-and-slash budget plan and they're overwhelmingly opposed to his "fat tax" on non-diet soft drinks, a new poll shows. The Quinnipiac University survey found 46 percent of voters opposed to the governor's proposed $121 billion budget - with 137 new taxes and fees and billions of dollars in spending cuts - and 40 percent in favor."
We should also remember that the Q-Poll also highlighted the fact that New Yorkers preferred service cuts to new taxes. As the News related: "Still, by a 53% to 36% margin, New Yorkers would rather cut services than raise taxes." And we wonder what the response would have been to cutting the size of government and eliminating wasteful programs, versus raising taxes?
That's an approach we need to see the governor propose-before he taxes the earth, the sea and the sky. If he doesn't, we see a serious challenge to Paterson emerging in 2010.
What's fascinating about this, is the fact that the tax is opposed by those who aren't even soda drinkers: "Even those who prefer diet soft drinks, which would not be subject to the tax, say it is all wet by a 58% to 39% margin, the poll found. The fierce opposition runs across the political spectrum. "Voters aren't swallowing the proposal to tax non-diet soft drinks," Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said Wednesday when releasing poll results."
And overall, the plan gets a considerable thumbs down from a great many. As the NY Post pointed out: "New Yorkers are turning thumbs down on Gov. Paterson's tax-and-slash budget plan and they're overwhelmingly opposed to his "fat tax" on non-diet soft drinks, a new poll shows. The Quinnipiac University survey found 46 percent of voters opposed to the governor's proposed $121 billion budget - with 137 new taxes and fees and billions of dollars in spending cuts - and 40 percent in favor."
We should also remember that the Q-Poll also highlighted the fact that New Yorkers preferred service cuts to new taxes. As the News related: "Still, by a 53% to 36% margin, New Yorkers would rather cut services than raise taxes." And we wonder what the response would have been to cutting the size of government and eliminating wasteful programs, versus raising taxes?
That's an approach we need to see the governor propose-before he taxes the earth, the sea and the sky. If he doesn't, we see a serious challenge to Paterson emerging in 2010.
Vexing Vendors
Last week the NY Daily News wrote about the efforts of Councilman David Yassky to clean the street vendors out of Court Street; the article underscores the inequity of allowing peddlers to operate with impunity right in front of tax paying stores: "A local politician has a message for Court St.'s vendors: Get lost. City Councilman David Yassky (D-Brooklyn Heights) has proposed a ban on vending along Court St., and wants cops to confiscate merchandise sold by illegal vendors along the downtown thoroughfare. "It's just gotten to be too much," Yassky said. "On every block there are three tables of vendors blocking the street."
Of course store owners are vexed: "Yet many merchants find it hard to compete with the vendors, who don't pay rent or property taxes. "They're kicking my a--," said Charlene Heyliger, 55, the owner of Gourd-Chips Boutique. "They don't have overhead," she said. "I'm selling this for $5, but they're probably selling everything for a dollar."
With the mayor looking to increase our taxes, and with neighborhood retailers suffering from his inhospitable business climate, it's high time that the Bloomberg administration take corrective action: no competing street vendor should be allowed to sell comparable products directly in front of stores with similar merchandise. Yassky's right: "We're trying to market the Court St. office buildings to law firms and banks," he said. "The street vendors ... definitely create a bad impression." He added the vendors also pose "unfair competition" to area businesses. Yassky's proposal, outlined in a Dec. 11 letter to Mayor Bloomberg, applies to vendors selling goods other than food, books and artwork. Currently, licensed vendors are allowed on Court south of Joralemon St."
We need to bring the mayor's indifference to public awareness-and dramatize just how damaging his economic and regulatory policies have been to small store owners. It's just one more example of how Mike Bloomberg remains disconnected from the concerns of average New Yorkers.
Of course store owners are vexed: "Yet many merchants find it hard to compete with the vendors, who don't pay rent or property taxes. "They're kicking my a--," said Charlene Heyliger, 55, the owner of Gourd-Chips Boutique. "They don't have overhead," she said. "I'm selling this for $5, but they're probably selling everything for a dollar."
With the mayor looking to increase our taxes, and with neighborhood retailers suffering from his inhospitable business climate, it's high time that the Bloomberg administration take corrective action: no competing street vendor should be allowed to sell comparable products directly in front of stores with similar merchandise. Yassky's right: "We're trying to market the Court St. office buildings to law firms and banks," he said. "The street vendors ... definitely create a bad impression." He added the vendors also pose "unfair competition" to area businesses. Yassky's proposal, outlined in a Dec. 11 letter to Mayor Bloomberg, applies to vendors selling goods other than food, books and artwork. Currently, licensed vendors are allowed on Court south of Joralemon St."
We need to bring the mayor's indifference to public awareness-and dramatize just how damaging his economic and regulatory policies have been to small store owners. It's just one more example of how Mike Bloomberg remains disconnected from the concerns of average New Yorkers.
A Palin Imitation
So, as it turns out, even the NY Times comes away from the Caroline phenomenon quite underwhelmed: "After weeks of criticism that she had not opened up to the public or the press, Ms. Kennedy has embarked on a series of interviews. But in an extensive sit-down discussion Saturday morning with The New York Times, she still seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: forceful but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way."
So, absent any resume to recommend her, Kennedy can't even articulate any strong opinions-or how she differs, if she does, from any of the standard Democratic Party talking points: "Ms. Kennedy, 51, has had only a few weeks to think through a platform and a message, and she has already taken positions on issues like same-sex marriage, which she supports, and school vouchers, which she opposes. But in the interview on Saturday, she said she hoped to be a consensus-builder, and declined to describe her positions on some other pressing public issues — even in an area like education, where she has some expertise. Ms. Kennedy would not say, for example, whether she supported proposals to abolish tenure for teachers and offer them merit pay instead."
She's gotta be kidding! And she was apparently unwilling or unable to expand on how her limited experience qualified her for the US Senate-in what would amount to her first real job: "She provided only the broadest of rationales for her candidacy for one of the most storied Senate seats in the country, saying her experience as a mother, author and school fund-raiser, her commitment to public service and her deep political connections had prepared her for the job."
This is really beyond ridiculous-and Paterson should move to shut the silliness down as soon as possible; although to her credit, in her Times interview she actually touted the virtue of running for an office: "At one point, she said that it might have been preferable to seek the seat in an election, noting that “it would give me a chance to explain exactly what I’m doing, why I would want to do this, and, you know, to get people to know me better and to understand exactly what my plans would be, how hard I would work.”
So, what we would advise Kennedy to do, is withdraw; and prepare to challenge the governor's eventual choice by taking her candidacy to the voters in 2010. As Michael Goodwin wrote yesterday, the current farce needs to end: "But a strange thing is happening on the way to the coronation. The wheels of the bandwagon are coming off. Fantasy is giving way to inescapable truth. That truth is that Kennedy is not ready for the job and doesn't deserve it. Somebody who loves her should tell her."
And, in the same vein, Jennifer Rubin eviscerates Kennedy in her "Princess Diaries" commentary: "But these individual missteps stem from a central problem: she is an unserious candidate running at a serious time for a real office. New York, perhaps more acutely and immediately than the rest of the country, is feeling the impact of the financial
meltdown...Governor Paterson has every reason to spare his party and state from the mockery that is sure to follow should he elevate Caroline to the Senate. I’m sure he or President-elect Obama could come up with some suitably untaxing position in which she can fulfill her lifelong dream (a sort of repressed memory which recently surfaced) to serve in political office. Or, she could spend some time learning about her state and the nation’s issues, supporting other politicians and learning how to campaign for office.
What New York doesn't need for the vacant senate is an unaccomplished and platitude-spouting cipher who can seek occasional refuge in a $50 million Martha's Vineyard mansion. More and more, we're leaning to the Hammond Doctrine: the governor should appoint a placeholder and leave the ultimate choice here to the voters in two years.
So, absent any resume to recommend her, Kennedy can't even articulate any strong opinions-or how she differs, if she does, from any of the standard Democratic Party talking points: "Ms. Kennedy, 51, has had only a few weeks to think through a platform and a message, and she has already taken positions on issues like same-sex marriage, which she supports, and school vouchers, which she opposes. But in the interview on Saturday, she said she hoped to be a consensus-builder, and declined to describe her positions on some other pressing public issues — even in an area like education, where she has some expertise. Ms. Kennedy would not say, for example, whether she supported proposals to abolish tenure for teachers and offer them merit pay instead."
She's gotta be kidding! And she was apparently unwilling or unable to expand on how her limited experience qualified her for the US Senate-in what would amount to her first real job: "She provided only the broadest of rationales for her candidacy for one of the most storied Senate seats in the country, saying her experience as a mother, author and school fund-raiser, her commitment to public service and her deep political connections had prepared her for the job."
This is really beyond ridiculous-and Paterson should move to shut the silliness down as soon as possible; although to her credit, in her Times interview she actually touted the virtue of running for an office: "At one point, she said that it might have been preferable to seek the seat in an election, noting that “it would give me a chance to explain exactly what I’m doing, why I would want to do this, and, you know, to get people to know me better and to understand exactly what my plans would be, how hard I would work.”
So, what we would advise Kennedy to do, is withdraw; and prepare to challenge the governor's eventual choice by taking her candidacy to the voters in 2010. As Michael Goodwin wrote yesterday, the current farce needs to end: "But a strange thing is happening on the way to the coronation. The wheels of the bandwagon are coming off. Fantasy is giving way to inescapable truth. That truth is that Kennedy is not ready for the job and doesn't deserve it. Somebody who loves her should tell her."
And, in the same vein, Jennifer Rubin eviscerates Kennedy in her "Princess Diaries" commentary: "But these individual missteps stem from a central problem: she is an unserious candidate running at a serious time for a real office. New York, perhaps more acutely and immediately than the rest of the country, is feeling the impact of the financial
meltdown...Governor Paterson has every reason to spare his party and state from the mockery that is sure to follow should he elevate Caroline to the Senate. I’m sure he or President-elect Obama could come up with some suitably untaxing position in which she can fulfill her lifelong dream (a sort of repressed memory which recently surfaced) to serve in political office. Or, she could spend some time learning about her state and the nation’s issues, supporting other politicians and learning how to campaign for office.
What New York doesn't need for the vacant senate is an unaccomplished and platitude-spouting cipher who can seek occasional refuge in a $50 million Martha's Vineyard mansion. More and more, we're leaning to the Hammond Doctrine: the governor should appoint a placeholder and leave the ultimate choice here to the voters in two years.
Sweet Caroline?
It appears that Governor Paterson may be tiring of the attempt by the Carolinites-bolstered by the ever coy mayor-to elevate Caroline Kennedy and the Peter Principle to the US Senate simultaneously. Here's how Wikepedia describes the process: "Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
So, of course, if Kennedy is elevated, we can be buoyed by the fact that she will have a great staff of competents to carry out her senatorial duties. None of this is apparently making Paterson more amenable to her choice for the vacant seat, As he told the NY Post: "He bristled when a reporter described Kennedy - who has never been elected to office and whose qualifications have been criticized - as the "front-runner." "How is she a front-runner?" the Democratic governor, who has sole power to choose Clinton's successor, interrupted tartly."
And, as the governor commented to the NY Times: "Gov. David A. Paterson stressed on Wednesday that there was no front-runner among the contenders who want to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, and he said the intense focus on Caroline Kennedy is the result of media hype."
God old reliable Joe Conason is front and center in the aforementioned hype. Conason, one of the harshest critics of Sarah Palin (“Suddenly all anyone needs to qualify as a potential commander in chief is to be a religious ideologue with female gender characteristics?”), fails to hold Kennedy to any of the same standards-he should really keep his banal hypocritical observations to those of his immediate family; they serve as very little additions to the public debate, aside from underscoring how fatuous all of the Kennedy euphoria really is.
But nothing could underscore the fatuousness of this all as much as Kennedy herself-who deigned to appear for an interview with Dominic Carter on NY1. As the NY Post reported: "Caroline Kennedy broke her silence with the start of a media blitz yesterday, defending her qualifications to replace Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and confidently saying she's up to the job...The 51-year-old daughter of John F. Kennedy told NY1 last night, "There are many ways to serve. I think I have been serving my community up until now, and I think I'm ready to take the next step."
And Sarah Palin was ridiculed? Are we looking at that ultimate biography-From the PTA to the Presidency? And when asked for specifics, she tells the NY Times: "She said that if appointed senator next year by Gov. David A. Paterson, she would focus on securing economic aid for the state, overhauling the nation’s health care system, and school issues." It's as if the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression hasn't happened; all we get from Kennedy are hackneyed liberal bromides and non sequitors.
Bloomberg, for his part, simply can't resist satire. Here's his piquant observation to the Times last week; launched behind the barricades of his own stealth offensive: "I do think the governor, as I said the other day, should make a decision, because this is just distracting and we don't need to have another sideshow." This from the sideshow impresario himself!
What the state doesn't need is an entitled novice; and the rumor about her dalliance with Pinch Sulzberger, if true, is another major strike against her. And let's not forget Clyde Haberman's admonition that selecting Kennedy would foist the Neil Diamond song, "Sweet Caroline," on us ad nauseam; all of which makes this decision a significant test of Governor Paterson's Independence and leadership.
So, of course, if Kennedy is elevated, we can be buoyed by the fact that she will have a great staff of competents to carry out her senatorial duties. None of this is apparently making Paterson more amenable to her choice for the vacant seat, As he told the NY Post: "He bristled when a reporter described Kennedy - who has never been elected to office and whose qualifications have been criticized - as the "front-runner." "How is she a front-runner?" the Democratic governor, who has sole power to choose Clinton's successor, interrupted tartly."
And, as the governor commented to the NY Times: "Gov. David A. Paterson stressed on Wednesday that there was no front-runner among the contenders who want to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, and he said the intense focus on Caroline Kennedy is the result of media hype."
God old reliable Joe Conason is front and center in the aforementioned hype. Conason, one of the harshest critics of Sarah Palin (“Suddenly all anyone needs to qualify as a potential commander in chief is to be a religious ideologue with female gender characteristics?”), fails to hold Kennedy to any of the same standards-he should really keep his banal hypocritical observations to those of his immediate family; they serve as very little additions to the public debate, aside from underscoring how fatuous all of the Kennedy euphoria really is.
But nothing could underscore the fatuousness of this all as much as Kennedy herself-who deigned to appear for an interview with Dominic Carter on NY1. As the NY Post reported: "Caroline Kennedy broke her silence with the start of a media blitz yesterday, defending her qualifications to replace Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and confidently saying she's up to the job...The 51-year-old daughter of John F. Kennedy told NY1 last night, "There are many ways to serve. I think I have been serving my community up until now, and I think I'm ready to take the next step."
And Sarah Palin was ridiculed? Are we looking at that ultimate biography-From the PTA to the Presidency? And when asked for specifics, she tells the NY Times: "She said that if appointed senator next year by Gov. David A. Paterson, she would focus on securing economic aid for the state, overhauling the nation’s health care system, and school issues." It's as if the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression hasn't happened; all we get from Kennedy are hackneyed liberal bromides and non sequitors.
Bloomberg, for his part, simply can't resist satire. Here's his piquant observation to the Times last week; launched behind the barricades of his own stealth offensive: "I do think the governor, as I said the other day, should make a decision, because this is just distracting and we don't need to have another sideshow." This from the sideshow impresario himself!
What the state doesn't need is an entitled novice; and the rumor about her dalliance with Pinch Sulzberger, if true, is another major strike against her. And let's not forget Clyde Haberman's admonition that selecting Kennedy would foist the Neil Diamond song, "Sweet Caroline," on us ad nauseam; all of which makes this decision a significant test of Governor Paterson's Independence and leadership.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Bloomberg and Wolfson: Perfect Together
John Riley's take on the Wolfson hire for the Bloomberg coronation bid is spot on: "Mayor Bloomberg, who once lied and promised not to overturn term limits and run for a third term, picks the perfect spokesman for his campaign for a third term: Howard Wolfson, Mr. Credibility himself, who did such a great job persuading everyone that Hillary actually won the popular vote, that she told something resembling the truth about those snipers at Tuzla, that she wasn't really for the war in Iraq even though she voted to authorize it, and that she was absolutely entitled to the benefit of a double standard on having debates and disclosing her taxes."
Spin Cycle takes on Spin Doctor We can't wait for the iron cage rematch; and we love how Howard responded to the reminder about all of the unflattering things he once said about Mike Bloomberg-out of touch billionaire was our favorite: "And, of course, he thinks Bloomberg is just marvelous. He's asked about having once called Bloomberg an "out of touch billionaire," and says, "That was my evil twin." The one who tells the truth?"
But the real story here just might be that Bloomberg is looking to reapply for membership in the Democratic primary. As the NY Daily News reports this morning: "The Wolfson addition also fuels speculation that Bloomberg, who is an independent, will run as a Democrat. "It would not surprise me if Bloomberg is polling at the moment to see if he could win a Democratic primary," said political consultant George Arzt, who described Wolfson as a "no-nonsense, brass-knuckles guy."
We can't wait to see how he tries to pull that one off-and who among the Democratic county leaders would allow him to pull this Wilson/Pakula gambit. Which is another reason why the governor should shy away from appointing Caroline-another faux Democrat who could join the mayor and run as a tandem on the Patrician Party banner.
Spin Cycle takes on Spin Doctor We can't wait for the iron cage rematch; and we love how Howard responded to the reminder about all of the unflattering things he once said about Mike Bloomberg-out of touch billionaire was our favorite: "And, of course, he thinks Bloomberg is just marvelous. He's asked about having once called Bloomberg an "out of touch billionaire," and says, "That was my evil twin." The one who tells the truth?"
But the real story here just might be that Bloomberg is looking to reapply for membership in the Democratic primary. As the NY Daily News reports this morning: "The Wolfson addition also fuels speculation that Bloomberg, who is an independent, will run as a Democrat. "It would not surprise me if Bloomberg is polling at the moment to see if he could win a Democratic primary," said political consultant George Arzt, who described Wolfson as a "no-nonsense, brass-knuckles guy."
We can't wait to see how he tries to pull that one off-and who among the Democratic county leaders would allow him to pull this Wilson/Pakula gambit. Which is another reason why the governor should shy away from appointing Caroline-another faux Democrat who could join the mayor and run as a tandem on the Patrician Party banner.
Fat Chance
It now appears that New Yorkers are less then enthused about the Paterson soda tax-let's call it sugar shock. As Liz points out this morning, the Q-Poll reports: "..New Yorkers could stomach a host of tax increases on everything from alcohol to cigarettes, but don't support Gov. David Paterson's proposal to tax sugary drinks. Poll respondents opposed the so-called "fat tax" 60-37 percent, and even diet soda drinkers rejected the measure, 58-39."
In addition, most folks recognize the seriousness of the crisis, but shy away from supporting higher taxes: "Eighty-eight percent of voters agree with the governor that the state is facing a massive budget crisis, but they much prefer (53-36) cutting services to raising taxes. Sixty-five percent said cutting economic development aid is fine with them. There wasn't nearly as much support for slashing either health care or education spending (10 percent in both cases)."
There is, however, support for higher sin taxes: "Voters opposed raising taxes on gas (79-19), but were fine with the idea of so-called "sin taxes" including boosting the current tariff on cigarettes (73-26) and alcohol (67-32)." Soda apparently isn't as sinful as the Nutrition Nazis allege.
What we now need from the governor and the legislature is a carefully crafted approach to cutting government waste-even if its in the health care or education areas. What we don't need is for the Democratic tail to start wagging the party dog; and for a giant Bronx cheer to be given to all of the state's hapless tax payers and small businesses.
In addition, most folks recognize the seriousness of the crisis, but shy away from supporting higher taxes: "Eighty-eight percent of voters agree with the governor that the state is facing a massive budget crisis, but they much prefer (53-36) cutting services to raising taxes. Sixty-five percent said cutting economic development aid is fine with them. There wasn't nearly as much support for slashing either health care or education spending (10 percent in both cases)."
There is, however, support for higher sin taxes: "Voters opposed raising taxes on gas (79-19), but were fine with the idea of so-called "sin taxes" including boosting the current tariff on cigarettes (73-26) and alcohol (67-32)." Soda apparently isn't as sinful as the Nutrition Nazis allege.
What we now need from the governor and the legislature is a carefully crafted approach to cutting government waste-even if its in the health care or education areas. What we don't need is for the Democratic tail to start wagging the party dog; and for a giant Bronx cheer to be given to all of the state's hapless tax payers and small businesses.
Divine Right
It appears that our view of the Bloomberg/Kennedy affair is catching on-with Speaker Shelly Silver saying yesterday that the governor should be careful about choosing Caroline because she would be more beholden to Mike Bloomberg than to the man who chose her for the senate seat. As Fred Dicker writes: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver yesterday strongly suggested that Gov. Paterson reject Caroline Kennedy as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's replacement - because she might be more loyal to Mayor Bloomberg than to the governor. "If I were the governor, I would look and question whether this is the appointment I'd want to make, where her first obligation might be to the mayor of the City of New York, rather than to the governor who would be appointing her," Silver said."
Silver's statement followed the mayor's earlier comment that Governor Paterson should get off the dime and hurry up already with what he apparently believes should be the inevitable choice of his totally unqualified Upper East Side neighbor for the US Senate. As the NY Times reports: "Resistance is emerging among Democratic officials against Caroline Kennedy as she pursues Hillary Rodham Clinton’s seat in the United States Senate, with Gov. David A. Paterson bristling over suggestions that her selection is inevitable, according to his advisers, and other leading Democrats concerned that she is too beholden to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg."
Now where could anyone have gotten that idea? Maybe it was her equivocation of actually supporting a Democrat in next year's mayoral election? As the Times points out: "But her refusal to say over the weekend whether she would back a Democratic candidate next year, when Mr. Bloomberg will seek re-election as an independent, set off intense reaction among some in the party."
In our view, however, the whole orchestration reminds us of so many of Bloomberg's unstealthy stealth operations-where his monied contacts are used sub rosa in the most public of ways; all the while as Mike is playing coy about his role. Which is why we like the idea of Bill Hammond's that the governor should simply choose a place holder; and allow whoever wants to run for the seat to do so in 2010 when it would become vacant: "Then the unseemly insider politicking and backbiting will stop, and the real campaign will begin. All who want the job - including Kennedy the daughter and Cuomo the son - can compete on a level playing field. In two years. The voters will get their say."
But, as we said, the most unseemly aspect of the attempted Kennedy putsch is the little man behind the curtain. The governor should assert his manhood and inform the mayor that he'll be the one to wear the pants in the New York family.
Silver's statement followed the mayor's earlier comment that Governor Paterson should get off the dime and hurry up already with what he apparently believes should be the inevitable choice of his totally unqualified Upper East Side neighbor for the US Senate. As the NY Times reports: "Resistance is emerging among Democratic officials against Caroline Kennedy as she pursues Hillary Rodham Clinton’s seat in the United States Senate, with Gov. David A. Paterson bristling over suggestions that her selection is inevitable, according to his advisers, and other leading Democrats concerned that she is too beholden to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg."
Now where could anyone have gotten that idea? Maybe it was her equivocation of actually supporting a Democrat in next year's mayoral election? As the Times points out: "But her refusal to say over the weekend whether she would back a Democratic candidate next year, when Mr. Bloomberg will seek re-election as an independent, set off intense reaction among some in the party."
In our view, however, the whole orchestration reminds us of so many of Bloomberg's unstealthy stealth operations-where his monied contacts are used sub rosa in the most public of ways; all the while as Mike is playing coy about his role. Which is why we like the idea of Bill Hammond's that the governor should simply choose a place holder; and allow whoever wants to run for the seat to do so in 2010 when it would become vacant: "Then the unseemly insider politicking and backbiting will stop, and the real campaign will begin. All who want the job - including Kennedy the daughter and Cuomo the son - can compete on a level playing field. In two years. The voters will get their say."
But, as we said, the most unseemly aspect of the attempted Kennedy putsch is the little man behind the curtain. The governor should assert his manhood and inform the mayor that he'll be the one to wear the pants in the New York family.
Smith's Wedgie
As Liz has reported, it appears that the labor coalition targeting Diaz and Espada may be trying to isolate Carl Kruger from the amigos: "Officially speaking, the pro-Smith alliance, which helped the Democrats win 32 seats in November and now wants to be able to push through its policy agenda, is not targeting the Gang of Three ringleader, Sen. Carl Kruger, because his Brooklyn district has a lower concentration of Democrats than either Espada's or Diaz's...The real strategy here, as I understand it, is to try to isolate Kruger, who has a long history of associating with the Senate Republicans."
Perhaps so, but Espada in particular is no shrinking violet-and Diaz has shown that his ideological iconoclasm is no impediment to re-election in his Soundview district: "Diaz has always been a Conservative-leaning black sheep of the Democratic conference and has never had a problem getting re-elected in his district." Of course, if Hiram tubes, all of this strategy will be for naught anyway.
But Kruger tells us that his office is getting calls-from Manhattan tenants. Yikes! Kruger must be pulling up the drawbridge over at Mill Island, and hunkering down in fear in the basement. Nothing frightens the senator so much as tenants from outside of Brooklyn.
The safest path for Smith is to re-visit the original deal; a bit of tweaking is still possible, and a new deal could still be crafted. Bogarting the amigos could also backfire here. Liz, however, nails Kruger's persona in all of this, underscoring the risks in the wedge approach: "Of course, the problem with the wedge strategy is that Smith needs three votes (assuming the GOP isn't successful at blocking the seating of Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate) to reach 32 votes and become leader. If he gets Diaz and Espada, he's still going to need one more. Or maybe he thinks Kruger will crumble once he's all by himself? I'm not so sure about that. Kruger's pretty independent, and the fact that he's a man without a country has never seemed to bother him much."
Perhaps so, but Espada in particular is no shrinking violet-and Diaz has shown that his ideological iconoclasm is no impediment to re-election in his Soundview district: "Diaz has always been a Conservative-leaning black sheep of the Democratic conference and has never had a problem getting re-elected in his district." Of course, if Hiram tubes, all of this strategy will be for naught anyway.
But Kruger tells us that his office is getting calls-from Manhattan tenants. Yikes! Kruger must be pulling up the drawbridge over at Mill Island, and hunkering down in fear in the basement. Nothing frightens the senator so much as tenants from outside of Brooklyn.
The safest path for Smith is to re-visit the original deal; a bit of tweaking is still possible, and a new deal could still be crafted. Bogarting the amigos could also backfire here. Liz, however, nails Kruger's persona in all of this, underscoring the risks in the wedge approach: "Of course, the problem with the wedge strategy is that Smith needs three votes (assuming the GOP isn't successful at blocking the seating of Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate) to reach 32 votes and become leader. If he gets Diaz and Espada, he's still going to need one more. Or maybe he thinks Kruger will crumble once he's all by himself? I'm not so sure about that. Kruger's pretty independent, and the fact that he's a man without a country has never seemed to bother him much."
Tax and Rend
As we would expect, the Drum Major Institute welcomes the governor's apparent shift on raising the personal income tax: "Is Governor Paterson finally coming around? On Saturday, the New York Times reported that Paterson might consider raising taxes on New Yorkers who benefited most from the state's economic growth. But the Governor's economic logic is still askew. He insists a broad-based tax increase on the wealthy is a last resort, because " it automatically kicks in less job creation and leads to people leaving the state.”
Not so, says the DMI's Amy Taub: "I've already noted that Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz concludes that public spending cuts will harm job creation and economic growth more than raising taxes on the wealthy. Now the Fiscal Policy Institute has released a letter from more than 100 other economists who agree."
So who's right about this? In our view, it is important to point out that many of the economists who sign on to this world view are those who instinctively support a greater role for government; and who are suspicious of anything that's redolent of laissez faire philosophy. As the FPI letter states: "The reasoning is straightforward: in a recession, you want to raise (or not decrease) the level of total spending—by households, businesses and government—in the economy. That keeps people employed and buying things, and makes it more likely that
businesses will want to invest to serve that consumer demand. Budget cuts reduce the level of total spending. Raising taxes on high income households also will reduce spending, but by much less than the amount of the tax increase since those with plenty of income typically spend only a fraction of their income."
Of course, the more you tax high incomes-and where does small business stand in all of this (remember Joe the Plumber?)-the more you add to an already high tax burden; and the result is encouraging the job creators to find a more hospitable place to do business-unless Ms. Taub believes that the government is a real wealth creator.
We're unsure about her perspective on this issue, but the economists cited lay their ideology out in plain sight: "Raising taxes and maintaining public expenditures and investments also helps New York and America in meeting its long run needs. America today faces two major problems— inadequate investments, especially in infrastructure, and growing inequality. The poor are
particularly dependent on government expenditures, and cutbacks would hurt them the
most."
The harsh reality, however, is that with the Wall Street meltdown, the state is hemorrhaging jobs-something that the FPI economists only hint at ("New York State faces enormous challenges in closing a projected $12.5 billion gap in the 2009-2010 state budget. Wall Street is the epicenter of the global financial crisis and there likely will be no quick rebound from what could prove to be a severe recession.") So, how do we grow back the economy while we are laying a further tax burden on New Yorkers that are already over taxed?
The economists cited don't really care-concerned as they appear to be about the needy who would be "hurt the most" by cutbacks. The fact is, that there's nothing in the FPI letter that contradicts the governor's statement on the potential dampening of job growth; the signatories are more concerned with short term harm to the poor and a supposed income inequality than they are about the over all health of New York's economy.
This issue is addressed squarely by the Business Council's Kenneth Adams in yesterday's NY Post: "LET'S admit it: New York is grappling with a fiscal crisis largely of its own making. The national recession and Wall Street meltdown magnify the problem, but New York has a $15 billion budget deficit not because we don't collect enough taxes, but because we spend too much. To avoid being in this terrible situation again, we have to leverage this current crisis to achieve long-term reforms in government spending and fiscal policy."
That's certainly our view-and, given the state's existing tax levels, the argument Adams makes is compelling: "State and local spending in New York is now the second highest in the nation - 47 percent above the national average. A spending cap would help bring this excess under control.
It's clear where much of this overspending is centered - and that it doesn't actually buy us better government services. For example, we have the highest per-pupil education spending in this country - nearly $19,000 per student, 63 percent above the national average. Yet we're 33rd in the nation in eighth-grade math scores and not much better on other pupil-performance measures. And New York's per-capita Medicaid spending is more than double the national average, according to Kaiser State Health Facts. Yet, despite this off-the-charts spending, our key health-care indicators are worse than the national averages."
None of this is even acknowledged by the tax and spenders over at the DMI. As Adams points out: "On the other side of the ledger, our personal-income and real-estate taxes are the highest in the country. Business taxes are the second highest. The result is the worst tax climate in America, and an economy that was already tanking before the downturn."
What kind of "award winning economists" fail to address this crucial equation? Or perhaps, the awards in question are similar to those Pulitzers that the NY Times receives for its stellar work-products, as it were, of the fact that all in question swim in the same ideological swamp.
We listen to the DMI at our peril-particularly with the loss of the Wall Street engine: "In recent years, Wall Street pumped out 20 percent of state revenues - masking the fundamental problems in our fiscal policy. Now that narcotic is gone - and the "halo effect" of New York City's prosperity hiding the decline of the rest of the state is over. The ATM just spit back the debit card and told us we're $15 billion overdrawn. New York's leaders must make significant cuts in government programs and services. The state should relieve local governments and school districts of antiquated regulations and mandates so they can cut their costs. Simply shifting the burden from state taxes to local property tax does no good."
The "spread the wealth" crowd is trying to dose out a toxic brew; and the result will only make things worse; just as FDR's initial forays along the same lines did in the 1930s-making the original downturn even worse. The fact that raising taxes on the "wealthy" is popular-or that it never just stops at the so-called rich, will make this approach hard to resist. But Adams, underscoring that a policy's popularity doesn't make it prudent, gets the last word on this: "Families across New York are making prudent choices to live within their means. Our state and local governments must now do the same."
Not so, says the DMI's Amy Taub: "I've already noted that Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz concludes that public spending cuts will harm job creation and economic growth more than raising taxes on the wealthy. Now the Fiscal Policy Institute has released a letter from more than 100 other economists who agree."
So who's right about this? In our view, it is important to point out that many of the economists who sign on to this world view are those who instinctively support a greater role for government; and who are suspicious of anything that's redolent of laissez faire philosophy. As the FPI letter states: "The reasoning is straightforward: in a recession, you want to raise (or not decrease) the level of total spending—by households, businesses and government—in the economy. That keeps people employed and buying things, and makes it more likely that
businesses will want to invest to serve that consumer demand. Budget cuts reduce the level of total spending. Raising taxes on high income households also will reduce spending, but by much less than the amount of the tax increase since those with plenty of income typically spend only a fraction of their income."
Of course, the more you tax high incomes-and where does small business stand in all of this (remember Joe the Plumber?)-the more you add to an already high tax burden; and the result is encouraging the job creators to find a more hospitable place to do business-unless Ms. Taub believes that the government is a real wealth creator.
We're unsure about her perspective on this issue, but the economists cited lay their ideology out in plain sight: "Raising taxes and maintaining public expenditures and investments also helps New York and America in meeting its long run needs. America today faces two major problems— inadequate investments, especially in infrastructure, and growing inequality. The poor are
particularly dependent on government expenditures, and cutbacks would hurt them the
most."
The harsh reality, however, is that with the Wall Street meltdown, the state is hemorrhaging jobs-something that the FPI economists only hint at ("New York State faces enormous challenges in closing a projected $12.5 billion gap in the 2009-2010 state budget. Wall Street is the epicenter of the global financial crisis and there likely will be no quick rebound from what could prove to be a severe recession.") So, how do we grow back the economy while we are laying a further tax burden on New Yorkers that are already over taxed?
The economists cited don't really care-concerned as they appear to be about the needy who would be "hurt the most" by cutbacks. The fact is, that there's nothing in the FPI letter that contradicts the governor's statement on the potential dampening of job growth; the signatories are more concerned with short term harm to the poor and a supposed income inequality than they are about the over all health of New York's economy.
This issue is addressed squarely by the Business Council's Kenneth Adams in yesterday's NY Post: "LET'S admit it: New York is grappling with a fiscal crisis largely of its own making. The national recession and Wall Street meltdown magnify the problem, but New York has a $15 billion budget deficit not because we don't collect enough taxes, but because we spend too much. To avoid being in this terrible situation again, we have to leverage this current crisis to achieve long-term reforms in government spending and fiscal policy."
That's certainly our view-and, given the state's existing tax levels, the argument Adams makes is compelling: "State and local spending in New York is now the second highest in the nation - 47 percent above the national average. A spending cap would help bring this excess under control.
It's clear where much of this overspending is centered - and that it doesn't actually buy us better government services. For example, we have the highest per-pupil education spending in this country - nearly $19,000 per student, 63 percent above the national average. Yet we're 33rd in the nation in eighth-grade math scores and not much better on other pupil-performance measures. And New York's per-capita Medicaid spending is more than double the national average, according to Kaiser State Health Facts. Yet, despite this off-the-charts spending, our key health-care indicators are worse than the national averages."
None of this is even acknowledged by the tax and spenders over at the DMI. As Adams points out: "On the other side of the ledger, our personal-income and real-estate taxes are the highest in the country. Business taxes are the second highest. The result is the worst tax climate in America, and an economy that was already tanking before the downturn."
What kind of "award winning economists" fail to address this crucial equation? Or perhaps, the awards in question are similar to those Pulitzers that the NY Times receives for its stellar work-products, as it were, of the fact that all in question swim in the same ideological swamp.
We listen to the DMI at our peril-particularly with the loss of the Wall Street engine: "In recent years, Wall Street pumped out 20 percent of state revenues - masking the fundamental problems in our fiscal policy. Now that narcotic is gone - and the "halo effect" of New York City's prosperity hiding the decline of the rest of the state is over. The ATM just spit back the debit card and told us we're $15 billion overdrawn. New York's leaders must make significant cuts in government programs and services. The state should relieve local governments and school districts of antiquated regulations and mandates so they can cut their costs. Simply shifting the burden from state taxes to local property tax does no good."
The "spread the wealth" crowd is trying to dose out a toxic brew; and the result will only make things worse; just as FDR's initial forays along the same lines did in the 1930s-making the original downturn even worse. The fact that raising taxes on the "wealthy" is popular-or that it never just stops at the so-called rich, will make this approach hard to resist. But Adams, underscoring that a policy's popularity doesn't make it prudent, gets the last word on this: "Families across New York are making prudent choices to live within their means. Our state and local governments must now do the same."
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Bloomberg's Left Critique
With Mike Bloomberg preoccupied with getting more representation in the US Senate for the Upper East Side, it is a good time for some to evaluate just how well he is doing himself; under the premise that perhaps he should get his own house in order before lobbying for someone else. This time, the critique of the mayor comes from the left (via Liz): "In this moment of jubilation for Democrats and progressives--even Indiana and North Carolina have gone blue--one open wound remains: the voters of New York City, who, for nearly sixteen consecutive years, have ceded Gracie Mansion to deeply anti-progressive men. As Michael Bloomberg's bid for a third term proceeds virtually unimpeded, that winning streak seems set to expand to twenty. New York City, wild child of American metropolises, bastion of political liberalism? Well, deep in its heart, maybe. But not among its leadership, not in a long time."
Interesting thought here-Mike Bloomberg as the anti-progressive: "Bloomberg would have it that he is a center-left technocrat, a liberal even, from the uppermost upper crust. It's part of the mythology that made him victorious in 2001...But, as is often the case with opportunistic politicians, Bloomberg's rhetoric bears little relationship to his record. Beyond the confines of his tireless propaganda machine, there is one salient fact: the Bloomberg Administration cannot point to one major success and credibly claim it as its own. The technocracy he promised has, in practice, more closely resembled autocracy. The center that he claims to occupy has often given way to the right."
Well, we would agree about the disparity between the Bloomberg record and his rhetoric-that gap is a chasm; and Porter is correct about the top-like spinning of the Bloomberg propaganda apparatus. But in our view, Bloomberg's failures are not those of someone who has governed from the right-to argue this, is to obfuscate why Bloomberg is such a failure at governing.
In fact Mike Bloomberg, as Mark Green would argue, has governed from the left; with a social policy on health and welfare in particular that has expanded the reach of government paternalism. What he hasn't done, is effectively deal with a government structure that is way too large and inefficient. And it is this chicken that is coming home to roost as the city's budget implodes.
Still, Porter has it right about the mayor's exaggerated tenure: "And yet. Despite this assemblage of failures and embarrassments, Bloomberg backers will argue that the Mayor has three trump cards: the economy, the crime rate, and education. Indeed, the crime rate in New York City has been at historic lows throughout Bloomberg's administration. But there's little evidence that anything Bloomberg has done is responsible. Criminologist Franklin Zimring, in his book The Great American Crime Decline, argues that Rudy Giuliani's crime prevention measures during the 1990's--COMPSTAT and the commitment to efficiency it represented, additional police on the beat, and a more aggressive policing philosophy--were responsible for the historic drop in crime that Bloomberg merely inherited."
And, as far as the economy is concerned, Bloomberg has done little to merit a term extension: "As for the economy, whatever success Bloomberg has enjoyed can be attributed to others--and the success is overshadowed by failure. The city's economy, as measured by overall growth, boomed between 2001 and 2007 because the financial services sector boomed. At the same time, Bloomberg did nothing to combat the decline of New York's middle class. Income disparity has spiked so much in recent years that, in 2006, a Brookings research,er Alan Berube, could declare that, in New York, "the middle class is missing." New York has the smallest proportion of middle-income families among all major American cities."
We could say the same thing about his small business record as well. As much as we disagree with Porter's perspective as to the Bloomberg shortcomings, he does make a strong and cogent deconstruction of the Bloomberg myth-and deserves the final word: "As his try for a third term begins, it's worth considering whether or not the legacy of Mike Bloomberg will be proof, once and for all, that money can buy anything--including respect for a record that, if it exists at all, is largely unaccomplished.'
Interesting thought here-Mike Bloomberg as the anti-progressive: "Bloomberg would have it that he is a center-left technocrat, a liberal even, from the uppermost upper crust. It's part of the mythology that made him victorious in 2001...But, as is often the case with opportunistic politicians, Bloomberg's rhetoric bears little relationship to his record. Beyond the confines of his tireless propaganda machine, there is one salient fact: the Bloomberg Administration cannot point to one major success and credibly claim it as its own. The technocracy he promised has, in practice, more closely resembled autocracy. The center that he claims to occupy has often given way to the right."
Well, we would agree about the disparity between the Bloomberg record and his rhetoric-that gap is a chasm; and Porter is correct about the top-like spinning of the Bloomberg propaganda apparatus. But in our view, Bloomberg's failures are not those of someone who has governed from the right-to argue this, is to obfuscate why Bloomberg is such a failure at governing.
In fact Mike Bloomberg, as Mark Green would argue, has governed from the left; with a social policy on health and welfare in particular that has expanded the reach of government paternalism. What he hasn't done, is effectively deal with a government structure that is way too large and inefficient. And it is this chicken that is coming home to roost as the city's budget implodes.
Still, Porter has it right about the mayor's exaggerated tenure: "And yet. Despite this assemblage of failures and embarrassments, Bloomberg backers will argue that the Mayor has three trump cards: the economy, the crime rate, and education. Indeed, the crime rate in New York City has been at historic lows throughout Bloomberg's administration. But there's little evidence that anything Bloomberg has done is responsible. Criminologist Franklin Zimring, in his book The Great American Crime Decline, argues that Rudy Giuliani's crime prevention measures during the 1990's--COMPSTAT and the commitment to efficiency it represented, additional police on the beat, and a more aggressive policing philosophy--were responsible for the historic drop in crime that Bloomberg merely inherited."
And, as far as the economy is concerned, Bloomberg has done little to merit a term extension: "As for the economy, whatever success Bloomberg has enjoyed can be attributed to others--and the success is overshadowed by failure. The city's economy, as measured by overall growth, boomed between 2001 and 2007 because the financial services sector boomed. At the same time, Bloomberg did nothing to combat the decline of New York's middle class. Income disparity has spiked so much in recent years that, in 2006, a Brookings research,er Alan Berube, could declare that, in New York, "the middle class is missing." New York has the smallest proportion of middle-income families among all major American cities."
We could say the same thing about his small business record as well. As much as we disagree with Porter's perspective as to the Bloomberg shortcomings, he does make a strong and cogent deconstruction of the Bloomberg myth-and deserves the final word: "As his try for a third term begins, it's worth considering whether or not the legacy of Mike Bloomberg will be proof, once and for all, that money can buy anything--including respect for a record that, if it exists at all, is largely unaccomplished.'
Gang Warfare
All of our friends over at 32BJ are going all out to try to insure that the state senate has a democrat as leader. As Liz tells us: "This week, some 8,000 Bronx members of 32BJ will receive direct direct mail pieces targeting two of the so-called Gang of Three - Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. - in an effort to crank up pressure on the dissidents to come back to the Democratic fold and back Malcolm Smith for majority leader."
Senator Kruger must be feeling really left out of all of this; why are all the other guys getting the attention?, he must be asking himself. The effort by the union, of course, would have zero impact in Kruger's district-as would that of the other members of the coalition: "The mailers, which are in both English and Spanish, are part of a wider campaign by a number of labor interests that were instrumental in helping the Senate Democrats win a majority of seats this fall for the first time since 1965 and don't want to see the fruits of their labor scuttled by three renegades. Other union members of this pro-Democrat alliance include: Unite-HERE/ New York Hotel Trades Council, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and the Communications Workers of America."
And last we checked, the Dems need 32 votes, so someone better start showing Kruger some love. The union folks aren't the only members of the tail wagging dog coalition. however: "Also involved in the push to co-opt the Gang of Three are: NARAL Pro-Choice NY, the Empire State Pride Agenda, Tenants PAC, and the Working Families Party. All have a wide range of policy agendas - from same-sex marriage to protecting rent regulation - the success of which hinges on the Democrats having control of both the Senate and the Assembly (not to mention the governor's office)."
None of these actors will have any impact on Kruger, and the gay rights and abortion folks will only antagonize, not only Diaz, but many of his church-going constituents as well. Diaz, for his part, is taking a holiday to tend to his flock: "Sen. Ruben Diaz, one of the so-called “Gang of Three,” said that he’s taking a break from the whole Senate leadership issue for the holidays. “I took a vacation from this problem, this issue, for the last two weeks,” he said.”I have not met with anyone. Not with the Sen. Smith, not with the Republicans, and not with the two guys.” When asked why he was taking a break from it all, he said, “I’m a minister, I’m involved with the the church. After the new year, we’ll be talking with people."
Which apparently is what the other two gang members are doing as well-believing that the ball is in Smith's court; since it was the putative leader who agreed to a deal, and then didn't. But the clock is certainly ticking, and the Monserrate mess ain't helping matters much for Smith and his flock; with one Democratic constituent even going so far as to demand that Hiram not be sworn in with the assault charges pending.
As the NY Daily News reports: "Marcia Pappas, president of the state chapter of the National Organization for Women, told the Daily News Monserrate should not take office until the charges against him were resolved. "Certainly if there's an indication that he's a perpetrator of domestic violence, the leadership in the Senate needs to take the appropriate steps," she said."
Which begs the question: "What leadership?" Since, without Hiram, the Dems are one vote short; something that can't be simply taken with a grain of assault.
Senator Kruger must be feeling really left out of all of this; why are all the other guys getting the attention?, he must be asking himself. The effort by the union, of course, would have zero impact in Kruger's district-as would that of the other members of the coalition: "The mailers, which are in both English and Spanish, are part of a wider campaign by a number of labor interests that were instrumental in helping the Senate Democrats win a majority of seats this fall for the first time since 1965 and don't want to see the fruits of their labor scuttled by three renegades. Other union members of this pro-Democrat alliance include: Unite-HERE/ New York Hotel Trades Council, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and the Communications Workers of America."
And last we checked, the Dems need 32 votes, so someone better start showing Kruger some love. The union folks aren't the only members of the tail wagging dog coalition. however: "Also involved in the push to co-opt the Gang of Three are: NARAL Pro-Choice NY, the Empire State Pride Agenda, Tenants PAC, and the Working Families Party. All have a wide range of policy agendas - from same-sex marriage to protecting rent regulation - the success of which hinges on the Democrats having control of both the Senate and the Assembly (not to mention the governor's office)."
None of these actors will have any impact on Kruger, and the gay rights and abortion folks will only antagonize, not only Diaz, but many of his church-going constituents as well. Diaz, for his part, is taking a holiday to tend to his flock: "Sen. Ruben Diaz, one of the so-called “Gang of Three,” said that he’s taking a break from the whole Senate leadership issue for the holidays. “I took a vacation from this problem, this issue, for the last two weeks,” he said.”I have not met with anyone. Not with the Sen. Smith, not with the Republicans, and not with the two guys.” When asked why he was taking a break from it all, he said, “I’m a minister, I’m involved with the the church. After the new year, we’ll be talking with people."
Which apparently is what the other two gang members are doing as well-believing that the ball is in Smith's court; since it was the putative leader who agreed to a deal, and then didn't. But the clock is certainly ticking, and the Monserrate mess ain't helping matters much for Smith and his flock; with one Democratic constituent even going so far as to demand that Hiram not be sworn in with the assault charges pending.
As the NY Daily News reports: "Marcia Pappas, president of the state chapter of the National Organization for Women, told the Daily News Monserrate should not take office until the charges against him were resolved. "Certainly if there's an indication that he's a perpetrator of domestic violence, the leadership in the Senate needs to take the appropriate steps," she said."
Which begs the question: "What leadership?" Since, without Hiram, the Dems are one vote short; something that can't be simply taken with a grain of assault.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Senate Stenosis
Well, we're almost past the twelve days of Christmas, and Malcolm Smith is still without the senate leadership in his stocking-and it doesn't look like it will happen so soon. As Liz Benjamin writes this morning, commenting on the Monserrate snafu and the Golden threat to try to prevent him from being seated: "A resolution vote could be complicated by the so-called Gang of Three - three renegade senators who have refused to pledge their loyalty to Smith following the collapse of a power-sharing deal that would have greatly enhanced their clout. Without them, Smith is three votes shy of the 32 he needs to be majority leader. Losing Monserrate would put Smith at 28 votes. The Republicans have 29, with the election of incumbent Republican Queens Sen. Frank Padavan still tied up in court."
Of course, the three amigos are still out there-and who knows how they'll react to the Monserrate incident: "Monserrate used to be allied with the renegades - Sen. Carl Kruger, Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada Jr. - but abandoned them to cut his own deal with Smith. Members of the Gang of Three have not forgotten how he turned his back on them."
The resolution here could go in any number of different ways-Smith could be unseated, or elevated; or Skelos and the Republicans could sneak in. The stalemate could, however, remain unresolved for weeks, just when quick action on the dire state budget is needed: "The turmoil in the Senate is happening as the state faces one of it's worst budget deficits ever, a combined $15billion dollar gap. Governor David Paterson, who wants the legislature to act swiftly on spending cuts and new taxes and fees in the New Year, remains unconcerned, at least publicly, about the disarray, and says he'll work with either party."
All of this is further complicated by the fact that the Padavan recount also is in limbo; with an appeal of a judge's inane decision to count paper ballots that both Democrats and Republicans had discarded as flawed. If the court decision expected today isn't final, that Skelos and company only have 29 votes: "Residents of the 11th state Senate district in northeast Queens may be without an Albany representative next month as the legal wrangling over that seat continues. An appellate court is expected to decide today whether the Board of Elections should resume counting almost 2,000 paper ballots previously marked invalid. Republicans are expected to appeal any decision that allows those ballots to be counted."
So it may be necessary for the governor to intervene here if he wants to get swift action on his austere budget proposals. Without leadership, the senate is basically out of business; kinda like the state of New York's government in general.
Of course, the three amigos are still out there-and who knows how they'll react to the Monserrate incident: "Monserrate used to be allied with the renegades - Sen. Carl Kruger, Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada Jr. - but abandoned them to cut his own deal with Smith. Members of the Gang of Three have not forgotten how he turned his back on them."
The resolution here could go in any number of different ways-Smith could be unseated, or elevated; or Skelos and the Republicans could sneak in. The stalemate could, however, remain unresolved for weeks, just when quick action on the dire state budget is needed: "The turmoil in the Senate is happening as the state faces one of it's worst budget deficits ever, a combined $15billion dollar gap. Governor David Paterson, who wants the legislature to act swiftly on spending cuts and new taxes and fees in the New Year, remains unconcerned, at least publicly, about the disarray, and says he'll work with either party."
All of this is further complicated by the fact that the Padavan recount also is in limbo; with an appeal of a judge's inane decision to count paper ballots that both Democrats and Republicans had discarded as flawed. If the court decision expected today isn't final, that Skelos and company only have 29 votes: "Residents of the 11th state Senate district in northeast Queens may be without an Albany representative next month as the legal wrangling over that seat continues. An appellate court is expected to decide today whether the Board of Elections should resume counting almost 2,000 paper ballots previously marked invalid. Republicans are expected to appeal any decision that allows those ballots to be counted."
So it may be necessary for the governor to intervene here if he wants to get swift action on his austere budget proposals. Without leadership, the senate is basically out of business; kinda like the state of New York's government in general.
Times' Senate Musings
Eleanor Randolf weighed in yesterday on the stalemate in the state senate-and she invokes the ghost of Joe Zaretzki-but with Randolf you're always wondering where all of the information is coming from. In any case, she sees potential disaster in the making: "Democratic senators managed to win a two-seat majority in November, but still cannot decide on a new leader. One sleazy deal to give the leadership to Malcolm Smith of Queens has already fallen apart. That had three particularly whiny Democrats threatening to vote for a Republican leader if Mr. Smith did not do their bidding."
Sleazy deal? Does she mean the part of the deal that would have lead to greater power for committee chairs? Oh, probably not. She must be upset with giving Espada and Kruger plum assignments; unlike all of the other politicians who horse trade as part of their political essence-or a slug like Joe Biden who's keeping his senate seat warm for his highly qualified son.
But we digress. Randolf's stealth intent here isn't disparaging Kruger and Espada-"Manchurian Democrats" is the way she describes them-it is to undermine the Smith ascension by raising the Republican bogyman: "While the Democrats scramble to hold on to their slim majority, Republicans are already negotiating behind the scenes to find a different leader who will keep things from changing too much in Albany. New Yorkers have no time for such nonsense. The state faces a mammoth budget crisis. And after years of stalemate, voters are expecting a new Senate to clean up campaign financing and reform redistricting. Instead, as in Senator Zaretzki’s day, Democrats are looking so disorganized that some voters must already be wondering what was so bad about the Republicans."
Randolf's "reporting" becomes a bit clearer-at least for the cognoscenti. And which voters does she see as longing for campaign finance and redistricting reform? No, Randolf's real intent lies elsewhere. Come on Dems, she whispers, let's find a better leader who can keep the Republican wolf from our door. And with this we're left to wonder: Cui bono?
Sleazy deal? Does she mean the part of the deal that would have lead to greater power for committee chairs? Oh, probably not. She must be upset with giving Espada and Kruger plum assignments; unlike all of the other politicians who horse trade as part of their political essence-or a slug like Joe Biden who's keeping his senate seat warm for his highly qualified son.
But we digress. Randolf's stealth intent here isn't disparaging Kruger and Espada-"Manchurian Democrats" is the way she describes them-it is to undermine the Smith ascension by raising the Republican bogyman: "While the Democrats scramble to hold on to their slim majority, Republicans are already negotiating behind the scenes to find a different leader who will keep things from changing too much in Albany. New Yorkers have no time for such nonsense. The state faces a mammoth budget crisis. And after years of stalemate, voters are expecting a new Senate to clean up campaign financing and reform redistricting. Instead, as in Senator Zaretzki’s day, Democrats are looking so disorganized that some voters must already be wondering what was so bad about the Republicans."
Randolf's "reporting" becomes a bit clearer-at least for the cognoscenti. And which voters does she see as longing for campaign finance and redistricting reform? No, Randolf's real intent lies elsewhere. Come on Dems, she whispers, let's find a better leader who can keep the Republican wolf from our door. And with this we're left to wonder: Cui bono?
The Bloomberg Assesment: No Third Term
Mike Lupica is not always our favorite columnist, but Sunday he really hit one out-skewering the mayor on the Yankee Stadium assessment scam with a column titled: "It's a Wonderful Lie." In his piece he ridicules Bloomerg as the Harry Potter of big city mayors-the kind of wizard we need, supposedly, to get us out from under.
Yet, if he capable of such wizardry, he doesn't appear to be applying it for the good of city tax payers-not if this stadium deal is any true measure. As Lupica points out: "So one of these days Bloomberg and the people who work for him - or used to work for him when he was trying to get the deal done on the financing of the new Yankee Stadium - need to explain something to the citizens of New York, and to the Congress, in a way those of us who aren't financial wizards can understand: How more than two years ago the appraised value of the land around the new stadium, land the Yankees need to build the richest baseball stadium ever built, suddenly and magically went from $27 million to $204 million because that made the deal work best for the New York Yankees."
What Lupica sees clearly, is just how much this giveaway tells us about the mayor's real resume: working assiduously to aggrandize his wealth cohort: "Because if the city just hands over the bonds at a time like this, it will tell you everything about the way Bloomberg's New York actually works for the rich and the powerful." And why the assessment of the city's voters should be to reduce the Bloomberg rating into junk bond status.
Yet, if he capable of such wizardry, he doesn't appear to be applying it for the good of city tax payers-not if this stadium deal is any true measure. As Lupica points out: "So one of these days Bloomberg and the people who work for him - or used to work for him when he was trying to get the deal done on the financing of the new Yankee Stadium - need to explain something to the citizens of New York, and to the Congress, in a way those of us who aren't financial wizards can understand: How more than two years ago the appraised value of the land around the new stadium, land the Yankees need to build the richest baseball stadium ever built, suddenly and magically went from $27 million to $204 million because that made the deal work best for the New York Yankees."
What Lupica sees clearly, is just how much this giveaway tells us about the mayor's real resume: working assiduously to aggrandize his wealth cohort: "Because if the city just hands over the bonds at a time like this, it will tell you everything about the way Bloomberg's New York actually works for the rich and the powerful." And why the assessment of the city's voters should be to reduce the Bloomberg rating into junk bond status.
Budget Opportunities
As we have pointed out, both the mayor and the governor seem lost when it comes to finding creative ways to save the tax payers from paying through the nose during the current budget meltdown-and one of the most expensive government expenses is for pensions, something that both men don't want to touch. As Adam Brodsky points out: "GOV. Paterson and Mayor Bloom berg may be about to blow the biggest chance in a generation to fix New York's long-broken, budget-busting public-pension system. Indeed, their planned remedies fall so far short, and come with such a steep political price, it may be wiser for them to simply hold their fire - and do nothing - rather than waste a precious opportunity."
The problem here us that pensions are fixed no matter how badly the market is doing-unlike most of us who have taken a bath along with the decline in stocks; and the benefits in New York are unmatched elsewhere: "Payments to the funds for New York public-employee pensions devour huge sums of taxpayer dollars, largely because the benefits are more generous than in other states - or in the private sector. Retirees are also living longer, thus further fueling cost spikes. Meanwhile, politicians - pandering to public-sector unions - regularly sweeten the employees' pot even more."
If something's not done soon, the tax payers will be hosed big time: "The really bad news: It may be impossible, at this point, to stave off pension-driven fiscal calamity. Sagging financial markets - in which the funds are invested - have sapped fund values. And, since retirement benefits in New York are guaranteed, taxpayers must cough up the difference. If the markets don't recover soon, New Yorkers may face mammoth new tax hikes and truly draconian cuts in government services to keep pension funds whole. Taxpayers will be rightly furious to learn that they have to pay up big-time to hold civil-servant retirements harmless - even as their own 401(k) plans have shriveled."
What we need is a pay-as-you-go system; just like the private sector: "The private sector has largely switched to a saner system. With each paycheck, workers and firms contribute set amounts to personal retirement accounts. If government did that, it would take an enormous load off taxpayers' backs (and make it easier for budget planners, too)."
Will we get this? Not likely, since neither Bloomberg nor Paterson are willing to take on the public employee unions. But if they don't we're all headed for fiscal disaster; "Far better for Bloomberg and Paterson to amend their plans and push for more fundamental change - or just stand down and wait for another moment. Perhaps that moment will come when a political leader with more backbone steps up. Or when fiscal collapse forces a major overhaul. But by then, of course, it may be too late."
The problem here us that pensions are fixed no matter how badly the market is doing-unlike most of us who have taken a bath along with the decline in stocks; and the benefits in New York are unmatched elsewhere: "Payments to the funds for New York public-employee pensions devour huge sums of taxpayer dollars, largely because the benefits are more generous than in other states - or in the private sector. Retirees are also living longer, thus further fueling cost spikes. Meanwhile, politicians - pandering to public-sector unions - regularly sweeten the employees' pot even more."
If something's not done soon, the tax payers will be hosed big time: "The really bad news: It may be impossible, at this point, to stave off pension-driven fiscal calamity. Sagging financial markets - in which the funds are invested - have sapped fund values. And, since retirement benefits in New York are guaranteed, taxpayers must cough up the difference. If the markets don't recover soon, New Yorkers may face mammoth new tax hikes and truly draconian cuts in government services to keep pension funds whole. Taxpayers will be rightly furious to learn that they have to pay up big-time to hold civil-servant retirements harmless - even as their own 401(k) plans have shriveled."
What we need is a pay-as-you-go system; just like the private sector: "The private sector has largely switched to a saner system. With each paycheck, workers and firms contribute set amounts to personal retirement accounts. If government did that, it would take an enormous load off taxpayers' backs (and make it easier for budget planners, too)."
Will we get this? Not likely, since neither Bloomberg nor Paterson are willing to take on the public employee unions. But if they don't we're all headed for fiscal disaster; "Far better for Bloomberg and Paterson to amend their plans and push for more fundamental change - or just stand down and wait for another moment. Perhaps that moment will come when a political leader with more backbone steps up. Or when fiscal collapse forces a major overhaul. But by then, of course, it may be too late."
Government Remains Intax
Between the mayor and the governor-not to mention the MTA-New Yorkers are about to pay the price for political profligacy and malfeasance. As the NY Post editorialized yesterday: "Gov. Paterson is touting 137 new taxes and fees, the MTA wants to jack up fares 23% - and the City Council and Mayor Bloomberg just passed a 7% property-tax hit. Moreover, Bloomberg on Friday took to the radio and snarled that councilmembers who voted against the higher levies are "cowards" - and said that more local tax hikes are in the works. Hmm."
This comes from someone with a very limited view of the possibilities of government reinvention; and also someone who has spent seven years posturing as a leaders who is able to make the tough decisions because he's unencumbered by special interests. All of this is, of course, fraudulent.
All of us like toughness, but when it isn't accompanied by any political or fiscal acuity, what do we really have? As the Post points out: "Yeah, we know: The pols face a monster "budget crunch." But, c'mon - in all frankness, it's in no small way a "crunch" of their own creation. After all, when prudent folks realize they're going to be short of cash, the first thing they do is stop spending so much. Not New York pols. Their solution is simply to pick the public's pocket - through endless tax and fee hikes."
And Mike Bloomberg is certainly no exception-having squandered any opportunity to govern sensibly when the city was flush with Wall Street cash. And David Paterson appears ready to jettison his tough talk and, what else, try to knee jerk his way out of this mess with more taxes as well. As the NY Times pointed out, income tax hikes may be following his record number of fee and nuisance tax proposals: "Gov. David A. Paterson rolled out 137 proposed tax and fee increases last week on items including iTunes downloads and soft drinks, but there could very well be another big one to come."
It won't be long before that personal income tax hike is dragged out; all in the name of "fairness." As the Times tells us: "Increasing income taxes on the richest residents of New York is still a last resort, Mr. Paterson said in an interview, but one that may become necessary as a result of the state’s precarious financial condition. For now, the governor has avoided broad-based income tax increases even as he has proposed $4 billion worth of new or increased taxes and fees to help close a $15.4 billion budget deficit, the largest in state history."
Where are the dramatic cost reductions? The streamlining and consolidation? Instead the governor appears ready to concede defeat to the groups who depend on government largess: "Increasing income taxes on the richest residents of New York is still a last resort, Mr. Paterson said in an interview, but one that may become necessary as a result of the state’s precarious financial condition. For now, the governor has avoided broad-based income tax increases even as he has proposed $4 billion worth of new or increased taxes and fees to help close a $15.4 billion budget deficit, the largest in state history."
Newsday also believes that the cave-in is inevitable: "Gov. David A. Paterson's proposed budget for 2009-10 may not be dead-on-arrival in the legislature, but it is on life-support, experts said..."He very much faces an uphill battle because the constituencies putting pressure on the legislature not to adopt his budget are so powerful," said Elizabeth Lynam of the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission."
Let's face it, Paterson simply doesn't have the mandate-or the political courage-to stand strong for fiscal sanity; and for the state's beleaguered tax payers. And now he's even gone about belittling those who complain about his record number of fees. Here's how the NY Daily News reported this scorning: " Gov. Paterson doesn't understand all the fuss about the $4 billion in new taxes and fees he has proposed to help close a $15.4 billion budget gap. "We found a lot of little taxes that are optional," Paterson said on WOR radio. "In other words, people can stay away from these items and don't have to pay the tax."
Kinda like a, "Let them eat cake," moment; a tone deafness to the struggles that New Yorkers are going through in these tough times: "Later, in a conference call with reporters, Paterson warned of fiscal calamity if the state does not begin addressing its massive budget problems.
"I am uncomfortable with [the fiscal] reality, but I'm very comfortable with this budget," Paterson said. "I feel we have assessed responsibility very equally." The governor said he opted for the new fees and taxes after trimming $9.5 billion in education, health care and other spending. "We didn't think we could cut beyond where we did," Paterson said. "That's when we had to look at taxation."
And yet this budget is $1,4 billion larger than the last! How prudent is this approach? The Post strikes the right note here: "But both the city and the state have got to keep their eyes on the ball: Tax and fee hikes will only throttle an already badly battered economy - and hurt struggling residents, to boot. They've got to keep digging for more savings. And, really: With $180 billion in total passing through City Hall and Albany, how hard should it be to find them?"
This comes from someone with a very limited view of the possibilities of government reinvention; and also someone who has spent seven years posturing as a leaders who is able to make the tough decisions because he's unencumbered by special interests. All of this is, of course, fraudulent.
All of us like toughness, but when it isn't accompanied by any political or fiscal acuity, what do we really have? As the Post points out: "Yeah, we know: The pols face a monster "budget crunch." But, c'mon - in all frankness, it's in no small way a "crunch" of their own creation. After all, when prudent folks realize they're going to be short of cash, the first thing they do is stop spending so much. Not New York pols. Their solution is simply to pick the public's pocket - through endless tax and fee hikes."
And Mike Bloomberg is certainly no exception-having squandered any opportunity to govern sensibly when the city was flush with Wall Street cash. And David Paterson appears ready to jettison his tough talk and, what else, try to knee jerk his way out of this mess with more taxes as well. As the NY Times pointed out, income tax hikes may be following his record number of fee and nuisance tax proposals: "Gov. David A. Paterson rolled out 137 proposed tax and fee increases last week on items including iTunes downloads and soft drinks, but there could very well be another big one to come."
It won't be long before that personal income tax hike is dragged out; all in the name of "fairness." As the Times tells us: "Increasing income taxes on the richest residents of New York is still a last resort, Mr. Paterson said in an interview, but one that may become necessary as a result of the state’s precarious financial condition. For now, the governor has avoided broad-based income tax increases even as he has proposed $4 billion worth of new or increased taxes and fees to help close a $15.4 billion budget deficit, the largest in state history."
Where are the dramatic cost reductions? The streamlining and consolidation? Instead the governor appears ready to concede defeat to the groups who depend on government largess: "Increasing income taxes on the richest residents of New York is still a last resort, Mr. Paterson said in an interview, but one that may become necessary as a result of the state’s precarious financial condition. For now, the governor has avoided broad-based income tax increases even as he has proposed $4 billion worth of new or increased taxes and fees to help close a $15.4 billion budget deficit, the largest in state history."
Newsday also believes that the cave-in is inevitable: "Gov. David A. Paterson's proposed budget for 2009-10 may not be dead-on-arrival in the legislature, but it is on life-support, experts said..."He very much faces an uphill battle because the constituencies putting pressure on the legislature not to adopt his budget are so powerful," said Elizabeth Lynam of the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission."
Let's face it, Paterson simply doesn't have the mandate-or the political courage-to stand strong for fiscal sanity; and for the state's beleaguered tax payers. And now he's even gone about belittling those who complain about his record number of fees. Here's how the NY Daily News reported this scorning: " Gov. Paterson doesn't understand all the fuss about the $4 billion in new taxes and fees he has proposed to help close a $15.4 billion budget gap. "We found a lot of little taxes that are optional," Paterson said on WOR radio. "In other words, people can stay away from these items and don't have to pay the tax."
Kinda like a, "Let them eat cake," moment; a tone deafness to the struggles that New Yorkers are going through in these tough times: "Later, in a conference call with reporters, Paterson warned of fiscal calamity if the state does not begin addressing its massive budget problems.
"I am uncomfortable with [the fiscal] reality, but I'm very comfortable with this budget," Paterson said. "I feel we have assessed responsibility very equally." The governor said he opted for the new fees and taxes after trimming $9.5 billion in education, health care and other spending. "We didn't think we could cut beyond where we did," Paterson said. "That's when we had to look at taxation."
And yet this budget is $1,4 billion larger than the last! How prudent is this approach? The Post strikes the right note here: "But both the city and the state have got to keep their eyes on the ball: Tax and fee hikes will only throttle an already badly battered economy - and hurt struggling residents, to boot. They've got to keep digging for more savings. And, really: With $180 billion in total passing through City Hall and Albany, how hard should it be to find them?"
Friday, December 19, 2008
Punishing Bad Behavior
Clyde Haberman expounds on the governor's proposed soda tax-as well as some other tax measures that rely on human weaknesses: "Here they go again, the politicians, looking to capitalize on human frailty. With his tax proposals this week, Gov. David A. Paterson joined a long line of New York leaders who have counted on self-wounding, even self-destructive, behavior to help them dig out of budget holes. Mr. Paterson called for a huge tax, 18 percent, on sugary sodas and juice drinks. It’s a public health measure, his lieutenants said — you know, to counter the obesity epidemic."
Haberman's not buying it however: "Sure. The $404 million tax haul that the governor expects next year is merely incidental, right? State budget planners are so confident that New Yorkers will keep guzzling sugar-laden soda that they figure the tax will pull in even more money, $539 million, the following year."
How this accounts for the statement from the governor's office that the tax will reduce soda consumption by 5% is beyond us-but we never bought that argument in the first place; the tax is simply too small to dramatically alter consumption patterns. All it will do is reduce the disposable income of a lot of low income consumers.
And what about the government's own addiction to the revenues? As Haberman underscores: "Make no mistake, the last thing that government wants is for everyone, right this minute, to stop smoking, boozing, gambling and downing those nutritionally empty supersweet sodas. Too much money is at stake." But that won't stop the hypocrites from shrieking about Big Tobacco, or the nefarious mega food corporations; screaming all the way to the bank in this case.
Haberman's not buying it however: "Sure. The $404 million tax haul that the governor expects next year is merely incidental, right? State budget planners are so confident that New Yorkers will keep guzzling sugar-laden soda that they figure the tax will pull in even more money, $539 million, the following year."
How this accounts for the statement from the governor's office that the tax will reduce soda consumption by 5% is beyond us-but we never bought that argument in the first place; the tax is simply too small to dramatically alter consumption patterns. All it will do is reduce the disposable income of a lot of low income consumers.
And what about the government's own addiction to the revenues? As Haberman underscores: "Make no mistake, the last thing that government wants is for everyone, right this minute, to stop smoking, boozing, gambling and downing those nutritionally empty supersweet sodas. Too much money is at stake." But that won't stop the hypocrites from shrieking about Big Tobacco, or the nefarious mega food corporations; screaming all the way to the bank in this case.
One Trick Ponies
The inevitable conclusion to the budget dance between the mayor and the city council was reached yesterday-with the city's home owners getting predictably whacked. As the NY Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s $1.2 billion property tax increase won approval from the City Council on Thursday, raising homeowners’ bills by 7 percent as the city grapples with a worsening economy and disappearing revenue. As a result of the 33-to-18 vote, annual tax bills will increase by hundreds or in some cases thousands of dollars, effective Jan 1."
How sad it is, but given the mayor's nonfeasance over the past seven years-and the council's collusion-there really isn't anything that both parties could do besides hiking our taxes. But, as Simcha Felder points out: "Opponents warned that residents were already overtaxed. Since Mr. Bloomberg took office, property taxes have increased by 18.5 percent. “Today, the Council votes to take the bucket to the same old well and ask homeowners to bear the brunt of a swelling budget among dwindling revenues,” Councilman Simcha Felder of Brooklyn said. He added, “I believe that is unacceptable and that will hurt all New Yorkers in this difficult time.”
Bloomberg, with little new to say on much of anything, sings his hackneyed old song: "In a statement after Thursday’s vote, Mr. Bloomberg said: “It’s never popular to phase out a tax cut or reduce agency spending, but they are the right choices to avoid far greater and longer-lasting pain. We will not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s, which crippled city finances and nearly destroyed our quality of life.”
Now what we need from Thompson and Weiner is the kind of creative critiques we have already gotten on a state level from DiNapoli, Cuomo and Suozzi; trenchant analyses of how to reduce the size of city government-and provide services in a more creative and economical manner; something Mike Bloomberg has even given a thought to.
How sad it is, but given the mayor's nonfeasance over the past seven years-and the council's collusion-there really isn't anything that both parties could do besides hiking our taxes. But, as Simcha Felder points out: "Opponents warned that residents were already overtaxed. Since Mr. Bloomberg took office, property taxes have increased by 18.5 percent. “Today, the Council votes to take the bucket to the same old well and ask homeowners to bear the brunt of a swelling budget among dwindling revenues,” Councilman Simcha Felder of Brooklyn said. He added, “I believe that is unacceptable and that will hurt all New Yorkers in this difficult time.”
Bloomberg, with little new to say on much of anything, sings his hackneyed old song: "In a statement after Thursday’s vote, Mr. Bloomberg said: “It’s never popular to phase out a tax cut or reduce agency spending, but they are the right choices to avoid far greater and longer-lasting pain. We will not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s, which crippled city finances and nearly destroyed our quality of life.”
Now what we need from Thompson and Weiner is the kind of creative critiques we have already gotten on a state level from DiNapoli, Cuomo and Suozzi; trenchant analyses of how to reduce the size of city government-and provide services in a more creative and economical manner; something Mike Bloomberg has even given a thought to.
No Camelot in Wayne's World
According to Wayne Barret, we may have Mayor Mike to thank if the governor appoints Caroline Kennedy to the Senate: "It would be an oversimplification to say that Mike Bloomberg is the main man behind the Caroline Kennedy tsunami that's hit in the last two days...As large as these forces are, however, the ground war in New York is being waged out of City Hall. The same bluebloods who brought us Mike Bloomberg's term-limit extension have now joined the campaign for Senator Caroline Kennedy, and not just because they love Sweet Caroline."
So the Prince of Privilege has found his Princess, and as they say in Brooklyn; "Not for nothin'" Because, as Barrett surmises, there is indeed something in it for Mike Bloomberg: "If Paterson bows to the Kennedy surge, he may end whatever chance his Harlem neighbor Bill Thompson has of becoming the city's second black mayor...Imagine it's a few months from now, with the New York mayoral race approaching. Senator Caroline Kennedy endorses Bloomberg and wraps her arm around him at event after event. The endorsement of New York's newest Democratic senator--and the slightly less explicit support of Chuck Schumer (whose wife was a Bloomberg commissioner)--combine to neutralize an attempt by President Obama to campaign for a serious Democratic challenger to Bloomberg, who didn't endorse Obama in the presidential election."
And what would such a fairy tale be without it's Dark Knight? So, with great fanfare, in comes the Reverend Al Sharpton to bless the novice. As the NY Post points out: "Kennedy did have some good news yesterday. The Rev. Al Sharpton all but endorsed her after the two broke bread at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, where she described herself as a "Clinton Democrat."
Can anyone say "Master Card moment"? So Sharpton is putting the knife into Bill Thompson for a second time-the first being when he got lock jaw over the Bloomberg term limits override. Another "Not for nothin'" example of the Sharpton cash nexus; and the fact that he is represented by SKD as is Kennedy, just adds to the evidence that the reverend is as available as any item on E-Bay.
But what got our attention was Barret's deconstruction of the Kennedy resume-one that he claims has been reinvented: "The most tawdry part of the Bloomberg cheerleading, however, has been the exaggeration of the Kennedy resume. Aside from Caroline's books--some of which have been collections of her mother's favorite poems and other people's essays--the only significant career accomplishment is the two months she worked part-time at Bloomberg's Department of Education."
As the innkeeper's wife in Les Miz might say; "She thinks she's quite a lover, but there's not much there." Much of her work for education appears to have been overhyped-and she apparently has put in as much time down at the DOE as one of the city's fabled pothole inspectors: "The former Klein aide who would only talk to the Voice anonymously said that he sat near Kennedy's cubicle and that when she came in, she would "only stay a couple of hours or so." He said she was brought into meetings with potential donors and added to the fundraising effort by her quiet presence and charm."
Enough qualifications for her next gig, No? As Juan Gonzales underscores this morning: "The U.S. Senate is not the British House of Lords. Family pedigree and connections are not what counts. The Senate is not for on-the-job training or affirmative action programs for the privileged, no matter how well-intentioned. It is a body that must make enormously important decisions every day of the year."
But the biggest argument against Caroline is the fact that Mike Bloomberg/SKD is her biggest booster. Once again, as we have commented on before, the mayor's concatenation of privileged admirers is gearing up to arrogate to themselves rights that should reside with the folks. We'll give Gonzales the final word on this stealth coronation: "Gov. Paterson should show some backbone. He, more than anyone, should reject this notion of government by entitlement. He should appoint the best qualified person for the job, not a novice with a brand name."
So the Prince of Privilege has found his Princess, and as they say in Brooklyn; "Not for nothin'" Because, as Barrett surmises, there is indeed something in it for Mike Bloomberg: "If Paterson bows to the Kennedy surge, he may end whatever chance his Harlem neighbor Bill Thompson has of becoming the city's second black mayor...Imagine it's a few months from now, with the New York mayoral race approaching. Senator Caroline Kennedy endorses Bloomberg and wraps her arm around him at event after event. The endorsement of New York's newest Democratic senator--and the slightly less explicit support of Chuck Schumer (whose wife was a Bloomberg commissioner)--combine to neutralize an attempt by President Obama to campaign for a serious Democratic challenger to Bloomberg, who didn't endorse Obama in the presidential election."
And what would such a fairy tale be without it's Dark Knight? So, with great fanfare, in comes the Reverend Al Sharpton to bless the novice. As the NY Post points out: "Kennedy did have some good news yesterday. The Rev. Al Sharpton all but endorsed her after the two broke bread at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, where she described herself as a "Clinton Democrat."
Can anyone say "Master Card moment"? So Sharpton is putting the knife into Bill Thompson for a second time-the first being when he got lock jaw over the Bloomberg term limits override. Another "Not for nothin'" example of the Sharpton cash nexus; and the fact that he is represented by SKD as is Kennedy, just adds to the evidence that the reverend is as available as any item on E-Bay.
But what got our attention was Barret's deconstruction of the Kennedy resume-one that he claims has been reinvented: "The most tawdry part of the Bloomberg cheerleading, however, has been the exaggeration of the Kennedy resume. Aside from Caroline's books--some of which have been collections of her mother's favorite poems and other people's essays--the only significant career accomplishment is the two months she worked part-time at Bloomberg's Department of Education."
As the innkeeper's wife in Les Miz might say; "She thinks she's quite a lover, but there's not much there." Much of her work for education appears to have been overhyped-and she apparently has put in as much time down at the DOE as one of the city's fabled pothole inspectors: "The former Klein aide who would only talk to the Voice anonymously said that he sat near Kennedy's cubicle and that when she came in, she would "only stay a couple of hours or so." He said she was brought into meetings with potential donors and added to the fundraising effort by her quiet presence and charm."
Enough qualifications for her next gig, No? As Juan Gonzales underscores this morning: "The U.S. Senate is not the British House of Lords. Family pedigree and connections are not what counts. The Senate is not for on-the-job training or affirmative action programs for the privileged, no matter how well-intentioned. It is a body that must make enormously important decisions every day of the year."
But the biggest argument against Caroline is the fact that Mike Bloomberg/SKD is her biggest booster. Once again, as we have commented on before, the mayor's concatenation of privileged admirers is gearing up to arrogate to themselves rights that should reside with the folks. We'll give Gonzales the final word on this stealth coronation: "Gov. Paterson should show some backbone. He, more than anyone, should reject this notion of government by entitlement. He should appoint the best qualified person for the job, not a novice with a brand name."
Super Nanny Paterson
Governor David Paterson wants to reduce the obesity epidemic, and believes that his 18% soda tax will do the trick: "If we are to succeed in reducing childhood obesity, we must reduce consumption of sugared beverages. That is the purpose of our proposed tax. We estimate that an 18 percent tax will reduce consumption by five percent. Our tax would apply only to sugared drinks -- including fruit drinks that are less than 70 percent juice -- that are nondiet. The $404 million this tax would raise next year will go toward funding public health programs, including obesity prevention programs, across New York state."
"We estimate..," but by what measure? Whose study does this rely on, and where was it peer reviewed? But the governor, unencumbered by any data, plows ahead undeterred-falsely comparing soda consumption with tobacco: "In recent decades, anti-smoking campaigns have raised awareness. Smoking bans have been enacted and enforced. And, perhaps most importantly, we have raised the price of cigarettes. In June, New York state raised the state cigarette tax an additional $1.25. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this increase alone will prevent more than 243,000 kids from smoking, save more than 37,000 lives and produce more than $5 billion in health care savings."
Let's have some straight talk: cigarettes are killers; Coca Cola may cause tooth decay and, if you drink too much, you might get fat; that is, if you don't exercise and eat a balanced diet. So there really isn't any fair comparison-and the governor, by doing so, is ultimately both self serving and invidious. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't look to educate people about eating healthier foods; but where does this slippery slope end?
This doesn't stop Paterson from saying the following: "These taxes may be unpopular, but their benefits are undeniable. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, for the first time in generations, fewer than 20 percent of Americans smoked. Lung cancer rates have finally begun to decline. As a result, we are all healthier."
But the tax on tobacco is, unlike this soda levy, confiscatory-with a huge percentage of the price of a pack of cigarettes going to various layers of government. If you want to smoke, you are forced to cough up hundreds of taxed dollars to the government. How much you need to tax soda-or Twinkies for that matter-in order to reduce consumption is simply not known; and the 5% figure is just picked out of the governor's...fertile imagination.
So, what all this means, is that some of the lowest income New Yorkers who enjoy a Pepsi will be forced to divert a portion of their hard earned income to the government because of Governor Nanny. Now we happen to be diet soda aficionados, but we spent the better part of our childhood with the regular variety-remaining skinny as a rail for the duration.
This supposed well meaning government imposition is the start of a never ending invasion of our privacy, as well as our liberty. And health becomes a pretext for standard government taking: "But to make serious progress in this effort, we need to reduce the consumption of high-calorie drinks like nondiet soda among children and adults. I understand that New Yorkers may not like paying a surcharge for their favorite drinks. But surely it's a small price to pay for our children's health."
Taking a close look at many of our elected officials, however, one thing is crystal clear: we definitely shouldn't be taking health advice from politicians; especially those who are just using health to reduce our net assets. Soda syrup makes a slippery slope indeed.
"We estimate..," but by what measure? Whose study does this rely on, and where was it peer reviewed? But the governor, unencumbered by any data, plows ahead undeterred-falsely comparing soda consumption with tobacco: "In recent decades, anti-smoking campaigns have raised awareness. Smoking bans have been enacted and enforced. And, perhaps most importantly, we have raised the price of cigarettes. In June, New York state raised the state cigarette tax an additional $1.25. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this increase alone will prevent more than 243,000 kids from smoking, save more than 37,000 lives and produce more than $5 billion in health care savings."
Let's have some straight talk: cigarettes are killers; Coca Cola may cause tooth decay and, if you drink too much, you might get fat; that is, if you don't exercise and eat a balanced diet. So there really isn't any fair comparison-and the governor, by doing so, is ultimately both self serving and invidious. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't look to educate people about eating healthier foods; but where does this slippery slope end?
This doesn't stop Paterson from saying the following: "These taxes may be unpopular, but their benefits are undeniable. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, for the first time in generations, fewer than 20 percent of Americans smoked. Lung cancer rates have finally begun to decline. As a result, we are all healthier."
But the tax on tobacco is, unlike this soda levy, confiscatory-with a huge percentage of the price of a pack of cigarettes going to various layers of government. If you want to smoke, you are forced to cough up hundreds of taxed dollars to the government. How much you need to tax soda-or Twinkies for that matter-in order to reduce consumption is simply not known; and the 5% figure is just picked out of the governor's...fertile imagination.
So, what all this means, is that some of the lowest income New Yorkers who enjoy a Pepsi will be forced to divert a portion of their hard earned income to the government because of Governor Nanny. Now we happen to be diet soda aficionados, but we spent the better part of our childhood with the regular variety-remaining skinny as a rail for the duration.
This supposed well meaning government imposition is the start of a never ending invasion of our privacy, as well as our liberty. And health becomes a pretext for standard government taking: "But to make serious progress in this effort, we need to reduce the consumption of high-calorie drinks like nondiet soda among children and adults. I understand that New Yorkers may not like paying a surcharge for their favorite drinks. But surely it's a small price to pay for our children's health."
Taking a close look at many of our elected officials, however, one thing is crystal clear: we definitely shouldn't be taking health advice from politicians; especially those who are just using health to reduce our net assets. Soda syrup makes a slippery slope indeed.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Taxing Arguments
With both the state and the city poised to sock it to the tax payers, it's an opportune time to examine the dueling arguments. On e one side are the folks from the WFP and the DMI who believe that more taxes are good, as long as the "rich" are doing the paying; which is what the Working Families head Dan Canto has been promoting his millionaire's tax.
On the other hand, there are those, and we put ourselves in this category, who believe that New Yorkers at all levels are overtaxed-and it's government costs that need to be controlled. EJ McMahon frames this argument: "SHORTLY before Gov. Paterson unveiled his 2009-10 Executive Budget, one of his aides reportedly warned of "aggressive . . . cuts" that would leave "blood in the streets." However - despite what he calls "staggering" deficits this year and next - the governor is not eviscerating Albany's bloated budget. In fact, state spending would grow slightly under his proposal."
And with the governor sallying forth with a plethora of new taxes, it would seem that all New Yorkers would say, enough! And the NY Post finds that sentiment aplenty in the city streets: "New Yorkers blasted Gov. Paterson yesterday for trying to sock them with a slew of new fees and taxes that could cost them an extra $100 a month...Meghan Mackay, 37, a school consultant who lives on the Upper West Side with her husband and four sons, will have to cough up an additional $118.75 a month for everyday expenses under the tax-hike plan. Paterson's budget proposal adds $6.70 to her monthly cable bill, $10.05 to her gym membership and $16.75 to her cab fares. "I feel like it's a sneaky way to get people to pay taxes," Mackay told The Post."
But the counter side sees it somewhat differently: "But many state Democrats yesterday vowed to replace many of the Paterson budget's more than 130 tax-and-fee proposals with a sweeping new tax on the rich. Assemblyman Jonathan Bing (D-Manhattan) and others said the fees were unfair - setting the stage for a bruising conflict with the freshman governor. "A lot of them are regressive and will put the burden of difficult economic times on those least able to handle it," he said. "It doesn't make sense to tax a guy who buys a Pepsi with his lunch, but not tax the Pepsi executive who makes $13 million a year."
This, of course, reflects the Working Families position; but why is it being made into a class oriented zero-sum game? Why isn't Bing focusing in on the size of government and its grandiose spending? As the Post points out in its editorial: "By now, of course, everyone knows the private sector is hurting. And job losses are expected to get worse - much worse - over the next two years statewide. Yet, get this: State government employees are largely exempt from layoffs - even as private-sector job losses are driving Albany's biggest cash shortfall ever. Talk about a disconnect. Gov. Paterson wants to pink-slip, at most, a mere 520 staffers - a meaningless target, given Albany's 240,000- employee headcount. But by his own admission, this "would still represent . . . an increase of 8,927 compared to 2003-04." Fact is, the state headcount has been growing at a hefty clip: At 239,830, it's up 3.4 percent in just the past two years - and at the highest level since 1991."
It is unfair to tax the construction worker's can of Pepsi; but it's counterproductive to the economic growth that the construction worker depends on, to tax wealthy New Yorkers who are economic stimulators. When we talk about fair share, we tend to forget just how high taxed an environment New York is.
The problem is that the special interests that rule Albany are not alone-many New Yorkers are addicted to government; as long as someone else is seen as paying the bill; as Irene Liu points out: "But it isn't just the special interests who want tax increases instead of cuts to health care and education. According to a Siena Research Institute poll released Wednesday, 61 percent of voters support a tax increase on those making more than $250,000 (31 percent oppose it). Even more voters (78 percent) support a personal income tax increase on those making more than $1 million. Without broad-based taxes hikes, a majority of voters oppose cuts in education (68 percent against) and health care (65 percent)."
So we're going to need an elected official to come along who is strong enough to explain the economic facts of life to the voters-without, in the process, committing political suicide. If that person doesn't come forward, it might take economic collapse like we saw in the 1970s to force feed change on a tax addicted state.
On the other hand, there are those, and we put ourselves in this category, who believe that New Yorkers at all levels are overtaxed-and it's government costs that need to be controlled. EJ McMahon frames this argument: "SHORTLY before Gov. Paterson unveiled his 2009-10 Executive Budget, one of his aides reportedly warned of "aggressive . . . cuts" that would leave "blood in the streets." However - despite what he calls "staggering" deficits this year and next - the governor is not eviscerating Albany's bloated budget. In fact, state spending would grow slightly under his proposal."
And with the governor sallying forth with a plethora of new taxes, it would seem that all New Yorkers would say, enough! And the NY Post finds that sentiment aplenty in the city streets: "New Yorkers blasted Gov. Paterson yesterday for trying to sock them with a slew of new fees and taxes that could cost them an extra $100 a month...Meghan Mackay, 37, a school consultant who lives on the Upper West Side with her husband and four sons, will have to cough up an additional $118.75 a month for everyday expenses under the tax-hike plan. Paterson's budget proposal adds $6.70 to her monthly cable bill, $10.05 to her gym membership and $16.75 to her cab fares. "I feel like it's a sneaky way to get people to pay taxes," Mackay told The Post."
But the counter side sees it somewhat differently: "But many state Democrats yesterday vowed to replace many of the Paterson budget's more than 130 tax-and-fee proposals with a sweeping new tax on the rich. Assemblyman Jonathan Bing (D-Manhattan) and others said the fees were unfair - setting the stage for a bruising conflict with the freshman governor. "A lot of them are regressive and will put the burden of difficult economic times on those least able to handle it," he said. "It doesn't make sense to tax a guy who buys a Pepsi with his lunch, but not tax the Pepsi executive who makes $13 million a year."
This, of course, reflects the Working Families position; but why is it being made into a class oriented zero-sum game? Why isn't Bing focusing in on the size of government and its grandiose spending? As the Post points out in its editorial: "By now, of course, everyone knows the private sector is hurting. And job losses are expected to get worse - much worse - over the next two years statewide. Yet, get this: State government employees are largely exempt from layoffs - even as private-sector job losses are driving Albany's biggest cash shortfall ever. Talk about a disconnect. Gov. Paterson wants to pink-slip, at most, a mere 520 staffers - a meaningless target, given Albany's 240,000- employee headcount. But by his own admission, this "would still represent . . . an increase of 8,927 compared to 2003-04." Fact is, the state headcount has been growing at a hefty clip: At 239,830, it's up 3.4 percent in just the past two years - and at the highest level since 1991."
It is unfair to tax the construction worker's can of Pepsi; but it's counterproductive to the economic growth that the construction worker depends on, to tax wealthy New Yorkers who are economic stimulators. When we talk about fair share, we tend to forget just how high taxed an environment New York is.
The problem is that the special interests that rule Albany are not alone-many New Yorkers are addicted to government; as long as someone else is seen as paying the bill; as Irene Liu points out: "But it isn't just the special interests who want tax increases instead of cuts to health care and education. According to a Siena Research Institute poll released Wednesday, 61 percent of voters support a tax increase on those making more than $250,000 (31 percent oppose it). Even more voters (78 percent) support a personal income tax increase on those making more than $1 million. Without broad-based taxes hikes, a majority of voters oppose cuts in education (68 percent against) and health care (65 percent)."
So we're going to need an elected official to come along who is strong enough to explain the economic facts of life to the voters-without, in the process, committing political suicide. If that person doesn't come forward, it might take economic collapse like we saw in the 1970s to force feed change on a tax addicted state.
Affordable Food and Affordable Food Markets
According to City Room. more and more people are looking to avail themselves of food aid in this collapsing economy: "Almost half of New Yorkers had difficulties affording food for themselves or their families in 2008, up sharply from 38 percent figure reported earlier this year, according to a survey released by the Food Bank for New York City this week...During that period, demand for food aid has risen more than 40 percent in areas with the weakest economies and has risen 20 percent in areas of the country with the healthiest economies, leaders of nonprofit food-distribution organizations say."
With the rise in food prices, and declining supplies, the average New York family is struggling to afford feeding itself: "The portion of Americans on food stamps will soon exceed 9 percent, up sharply from its level in recent years. As recently as 2001, only about 6 percent of Americans received food stamps." So, we should be doing everything within our power to make food more affordable; and reducing costs for New York supermarkets-along with ways to incentivize new supermarkets in low income areas-needs to be front and center in this effort.
It is within this context, that the budget measures recommended by Governor Paterson-expanding the bottle bill, and taxing soda-need to be understood; both, in their own ways, increase the cost of groceries to the state's consumers. The bottle bill is an added regulatory burden that raises expenses while simultaneously reducing selling space; and the soda tax diverts disposable income from hard pressed consumers.
In this regard, we stand with Conservative Party head Mike Long, who told Daily Politics: "Spending must be cut, every bit of waste must be eliminated, every program that can be consolidated should be, every available option to reduce the tax burden must be made before any tax is raised.”
We certainly don't think that Paterson has gone far enough in this more sensible direction; and Speaker Silver is right in this matter: "Most of all, we will work to ensure that the burden of addressing this crisis – both in terms of cuts and increases in taxes and fees – does not fall disproportionately onto the backs of New York’s working families."
With the rise in food prices, and declining supplies, the average New York family is struggling to afford feeding itself: "The portion of Americans on food stamps will soon exceed 9 percent, up sharply from its level in recent years. As recently as 2001, only about 6 percent of Americans received food stamps." So, we should be doing everything within our power to make food more affordable; and reducing costs for New York supermarkets-along with ways to incentivize new supermarkets in low income areas-needs to be front and center in this effort.
It is within this context, that the budget measures recommended by Governor Paterson-expanding the bottle bill, and taxing soda-need to be understood; both, in their own ways, increase the cost of groceries to the state's consumers. The bottle bill is an added regulatory burden that raises expenses while simultaneously reducing selling space; and the soda tax diverts disposable income from hard pressed consumers.
In this regard, we stand with Conservative Party head Mike Long, who told Daily Politics: "Spending must be cut, every bit of waste must be eliminated, every program that can be consolidated should be, every available option to reduce the tax burden must be made before any tax is raised.”
We certainly don't think that Paterson has gone far enough in this more sensible direction; and Speaker Silver is right in this matter: "Most of all, we will work to ensure that the burden of addressing this crisis – both in terms of cuts and increases in taxes and fees – does not fall disproportionately onto the backs of New York’s working families."
Divine Rights
Both the state and the city are suffering from the past failures of both governments to simply rein in the costs, and relieve the tax payers of unnecessary burdens. But in the city, we are governed by what in essence is the worst of both worlds: a billionaire with both a sense of privilege; and also imbued with the belief that government should be there to take care of the folks-even to the extent of insuring that they eat their veggies.
So now, after having ignored the size and scope of city government in his zeal to help, Mike Bloomberg acts as he must; given his limitations, both personal and philosophical. As the NY Times reports the mayor, after posturing and threatening, is about to suborn the city council to raise property taxes: "The City Council is prepared to approve on Thursday Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to raise property taxes by 7 percent, and to increase a tax on hotel rooms, to help plug an estimated $4 billion budget shortfall over the next 18 months, according to people briefed on the negotiations...The move would put an early end to a property tax cut that had been set to expire in June.
For this we need Bloomberg and the old council gang for a third term? Where are the city Cuomos and Suozzi's with ideas about how to save money by reducing the government expanse? There certainly no where to be found among the Bloombergistas, a gaggle of inside the boxers whose last creative thought was during the Koch administration. Oh wait, that's where so many of them actually did cut their political teeth, and about the time when they apparently stopped any new thoughts from aborning.
But it's even worse than that. Because the sense of privilege that overlays this moribund philosophy creates a devastating one-two punch-something that is evinced in two blatant ways, The first example is the effort over Yankee Stadium's reincarnation; where the mayor's minions simply cooked the real estate assessment books to slice the ball club's tax obligations-in sharp contrast to how these folks see the city's suckers-its tax payers.
Here's how Juan Gonzales describes the rip-off: "Mayor Bloomberg's aides secretly pressured city tax assessors to inflate the value of land under the new Yankee Stadium so the team could qualify for nearly $1 billion in tax-free bonds, city e-mails show. In March 2006, the city's chief tax assessor put the market value for the stadium site at $27 million, far lower than the Yankees wanted. A Finance Department official ordered him to redo the report. Within hours, he jacked up it up to $204 million."
The privileged always have two sets of laws-but now, apparently because of Mike Bloomberg(and Bernie Maydoff) they are keeping two sets of books; with the tax payers as the victims, It seems, that when an actual assessment came in too low, city officials simply cooked a new one up: "After a series of frantic phone calls and e-mails on March 21 and 22 between a half-dozen city officials and the Yankees, Ottley-Brown ordered Kellman to produce a new report. "Here is the writeup with the changes you requested earlier today," Kellman wrote on the 22nd, pumping the assessment up to $204 million. Kellman would not comment."
If you or I tried this sleight of hand, those hands would be cuffed and we'd be perp walked; and this from a mayor who claims that his great wealth not only serves the city well for another term, but at the same time insulates him from those nasty special interests. If your house is as well insulated be prepared to freeze this winter,
And then we come to the stealth campaign to get Caroline Kennedy the New York Senate seat. It appears that Bloomberg is right behind this coronation, believing no doubt, that the state would be best served by a privileged socialite from the mayor's own neighborhood. The Times highlights this classy effort: "When a powerful labor leader picked up the phone this week, he was surprised to hear the voice of a top aide to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York. The aide, Kevin Sheekey, a deputy mayor, made it clear: Caroline Kennedy is going to be the next senator from New York, “so get on board now,” according to a person with direct knowledge of the call. As Ms. Kennedy’s unusual campaign for the seat takes shape, the mayor’s top political strategist is pushing hard behind the scenes for her, with Mr. Bloomberg’s blessing."
If there's anything that argues more forcefully against the Kennedy ascension than the fact that the effort is propped up by our own fraudulent ruler, we can't imagine what that would be. In fact, the both of them-Kennedy and Bloomberg-are bereft of any rationale to govern; it's just that Caroline's resume is even thinner than the mayor's was in 2001. And at least Bloomberg ran for his office.
One privileged out of touch leader is one too much. And for this parvenu to try to elevate his classmate is simply abhorrent, and is something that the governor should avoid. We are now going to suffer in this city for electing a novice seven years ago, We should not make the same mistake again by turning the US Senate into a novitiate.
So now, after having ignored the size and scope of city government in his zeal to help, Mike Bloomberg acts as he must; given his limitations, both personal and philosophical. As the NY Times reports the mayor, after posturing and threatening, is about to suborn the city council to raise property taxes: "The City Council is prepared to approve on Thursday Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to raise property taxes by 7 percent, and to increase a tax on hotel rooms, to help plug an estimated $4 billion budget shortfall over the next 18 months, according to people briefed on the negotiations...The move would put an early end to a property tax cut that had been set to expire in June.
For this we need Bloomberg and the old council gang for a third term? Where are the city Cuomos and Suozzi's with ideas about how to save money by reducing the government expanse? There certainly no where to be found among the Bloombergistas, a gaggle of inside the boxers whose last creative thought was during the Koch administration. Oh wait, that's where so many of them actually did cut their political teeth, and about the time when they apparently stopped any new thoughts from aborning.
But it's even worse than that. Because the sense of privilege that overlays this moribund philosophy creates a devastating one-two punch-something that is evinced in two blatant ways, The first example is the effort over Yankee Stadium's reincarnation; where the mayor's minions simply cooked the real estate assessment books to slice the ball club's tax obligations-in sharp contrast to how these folks see the city's suckers-its tax payers.
Here's how Juan Gonzales describes the rip-off: "Mayor Bloomberg's aides secretly pressured city tax assessors to inflate the value of land under the new Yankee Stadium so the team could qualify for nearly $1 billion in tax-free bonds, city e-mails show. In March 2006, the city's chief tax assessor put the market value for the stadium site at $27 million, far lower than the Yankees wanted. A Finance Department official ordered him to redo the report. Within hours, he jacked up it up to $204 million."
The privileged always have two sets of laws-but now, apparently because of Mike Bloomberg(and Bernie Maydoff) they are keeping two sets of books; with the tax payers as the victims, It seems, that when an actual assessment came in too low, city officials simply cooked a new one up: "After a series of frantic phone calls and e-mails on March 21 and 22 between a half-dozen city officials and the Yankees, Ottley-Brown ordered Kellman to produce a new report. "Here is the writeup with the changes you requested earlier today," Kellman wrote on the 22nd, pumping the assessment up to $204 million. Kellman would not comment."
If you or I tried this sleight of hand, those hands would be cuffed and we'd be perp walked; and this from a mayor who claims that his great wealth not only serves the city well for another term, but at the same time insulates him from those nasty special interests. If your house is as well insulated be prepared to freeze this winter,
And then we come to the stealth campaign to get Caroline Kennedy the New York Senate seat. It appears that Bloomberg is right behind this coronation, believing no doubt, that the state would be best served by a privileged socialite from the mayor's own neighborhood. The Times highlights this classy effort: "When a powerful labor leader picked up the phone this week, he was surprised to hear the voice of a top aide to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York. The aide, Kevin Sheekey, a deputy mayor, made it clear: Caroline Kennedy is going to be the next senator from New York, “so get on board now,” according to a person with direct knowledge of the call. As Ms. Kennedy’s unusual campaign for the seat takes shape, the mayor’s top political strategist is pushing hard behind the scenes for her, with Mr. Bloomberg’s blessing."
If there's anything that argues more forcefully against the Kennedy ascension than the fact that the effort is propped up by our own fraudulent ruler, we can't imagine what that would be. In fact, the both of them-Kennedy and Bloomberg-are bereft of any rationale to govern; it's just that Caroline's resume is even thinner than the mayor's was in 2001. And at least Bloomberg ran for his office.
One privileged out of touch leader is one too much. And for this parvenu to try to elevate his classmate is simply abhorrent, and is something that the governor should avoid. We are now going to suffer in this city for electing a novice seven years ago, We should not make the same mistake again by turning the US Senate into a novitiate.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Soda Tax Lacks Fizz
The proposal by Governor Paterson to tax regular soft drinks-and leave the diet sodas alone-is a direct tax on those New Yorkers that can least afford it; and, of course, it is all done in the name of health-forcing the folks to be healthy whether they like it or not. Here's the point-counterpoint from health experts in the take from the NY Times this morning: "Nutrition experts expressed mixed views on the proposal. “It’s an interesting experiment and one that’s worth trying,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “The theory behind this approach is that it worked for cigarettes, and that soft drinks are demonstrably related to obesity in children.” Connie B. Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis and a past president of the American Dietetic Association, was skeptical. “Generally, taxing food doesn’t change long-term behaviors with respect to appropriate food choices,” she said. Combating obesity requires a broader approach, with lifestyle changes and better education, she said."
The reactions from the folks themselves is more direct and to the point: "“There’s plenty of ways to raise money without hurting people who drink soda,” said Nelson Cross, 31, who emerged from Papa’s Fried Chicken in East New York, Brooklyn, with a box of takeout and a bottle of Pepsi." And the class nature of the tax wasn't lost on some: "But Javier Fuertes, 43, general manager of the Fine Fare supermarket, said the soda tax would have a strong impact, “especially in this neighborhood,” because of its low incomes. “It’s a very poor neighborhood,” he said. “Maybe in the rich neighborhoods, it doesn’t affect them as much."
These kinds of taxes are designed to obfuscate just how much the governor is looking to extract from all of us-and how little he's doing to restructure how government does its expensive governing. As Jacob Gershman writes in the NY Post: "PATERSON PUNTS BUDGET DODGES TOUGH DECISIONS." And, as he goes on to say: "Anticipating a tough Republican challenge in 2010, he's trying to position himself as a fiscally responsible Democrat in the mold of Hugh Carey. Thus, he yesterday called his spending plan a bold model of "disciplined and cost-effective state government." Yet Paterson's $121 billion budget reminds Albany veterans of the ones favored by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo amid the early '90s recession: an even-handed spreading of pain, an astonishing array of taxes - and an absence of large-scale change."
We're gonna need for boldness and creativity in Albany-half measures are pretty lame. Paterson is talking like Clint Eastwood, and governing more like Pee Wee Herman, he needs to be even more forceful in reducing the state's tax burden-while simultaneously reducing the size of state government.
The reactions from the folks themselves is more direct and to the point: "“There’s plenty of ways to raise money without hurting people who drink soda,” said Nelson Cross, 31, who emerged from Papa’s Fried Chicken in East New York, Brooklyn, with a box of takeout and a bottle of Pepsi." And the class nature of the tax wasn't lost on some: "But Javier Fuertes, 43, general manager of the Fine Fare supermarket, said the soda tax would have a strong impact, “especially in this neighborhood,” because of its low incomes. “It’s a very poor neighborhood,” he said. “Maybe in the rich neighborhoods, it doesn’t affect them as much."
These kinds of taxes are designed to obfuscate just how much the governor is looking to extract from all of us-and how little he's doing to restructure how government does its expensive governing. As Jacob Gershman writes in the NY Post: "PATERSON PUNTS BUDGET DODGES TOUGH DECISIONS." And, as he goes on to say: "Anticipating a tough Republican challenge in 2010, he's trying to position himself as a fiscally responsible Democrat in the mold of Hugh Carey. Thus, he yesterday called his spending plan a bold model of "disciplined and cost-effective state government." Yet Paterson's $121 billion budget reminds Albany veterans of the ones favored by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo amid the early '90s recession: an even-handed spreading of pain, an astonishing array of taxes - and an absence of large-scale change."
We're gonna need for boldness and creativity in Albany-half measures are pretty lame. Paterson is talking like Clint Eastwood, and governing more like Pee Wee Herman, he needs to be even more forceful in reducing the state's tax burden-while simultaneously reducing the size of state government.
Talking the Talk
When it comes to taking drastic action, Governor Paterson talks a good game. Unfortunately, while his initial budget proposal lays off of raising the personal income tax, it raises practically every other possible levy that the governor could find. As the NY Post points out: "Gov. Paterson yesterday socked New Yorkers with a mind-boggling 137 proposed new and hiked taxes on everything from beer to cab rides to iTunes downloads and movie tickets. The doomsday, $121.1 billion plan represents the biggest tax hike in state history and slashes services across the board - while still increasing spending by $1.4 billion."
Where's the fiscal hawk that was drawing so much praise from the voters? Paterson has managed to peeve both the left and the right with his tax proposals: "His plan immediately came under fire from both the left and the right. "The pain in this budget seems to be strictly for the middle class," said Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn). "You name it, [Paterson] taxes it. If anybody's contemplating leaving the state of New York, this should push them over the top."
And of course the WFP, and its allies on the left, has assailed things like the soda tax because it unfairly burdens the lower strata and fails to spread the pain around in an equitable manner. As the NY Daily News tells us: "We will be fighting this tooth and nail. We think it is irresponsible to make this level of cuts and not ask the wealthiest New Yorkers to help ease the pain," said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education.
This perspective is something that the Post finds resonating in working class precincts: "Working stiffs are getting stiffed. That was the angry reaction of New Yorkers last night to Gov. Paterson's plan to impose new or additional taxes on everyday purchases like nondiet soda, taxis and cable-TV service. "That's messed up. Everything is higher but my salary. The beer and the cab rides are going to leave me broke," said Harlem resident Ivan Quinones, 37, a grocery stock clerk and father of three."
The NY Times, for its part, focuses on one of its pet projects-public health; and analyzes the soda tax from that perspective: "The Paterson administration’s proposal for an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks — an effort that state officials said would reduce obesity while raising more than $400 million a year for health programs — has already touched off a vigorous debate among New Yorkers, nutrition experts and officials from the beverage industry, which vowed to fight the proposal."
In our view, the soda fat tax fits well within the rubric of those critics who see that the record number of levies are disproportionately burdensome to those with fewer resources. And for the most part the Times sees the same thing: "Asked about the proposed tax, New York City residents, workers and store owners offered a variety of views, but most said they did not support the idea. “There’s plenty of ways to raise money without hurting people who drink soda,” said Nelson Cross, 31, who emerged from Papa’s Fried Chicken in East New York, Brooklyn, with a box of takeout and a bottle of Pepsi. (He said he was concerned that the tax would diminish soda sales at a bar that his father owns.)"
Conservative Party boss Mike Long echoes our concerns about the rise in all of the taxes-and isn't it nice to see WFP's Bill Cantor and Long singing the same song on this?-and lashes out in the News: "State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long warned that reinstating the sales tax on clothing and shoes will drive people to New Jersey, where they will also gas up their cars and pick up their wine, spirits and soda because the prices are less due to lower taxes. "You're sending notice to the people of New York that we really don't want you here," Long said. "The governor proposed flat spending, but why not actually cut the budget before raising taxes and fees?"
But where is the doom in this doomsday budget? For all of Governor Paterson's rhetoric, there's little real innovation or even any deep and drastic reduction in state spending. The NY Post's editorial captures this: "Yes, the budget calls for relatively modest cuts in big-ticket items. But it "restructures" virtually nothing. It actually increases spending, by some $1.3 billion. And it seeks to impose tax and fee hikes in excess of $4 billion - larger than any New York governor has ever sought before. Can you say "business as usual"?...
And the Post goes on to detail what the governor failed to do: "Paterson had a chance to start bringing the cost of state government to something New Yorkers can afford. He could have called for real spending reductions. He could have demanded that underused hospitals be merged or shut - as the Berger Commission urged years ago. He could have said no to new taxes and fees." Fred Dicker underscores this failure of will: "The lack of creativity in Paterson's proposal - no significant work-force downsizing, no real lifting of regulatory burdens - took longtime government insiders by surprise since it was virtually identical to the earlier Pataki and Cuomo expedients that set the state on its current course of runaway spending. The governor, who insisted for months that New York would end its profligate ways, couldn't even bring himself to propose a budget that kept state spending flat. Despite his claim that the state faced the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Paterson's budget increases spending by $1.4 billion."
So, where do we go from here? We have a series of business and consumer dampening levies unprecedented in the state's history, but no plan to get us out from under a budget deficit that is slated to balloon by over an additional $10 billion plus in 2010; and a governor who appears loath to tackle the problem any time soon. Does any one think that the legislature will step up to fill the leadership vacuum? This doesn't bode well for New York State.
Where's the fiscal hawk that was drawing so much praise from the voters? Paterson has managed to peeve both the left and the right with his tax proposals: "His plan immediately came under fire from both the left and the right. "The pain in this budget seems to be strictly for the middle class," said Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn). "You name it, [Paterson] taxes it. If anybody's contemplating leaving the state of New York, this should push them over the top."
And of course the WFP, and its allies on the left, has assailed things like the soda tax because it unfairly burdens the lower strata and fails to spread the pain around in an equitable manner. As the NY Daily News tells us: "We will be fighting this tooth and nail. We think it is irresponsible to make this level of cuts and not ask the wealthiest New Yorkers to help ease the pain," said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education.
This perspective is something that the Post finds resonating in working class precincts: "Working stiffs are getting stiffed. That was the angry reaction of New Yorkers last night to Gov. Paterson's plan to impose new or additional taxes on everyday purchases like nondiet soda, taxis and cable-TV service. "That's messed up. Everything is higher but my salary. The beer and the cab rides are going to leave me broke," said Harlem resident Ivan Quinones, 37, a grocery stock clerk and father of three."
The NY Times, for its part, focuses on one of its pet projects-public health; and analyzes the soda tax from that perspective: "The Paterson administration’s proposal for an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks — an effort that state officials said would reduce obesity while raising more than $400 million a year for health programs — has already touched off a vigorous debate among New Yorkers, nutrition experts and officials from the beverage industry, which vowed to fight the proposal."
In our view, the soda fat tax fits well within the rubric of those critics who see that the record number of levies are disproportionately burdensome to those with fewer resources. And for the most part the Times sees the same thing: "Asked about the proposed tax, New York City residents, workers and store owners offered a variety of views, but most said they did not support the idea. “There’s plenty of ways to raise money without hurting people who drink soda,” said Nelson Cross, 31, who emerged from Papa’s Fried Chicken in East New York, Brooklyn, with a box of takeout and a bottle of Pepsi. (He said he was concerned that the tax would diminish soda sales at a bar that his father owns.)"
Conservative Party boss Mike Long echoes our concerns about the rise in all of the taxes-and isn't it nice to see WFP's Bill Cantor and Long singing the same song on this?-and lashes out in the News: "State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long warned that reinstating the sales tax on clothing and shoes will drive people to New Jersey, where they will also gas up their cars and pick up their wine, spirits and soda because the prices are less due to lower taxes. "You're sending notice to the people of New York that we really don't want you here," Long said. "The governor proposed flat spending, but why not actually cut the budget before raising taxes and fees?"
But where is the doom in this doomsday budget? For all of Governor Paterson's rhetoric, there's little real innovation or even any deep and drastic reduction in state spending. The NY Post's editorial captures this: "Yes, the budget calls for relatively modest cuts in big-ticket items. But it "restructures" virtually nothing. It actually increases spending, by some $1.3 billion. And it seeks to impose tax and fee hikes in excess of $4 billion - larger than any New York governor has ever sought before. Can you say "business as usual"?...
And the Post goes on to detail what the governor failed to do: "Paterson had a chance to start bringing the cost of state government to something New Yorkers can afford. He could have called for real spending reductions. He could have demanded that underused hospitals be merged or shut - as the Berger Commission urged years ago. He could have said no to new taxes and fees." Fred Dicker underscores this failure of will: "The lack of creativity in Paterson's proposal - no significant work-force downsizing, no real lifting of regulatory burdens - took longtime government insiders by surprise since it was virtually identical to the earlier Pataki and Cuomo expedients that set the state on its current course of runaway spending. The governor, who insisted for months that New York would end its profligate ways, couldn't even bring himself to propose a budget that kept state spending flat. Despite his claim that the state faced the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Paterson's budget increases spending by $1.4 billion."
So, where do we go from here? We have a series of business and consumer dampening levies unprecedented in the state's history, but no plan to get us out from under a budget deficit that is slated to balloon by over an additional $10 billion plus in 2010; and a governor who appears loath to tackle the problem any time soon. Does any one think that the legislature will step up to fill the leadership vacuum? This doesn't bode well for New York State.
Tail Wagging the Dog?
According to Capitol Confidential, a coalition of advocates close to the Democratic Party are uniting in the effort to get the Gang of Three to support Malcolm Smith: "The groups that worked hard to help the Senate Dems win the majority in November are back at it again, this time to help Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith secure the leadership vote in January. A coalition of the Working Families Party, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Unite-HERE/ New York Hotel Trades Council, SEIU 32BJ, NARAL Pro-Choice, the Empire State Pride Agenda, the Communications Workers of America, and the Tenants PAC are banding together to organize came together on their own and are now organizing their constituents and partner community groups to rally behind Smith. They have or will be in contact with members of the so-called “Gang of Three” to push them to support Smith."
We're not sure how effective this will be-and whether all of the groups listed are actually engaged in the effort-but we do know that a coalition that includes NARAL and Empire State Pride, is unlikely to move Senator Diaz; although some of the other labor people could actually be effective. The question here is still; What kind of deal will it take to bring the outcasts in?
And isn't it interesting that the advocates aren't engaging Senator Kruger? As the 32BJ spokesman told CC: "“For our part, we are engaging our members with two State Senators from the Bronx that are key to bringing this all together – Espada and Diaz. We are mailing and calling our members in both districts where we have some 8k members all told. Calls hit Thursday, mail by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest,” wrote Nerzig in an email."
You still will need 32 votes, however, to make the new leader, and the pressure could also backfire if it's too heavy-handed. And the Democratic tail here can be seen as too powerful-particularly since many in the group are resistant to budget austerity: "This from Smith spokesman Austin Shafran: “This broad coalition of advocates shows the unified support for Malcolm Smith and a Democratic majority and a recognition of Sen. Smith an the democratic conference’s commitment to meeting the needs of working families.”
But what about the state's homeowners, small businesses and tax payers? The danger is in too close an identification of the party with interest groups that thrive from government largess. Still, it is good that all are engaged here to help resolve the leadership process; but we're still no closer to a resolution than we were when the Smith deal fell apart.
We're not sure how effective this will be-and whether all of the groups listed are actually engaged in the effort-but we do know that a coalition that includes NARAL and Empire State Pride, is unlikely to move Senator Diaz; although some of the other labor people could actually be effective. The question here is still; What kind of deal will it take to bring the outcasts in?
And isn't it interesting that the advocates aren't engaging Senator Kruger? As the 32BJ spokesman told CC: "“For our part, we are engaging our members with two State Senators from the Bronx that are key to bringing this all together – Espada and Diaz. We are mailing and calling our members in both districts where we have some 8k members all told. Calls hit Thursday, mail by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest,” wrote Nerzig in an email."
You still will need 32 votes, however, to make the new leader, and the pressure could also backfire if it's too heavy-handed. And the Democratic tail here can be seen as too powerful-particularly since many in the group are resistant to budget austerity: "This from Smith spokesman Austin Shafran: “This broad coalition of advocates shows the unified support for Malcolm Smith and a Democratic majority and a recognition of Sen. Smith an the democratic conference’s commitment to meeting the needs of working families.”
But what about the state's homeowners, small businesses and tax payers? The danger is in too close an identification of the party with interest groups that thrive from government largess. Still, it is good that all are engaged here to help resolve the leadership process; but we're still no closer to a resolution than we were when the Smith deal fell apart.
Leadership on the Budget
We now may be seeing just why Governor Paterson has been so clever in his nudging around who should become the leader of the state senate. A Liz reported yesterday, he may be using the uncertainty as a lever: "Gov. David Paterson suggested earlier today that the response by the warring factions in the state Senate leadership battle to the fiscal crisis should perhaps play a role in determining who would ultimately be the best person to control the chamber. "The principals of both parties talk about crisis intervention," the governor said. "…They can feud over who is going to be a leader, but really the 62 members I need to vote on this budget. So individually we will talk to them and perhaps their response to a crisis will be a better indication of who should be the leader.“
Or, in other words, I just might throw my support to....well, the guy who promises to be my best budget dance partner. So it's no wonder that Paterson was in no hurry to resolve the leadership issue; and the greater the chaos, the greater the governor's leverage.
But to us, it seems that Paterson's biggest concern is if the senate tilt too far to the left-and the weaker the leadership, the greater the chance that this won't happen; especially with the WFP breathing down Malcolm Smith's neck. As Liz tells us: "It should come as no surprise that the labor-backed Working Families Party, champion of the biggest potential revenue generator NOT in Gov. David Paterson's budget proposal - the so-called millionaire's tax - is not a fan of the $4.1 billion tax-and-fees package...The WFP is hoping, of course, that its big investments in the Senate Democrats and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver during this past election season pays off now."
Paterson appears to be strongly opposed to an across the board personal income tax hike. As the Politicker points out: "When David Paterson was asked about why he chose to focus on 88 new and increased sales taxes and fees as opposed to a broader income tax increase, he said it was because he was afraid more people would leave New York. "If you're going to tax, you've got to tax at a time when your economy is coming back," Paterson said, indisputably. "The broad-based income tax at this time would only exacerbate the problem."
Of course, we also have opposed some of the governor's new taxes-but not in the same class warfare kind of way: "Paterson's proposals have attracted some criticism from fiscal liberals. "Some of these fees are, in fact, regressive," said Ron Deutsch, head of the labor-backed group New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. "The reality is he's nickel-and-dimming the average New Yorker and not asking the wealthiest New Yorkers to pay their fair share."
But not everyone sees Paterson as a fiscal hawk. Here's EJ McMahon's take on the governor's budget, and he sees way to much continued government growth: "An anonymous Paterson Administration official is quoted in today’s Albany Times Union as predicting that the governor’s budget proposal would include an “aggressive set of cuts” that will leave “blood in the streets.” Maybe he meant ketchup – for despite what the governor calls a “staggering deficit,” Paterson’s 2009-10 Executive Budget would not reduce overall spending. In fact, if enacted as proposed, the budget would grow slightly."
So Paterson is doing more talking, perhaps, than actual walking on fiscal responsibility. The reality to us is that higher taxes, wherever they rear their ugly head, is destructive to economic growth-and harmful to all classes of people. And we're eager to see just how creative the governor and the legislature can be in implementing the governmental reform ideas put forward by the AG, the Comptroller, and the Nassau County Executive.
Or, in other words, I just might throw my support to....well, the guy who promises to be my best budget dance partner. So it's no wonder that Paterson was in no hurry to resolve the leadership issue; and the greater the chaos, the greater the governor's leverage.
But to us, it seems that Paterson's biggest concern is if the senate tilt too far to the left-and the weaker the leadership, the greater the chance that this won't happen; especially with the WFP breathing down Malcolm Smith's neck. As Liz tells us: "It should come as no surprise that the labor-backed Working Families Party, champion of the biggest potential revenue generator NOT in Gov. David Paterson's budget proposal - the so-called millionaire's tax - is not a fan of the $4.1 billion tax-and-fees package...The WFP is hoping, of course, that its big investments in the Senate Democrats and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver during this past election season pays off now."
Paterson appears to be strongly opposed to an across the board personal income tax hike. As the Politicker points out: "When David Paterson was asked about why he chose to focus on 88 new and increased sales taxes and fees as opposed to a broader income tax increase, he said it was because he was afraid more people would leave New York. "If you're going to tax, you've got to tax at a time when your economy is coming back," Paterson said, indisputably. "The broad-based income tax at this time would only exacerbate the problem."
Of course, we also have opposed some of the governor's new taxes-but not in the same class warfare kind of way: "Paterson's proposals have attracted some criticism from fiscal liberals. "Some of these fees are, in fact, regressive," said Ron Deutsch, head of the labor-backed group New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. "The reality is he's nickel-and-dimming the average New Yorker and not asking the wealthiest New Yorkers to pay their fair share."
But not everyone sees Paterson as a fiscal hawk. Here's EJ McMahon's take on the governor's budget, and he sees way to much continued government growth: "An anonymous Paterson Administration official is quoted in today’s Albany Times Union as predicting that the governor’s budget proposal would include an “aggressive set of cuts” that will leave “blood in the streets.” Maybe he meant ketchup – for despite what the governor calls a “staggering deficit,” Paterson’s 2009-10 Executive Budget would not reduce overall spending. In fact, if enacted as proposed, the budget would grow slightly."
So Paterson is doing more talking, perhaps, than actual walking on fiscal responsibility. The reality to us is that higher taxes, wherever they rear their ugly head, is destructive to economic growth-and harmful to all classes of people. And we're eager to see just how creative the governor and the legislature can be in implementing the governmental reform ideas put forward by the AG, the Comptroller, and the Nassau County Executive.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Expanding the Bottle Bill
Governor Paterson has unveiled his new budget and, no surprise, he's calling for the expansion of the bottle bill in the belief that-through the escheating of the unredeemed deposits-he can garner $118 million for his beleaguered state. What he hasn't done, is figure out what this expansion would mean to the state's supermarket industry-particularly in NYC where food markets are as beleaguered as the state's budget is.
Local markets-and we'll include bodegas and green grocers in this equation, since these smaller operators are also mandated to redeem deposit containers-are suffering from an array of regulatory and tax burdens that make additional redemption burdens extremely problematic; and, of course, the situation is exacerbated by the space constraints of the inner city food retailers.
Along with these burdens, city store owners have been suffering because escalating rents have, combined with the other overhead challenges, forced hundreds of mid-sized and smaller food stores right out of business. And the fact that adding sweet juice beverages will increase the sanitation issues for these stores, only adds to the rationality of the retail opposition.
If we're looking to increase the number of supermarkets-particularly in low income areas-we need to reduce overhead, and not add to the cost of doing business, something that an expanded bottle bill absolutely will do. The food retail business, at all levels, has been an incubator for minority business growth; over half the supermarkets in the city are minority-owned. But because of escalating costs, the NY Times has shown that many of these operators are being driven out of the city-and are opening stores in lower taxed and less challenged regulatory environments.
And then there's the fact that the escheats clause will simply result in the consumer paying more for her beverages-since the unredeemed deposits retained by beer and soda companies are used to defray the expense of container collection. In a recession, where folks are being laid off and more and more people are utilizing food stamps, adding to the cost of beverages is simply a bad idea-one that will impact low income shoppers more than other consumers.
Interestingly enough, bottle bill expansion has generated opposition within the environmental community because it appears that the governor plans to utilize a shell game to substitute the escheats money that has yet to be collected-the expansion of the bottle bill hasn't been, and may never be, passed-for actual dollars sitting in the Environmental Protection Fund.
As the Legislative Gazette points out: "Recently the governors proposed cuts have provided for us a frightening omen and we are concerned that the Environmental Protection Fund is not a priority for this administration,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment...Paterson includes in his midyear budget plan the expansion of New York’s bottle deposit law to include (A.8044a/S.5850a) expanding nickel deposits for all noncarbonated drink containers such as water bottles and juice containers, placing the unclaimed funds into the EPF.The governor’s proposal however would have transferred these unclaimed bottle deposits — an estimated $118 million per year — into the EPF, and then divert existing revenues from the EPF into the General Fund for the state, according to Esposito."
Of course, the environmentalists are but fleeting allies here; and if the governor sent the escheats into the general fund they wouldn't object at all: "The group suggested that instead of the governor cutting money from the EPF for the General Fund, he instead could transfer the revenue from bottle bill into the General Fund." For the time being, however, these groups stand opposed and can offer some short term help to the grocery industry.
So we should be prepared for a major budget battle-on this, and so many other contentious items. The full weight of the food retail community will have to be brought to bear if the expansion effort is to be defeated in this fiscal climate. With the assembly having staked out a pro-expansion position in the past, it may be up to the leaderless state senate to put the kibosh on a bad idea-one that will hurt consumers and business alike.
Local markets-and we'll include bodegas and green grocers in this equation, since these smaller operators are also mandated to redeem deposit containers-are suffering from an array of regulatory and tax burdens that make additional redemption burdens extremely problematic; and, of course, the situation is exacerbated by the space constraints of the inner city food retailers.
Along with these burdens, city store owners have been suffering because escalating rents have, combined with the other overhead challenges, forced hundreds of mid-sized and smaller food stores right out of business. And the fact that adding sweet juice beverages will increase the sanitation issues for these stores, only adds to the rationality of the retail opposition.
If we're looking to increase the number of supermarkets-particularly in low income areas-we need to reduce overhead, and not add to the cost of doing business, something that an expanded bottle bill absolutely will do. The food retail business, at all levels, has been an incubator for minority business growth; over half the supermarkets in the city are minority-owned. But because of escalating costs, the NY Times has shown that many of these operators are being driven out of the city-and are opening stores in lower taxed and less challenged regulatory environments.
And then there's the fact that the escheats clause will simply result in the consumer paying more for her beverages-since the unredeemed deposits retained by beer and soda companies are used to defray the expense of container collection. In a recession, where folks are being laid off and more and more people are utilizing food stamps, adding to the cost of beverages is simply a bad idea-one that will impact low income shoppers more than other consumers.
Interestingly enough, bottle bill expansion has generated opposition within the environmental community because it appears that the governor plans to utilize a shell game to substitute the escheats money that has yet to be collected-the expansion of the bottle bill hasn't been, and may never be, passed-for actual dollars sitting in the Environmental Protection Fund.
As the Legislative Gazette points out: "Recently the governors proposed cuts have provided for us a frightening omen and we are concerned that the Environmental Protection Fund is not a priority for this administration,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment...Paterson includes in his midyear budget plan the expansion of New York’s bottle deposit law to include (A.8044a/S.5850a) expanding nickel deposits for all noncarbonated drink containers such as water bottles and juice containers, placing the unclaimed funds into the EPF.The governor’s proposal however would have transferred these unclaimed bottle deposits — an estimated $118 million per year — into the EPF, and then divert existing revenues from the EPF into the General Fund for the state, according to Esposito."
Of course, the environmentalists are but fleeting allies here; and if the governor sent the escheats into the general fund they wouldn't object at all: "The group suggested that instead of the governor cutting money from the EPF for the General Fund, he instead could transfer the revenue from bottle bill into the General Fund." For the time being, however, these groups stand opposed and can offer some short term help to the grocery industry.
So we should be prepared for a major budget battle-on this, and so many other contentious items. The full weight of the food retail community will have to be brought to bear if the expansion effort is to be defeated in this fiscal climate. With the assembly having staked out a pro-expansion position in the past, it may be up to the leaderless state senate to put the kibosh on a bad idea-one that will hurt consumers and business alike.
Real Straight Talk Express on Government Reform
In this morning's NY Daily News, Bill Hammond lauds four Democratic leaders in the state who are talking straight about the need for reforming state government in order to address our budget meltdown; it's a stance that the legislature needs to follow: "A remarkable thing is happening to New York's Democratic Party in this economic crisis: Its leaders are acting like grownups. Some of the highest-ranking, most popular Dems in the state - up to and including Gov. Paterson - are banging the drum for lower spending and smaller government while raising taxes only as a last resort. Which is hardly what you'd expect from Moscow-on-the-Hudson liberals."
This is refreshing indeed-although the governor sounded a but squishy on new taxes yesterday; not to mention his silly fat fee on soda. That being said, reform is in the air: "But the party's top leaders - including Paterson, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and state Controller Tom DiNapoli - have shed their big-spending tendencies and transformed themselves into responsible custodians of state dollars. Which offers at least some comfort for New York's beleaguered taxpayers. Tuesday, Paterson will pick a fight with his party's most powerful interest groups - public employee unions - when he rolls out his 2009-10 budget. Instead of going along with the massive income tax hike that the unions want, he will instead make deep cuts in school aid and Medicaid - programs dear to the hearts (and campaign accounts) of party regulars."
All of which is to the good if we can find allies for this new deal in the legislature-something that is in real doubt with the Working Families Party screaming for more taxes. The four leaders, however, have read the economic tea leaves: "They understand that Wall Street's golden goose is done laying eggs for the near future. They know that pushing the highest taxes in the nation even higher will only drive more jobs and families away - and seal New York's rep as the Vampire State. They sense the frustration of voters. They recognize that bloated business as usual has to stop. They're leading their party and the state in the right direction. Here's hoping they get somewhere."
And Governor Paterson even did something we thought he never would-sign an enforcement bill on taxing Indian cigarette retailers. Now, as the NY Post opines, he must find the will and the methodology to enforce the law: "But the governor's signature doesn't necessarily mean that the state will see one extra dollar. After all, New Yorkers have seen this before. In 2006, then-Gov. George Pataki signed a law that was supposed to tax Indian smokes. But, fearing Indian violence, he did nothing to enforce it - and his two successors were more than happy to follow his example."
The jury's out on this because the enforcement methodology on the bill is too complex; and as the Post rightfully points out: "Better still would have been for Paterson to use the authority he already has - and require all cigarettes sold on reservations to have their taxes paid in advance."
All in all, however, we're beginning to hear the right things from our leaders-although in the city all of this talk of governmental reform appears to have gone over the mayor's head as if the talk was all gibberish. Where was Mike Bloomberg for the last seven years? And how come we haven't heard an encouraging reform word from him? He remains clueless-and only seems to want to threaten the city council with fire and police service cuts-a sure sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
The state and city are at a political crossroads where, as Nicole Gelinas points out this morning, opportunity exists to make the right economic choices so that the future can be secured. The state leaders have stepped up-and the senate with a new leader will hopefully as well-so we await the mayor and the city council to follow suit; after all, another term has to be for a reason; no?
This is refreshing indeed-although the governor sounded a but squishy on new taxes yesterday; not to mention his silly fat fee on soda. That being said, reform is in the air: "But the party's top leaders - including Paterson, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and state Controller Tom DiNapoli - have shed their big-spending tendencies and transformed themselves into responsible custodians of state dollars. Which offers at least some comfort for New York's beleaguered taxpayers. Tuesday, Paterson will pick a fight with his party's most powerful interest groups - public employee unions - when he rolls out his 2009-10 budget. Instead of going along with the massive income tax hike that the unions want, he will instead make deep cuts in school aid and Medicaid - programs dear to the hearts (and campaign accounts) of party regulars."
All of which is to the good if we can find allies for this new deal in the legislature-something that is in real doubt with the Working Families Party screaming for more taxes. The four leaders, however, have read the economic tea leaves: "They understand that Wall Street's golden goose is done laying eggs for the near future. They know that pushing the highest taxes in the nation even higher will only drive more jobs and families away - and seal New York's rep as the Vampire State. They sense the frustration of voters. They recognize that bloated business as usual has to stop. They're leading their party and the state in the right direction. Here's hoping they get somewhere."
And Governor Paterson even did something we thought he never would-sign an enforcement bill on taxing Indian cigarette retailers. Now, as the NY Post opines, he must find the will and the methodology to enforce the law: "But the governor's signature doesn't necessarily mean that the state will see one extra dollar. After all, New Yorkers have seen this before. In 2006, then-Gov. George Pataki signed a law that was supposed to tax Indian smokes. But, fearing Indian violence, he did nothing to enforce it - and his two successors were more than happy to follow his example."
The jury's out on this because the enforcement methodology on the bill is too complex; and as the Post rightfully points out: "Better still would have been for Paterson to use the authority he already has - and require all cigarettes sold on reservations to have their taxes paid in advance."
All in all, however, we're beginning to hear the right things from our leaders-although in the city all of this talk of governmental reform appears to have gone over the mayor's head as if the talk was all gibberish. Where was Mike Bloomberg for the last seven years? And how come we haven't heard an encouraging reform word from him? He remains clueless-and only seems to want to threaten the city council with fire and police service cuts-a sure sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
The state and city are at a political crossroads where, as Nicole Gelinas points out this morning, opportunity exists to make the right economic choices so that the future can be secured. The state leaders have stepped up-and the senate with a new leader will hopefully as well-so we await the mayor and the city council to follow suit; after all, another term has to be for a reason; no?
Senate Leadership Stasis
The legislature went back to Albany yesterday-and the state senate appears no closer to resolving its leadership stalemate; but our sources say that the resolution still could go either way. The ongoing question is whether Malcolm Smith has the requisite moxie to make the deal-or will Skelos sneak in.
For his part, Smith keeps getting whacked for his role in the failed deal of the other week. In Spin Cycle, John Riley ridicules Smith for his hiring of a new spokesperson: "We notice that Malcolm Smith, right, who went from making a deal with his most disloyal members to get control of the Senate to reneging on the deal, denouncing it and pretending he never made it last week and now faces rumblings in his own conference and harsh criticism in the press, has found an answer to his problems: Hire a new spokesman."
The opprobrium here follows on the heels of the blistering attack launched against Malcolm by the Daily News' Bill Hammond: "IT'S LOOKING more and more like Malcolm Smith simply doesn't have what it takes to lead the New York State Senate. An effective Senate majority leader must command the loyalty of his members and the respect of his enemies. He must exercise sharp political judgment tempered by a sense of honor. He must be able to explain his actions clearly, persuasively and honestly. He must drive hard bargains, but negotiate in good faith. Above all, he must never break a promise. In the weeks since Election Day - when his Democrats won their first Senate majority in 43 years - Smith has done none of the above."
Which doesn't mean that Smith couldn't become more of a work in progress-and with some help, put a deal together. But the clock is ticking, and in the shark tank of Albany, the swimming is extremely risky. And Smith has a dug himself a deep hole: "How badly did Smith shred his own credibility? Let us count the ways: In one fell swoop, he broke his word, negotiated in bad faith, got snookered at the bargaining table, showed poor ethical and political judgment, burned his loyal allies and lost the respect of his enemies. How can he possibly command respect as a leader after that?"
He does, however, have one thing going for him: the lack of any viable candidate to step up and effectively challenge his leadership. So in the absence of a Republican surge, he just might be, warts and all, the only option open.
For his part, Smith keeps getting whacked for his role in the failed deal of the other week. In Spin Cycle, John Riley ridicules Smith for his hiring of a new spokesperson: "We notice that Malcolm Smith, right, who went from making a deal with his most disloyal members to get control of the Senate to reneging on the deal, denouncing it and pretending he never made it last week and now faces rumblings in his own conference and harsh criticism in the press, has found an answer to his problems: Hire a new spokesman."
The opprobrium here follows on the heels of the blistering attack launched against Malcolm by the Daily News' Bill Hammond: "IT'S LOOKING more and more like Malcolm Smith simply doesn't have what it takes to lead the New York State Senate. An effective Senate majority leader must command the loyalty of his members and the respect of his enemies. He must exercise sharp political judgment tempered by a sense of honor. He must be able to explain his actions clearly, persuasively and honestly. He must drive hard bargains, but negotiate in good faith. Above all, he must never break a promise. In the weeks since Election Day - when his Democrats won their first Senate majority in 43 years - Smith has done none of the above."
Which doesn't mean that Smith couldn't become more of a work in progress-and with some help, put a deal together. But the clock is ticking, and in the shark tank of Albany, the swimming is extremely risky. And Smith has a dug himself a deep hole: "How badly did Smith shred his own credibility? Let us count the ways: In one fell swoop, he broke his word, negotiated in bad faith, got snookered at the bargaining table, showed poor ethical and political judgment, burned his loyal allies and lost the respect of his enemies. How can he possibly command respect as a leader after that?"
He does, however, have one thing going for him: the lack of any viable candidate to step up and effectively challenge his leadership. So in the absence of a Republican surge, he just might be, warts and all, the only option open.
Ideological Budget Battle
It looks as if there will be a real battle shaping up over the resolution of NY State's budget shortfall. As Liz B reports, the Working Families Party is gearing up to try to get the state to enact it's millionaire tax: "WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor said today he's "perplexed" by the information released to date about Gov. David Paterson's 2009-2010 budget, which includes $4 billion worth of tax and fee increases but not the so-called millionaire's tax long championed by the labor-backed party (among others)."
Of course, the so-called millionaire's tax has an extremely expansive definition-in essence a slippery slope that ensnares thousands of tax payers who aren't in the very wealth category. Here's EJ McMahon's view: "Supporters of an income tax increase in New York State were, until recently, pushing what they called a “millionaire tax.” But now that the number of millionaires is rapidly shrinking, Albany’s most vocal tax-hike proponents have lowered their taxation target to households with incomes over $200,000, judging from a poll reportedly released by the union-dominated Working Families Party (WFP) last week..."
And, as McMahon points out, if the decision was done by referendum, the result would be predictable-after all, as long as it's the other guy, folks don't mind a tax hike: "So if the Legislature and Governor Paterson are guided by public opinion in closing a $15 billion two-year budget hole, they will reduce government spending a little and raise income taxes a lot on New York’s most productive and mobile households. And then, presumably, they’ll join everyone else in a race for the exits as the state economy sinks even further."
But long term consequences to the economy is not something that bothers the WFP; and the party has a skewed vision on who's actually shouldering the tax burden: "Cantor noted that a number of Paterson's proposals, such doing away with the exemption of sales tax on clothing up to $115 and a new "obesity tax" on non-diet soda would likely hit people of modest-to-little means particularly hard, while not really having much of effect on the rich. "There's a lot of people being taxes, just not the wealthy," Cantor said. "It's not reasonable to only ask the middle class and poor people to contribute. Real shared sacrifice has not yet become part of the governor's proposal."
Maybe, Cantor should examine the overall tax burden that all New Yorkers suffer from; and just where the State of New York ranks in this category. The WFP's core belief, however, is that your money belongs to the state: "It's contradictory for the governor. You know, he's got some good things in there. The Empire Zone restructuring seems entirely sensible, and the expansion of the social safety net is a good idea. But the unwillingness to ask the top three or four percent to pay a bit more in taxes since they gained so much more in tax cuts during the Pataki and Bush years...I don't think that's a winning approach."
The framing of this-"...since they gained so much..."-is all telling; it portrays the return of peoples' hard earned money as if it were a deliverable-a bennie-from the government. And Cantor plows forward, blithely disregarding the meltdown of the state's financial sector, with an anti-growth tax increase that will make it even more difficult for that sector-or others as well-to recover and prosper.
All of which leads to the question of where the state senate will stand on all of these issues-and whether the WFP's role in the Democratic ascendancy will drive its policy positions. As the Politicker points out: "As the details leak about what David Paterson will propose Tuesday in his budget for 2009 - a budget which will have to bridge a $15 billion deficit - State Senator Malcolm Smith's words to a coalition of progressive supporters who met at New York University Friday were improbably upbeat. "For the first time in forty years we have the opportunity to create an agenda in the people's interest, and we are committed to do it," Smith said. "Creating and protecting jobs, promoting economic development, expanding access to an improving health care and reforming health care are things that Democrats and the Center for Working Families hopes to accomplish."
But a budget this bad always creates a nasty zero-sum game. Where the senate stands-and where the state's small businesses and homeowners stand-is the subtext to the ongoing senate leadership fight. We'll give John Riley the prescient last word: "With Senate Republicans non-players if the Dems can get their act together, and Paterson going wobbly before negotiations even start, it seems pretty clear that New York will revert to form: It's a state run by politicians that don't want to cross big unions, who know how to manipulate public opinion and identify their sinecures with the public interest. So, it's always easier to raise taxes, ignore effects on the economy, make taxpayers who are already paying the most in the nation pay even more for their mediocre schools and mediocre health care system, and pretend that the protectors of the status quo are "progressives" defending "working families."
Of course, the so-called millionaire's tax has an extremely expansive definition-in essence a slippery slope that ensnares thousands of tax payers who aren't in the very wealth category. Here's EJ McMahon's view: "Supporters of an income tax increase in New York State were, until recently, pushing what they called a “millionaire tax.” But now that the number of millionaires is rapidly shrinking, Albany’s most vocal tax-hike proponents have lowered their taxation target to households with incomes over $200,000, judging from a poll reportedly released by the union-dominated Working Families Party (WFP) last week..."
And, as McMahon points out, if the decision was done by referendum, the result would be predictable-after all, as long as it's the other guy, folks don't mind a tax hike: "So if the Legislature and Governor Paterson are guided by public opinion in closing a $15 billion two-year budget hole, they will reduce government spending a little and raise income taxes a lot on New York’s most productive and mobile households. And then, presumably, they’ll join everyone else in a race for the exits as the state economy sinks even further."
But long term consequences to the economy is not something that bothers the WFP; and the party has a skewed vision on who's actually shouldering the tax burden: "Cantor noted that a number of Paterson's proposals, such doing away with the exemption of sales tax on clothing up to $115 and a new "obesity tax" on non-diet soda would likely hit people of modest-to-little means particularly hard, while not really having much of effect on the rich. "There's a lot of people being taxes, just not the wealthy," Cantor said. "It's not reasonable to only ask the middle class and poor people to contribute. Real shared sacrifice has not yet become part of the governor's proposal."
Maybe, Cantor should examine the overall tax burden that all New Yorkers suffer from; and just where the State of New York ranks in this category. The WFP's core belief, however, is that your money belongs to the state: "It's contradictory for the governor. You know, he's got some good things in there. The Empire Zone restructuring seems entirely sensible, and the expansion of the social safety net is a good idea. But the unwillingness to ask the top three or four percent to pay a bit more in taxes since they gained so much more in tax cuts during the Pataki and Bush years...I don't think that's a winning approach."
The framing of this-"...since they gained so much..."-is all telling; it portrays the return of peoples' hard earned money as if it were a deliverable-a bennie-from the government. And Cantor plows forward, blithely disregarding the meltdown of the state's financial sector, with an anti-growth tax increase that will make it even more difficult for that sector-or others as well-to recover and prosper.
All of which leads to the question of where the state senate will stand on all of these issues-and whether the WFP's role in the Democratic ascendancy will drive its policy positions. As the Politicker points out: "As the details leak about what David Paterson will propose Tuesday in his budget for 2009 - a budget which will have to bridge a $15 billion deficit - State Senator Malcolm Smith's words to a coalition of progressive supporters who met at New York University Friday were improbably upbeat. "For the first time in forty years we have the opportunity to create an agenda in the people's interest, and we are committed to do it," Smith said. "Creating and protecting jobs, promoting economic development, expanding access to an improving health care and reforming health care are things that Democrats and the Center for Working Families hopes to accomplish."
But a budget this bad always creates a nasty zero-sum game. Where the senate stands-and where the state's small businesses and homeowners stand-is the subtext to the ongoing senate leadership fight. We'll give John Riley the prescient last word: "With Senate Republicans non-players if the Dems can get their act together, and Paterson going wobbly before negotiations even start, it seems pretty clear that New York will revert to form: It's a state run by politicians that don't want to cross big unions, who know how to manipulate public opinion and identify their sinecures with the public interest. So, it's always easier to raise taxes, ignore effects on the economy, make taxpayers who are already paying the most in the nation pay even more for their mediocre schools and mediocre health care system, and pretend that the protectors of the status quo are "progressives" defending "working families."
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Bloomberg Party
In yesterday's NY Daily News, Adam Lisberg writes about the dilemma facing Mike Bloomberg-deciding what party line he could run on: "Politics is a grubby business. And as Mayor Bloomberg tries to figure out which - if any - party banner to run under for reelection, he's going to have to shake some grubby hands. He was a lifelong Democrat, remember, until it served him well to run for mayor twice as a Republican. He threw his support - and his money - behind the GOP, even locking up Democratic New Yorkers to keep the streets safe for out-of-town Republicans during the 2004 convention here."
Quite the quandary for someone who is prepared to spend up to $100 million to convince New Yorkers about just why Mike Bloomberg is Mr. Indispensability for the hard times we face. And we too share Lisberg's concerns about the possibility of Bloomberg sullying himself in the dirt of politics-after spending the last seven years operating as a self-described Mr. Clean: "Bloomberg's third-term appeal was that in times like these, New York needs to keep an independent mayor with singular experience in the financial world. But getting there involves politics. And the more hands you shake, the harder it is to keep yours clean."
The trouble with Lisberg's analysis, is that Bloomberg has been a skillful practitioner of the black arts of politics-so skillful that he's been able to posture as someone with clean hands and a pure heart, when the opposite is more clearly the truth; and he has done so by using his unaccountable private wealth to his political advantage. In fact, in a bow to greater candor, he should simply run on the Bloomberg Party.
In fact, were Mike Bloomberg to become more overtly political, it would actually lead to his cleansing-by forcing him to acknowledge the interests of others as legitimate; and by requiring that he search for ways to address these interests a part of crafting an overall policy that has the greatest benefit for the greatest number of New Yorkers.
Quite the quandary for someone who is prepared to spend up to $100 million to convince New Yorkers about just why Mike Bloomberg is Mr. Indispensability for the hard times we face. And we too share Lisberg's concerns about the possibility of Bloomberg sullying himself in the dirt of politics-after spending the last seven years operating as a self-described Mr. Clean: "Bloomberg's third-term appeal was that in times like these, New York needs to keep an independent mayor with singular experience in the financial world. But getting there involves politics. And the more hands you shake, the harder it is to keep yours clean."
The trouble with Lisberg's analysis, is that Bloomberg has been a skillful practitioner of the black arts of politics-so skillful that he's been able to posture as someone with clean hands and a pure heart, when the opposite is more clearly the truth; and he has done so by using his unaccountable private wealth to his political advantage. In fact, in a bow to greater candor, he should simply run on the Bloomberg Party.
In fact, were Mike Bloomberg to become more overtly political, it would actually lead to his cleansing-by forcing him to acknowledge the interests of others as legitimate; and by requiring that he search for ways to address these interests a part of crafting an overall policy that has the greatest benefit for the greatest number of New Yorkers.
Taxing Congestion Credulity
The NY Times has a fascinating story in yesterday's edition on the diminishing traffic headed into midtown over the past few years: "As the city’s economy soared and its population grew from 2003 through 2007, something unusual was happening on the streets and in the subway tunnels. All those tens of thousands of new jobs and residents meant that more people were moving around the city, going to work, going shopping, visiting friends. And yet, according to a new city study, the volume of traffic on the streets and highways remained largely unchanged, in fact declining slightly."
So, let's get this straight. Mike Bloomberg plays Chicken Little for a year in a failed attempt to get his congestion tax passed, and now we find out that: "Instead, virtually the entire increase in New Yorkers’ means of transportation during those robust years occurred in mass transit, with a surge in subway, bus and commuter rail riders. “What you see is that for the first time since at least World War II, all of the growth in travel in the city has been absorbed by non-auto modes, primarily by mass transit,” said Bruce Schaller, New York’s deputy transportation commissioner for planning and sustainability, who wrote the study, which is to be released on Monday."
So New Yorkers were moving to mass transit in what amounts to an organic process, unaided by any particular city policy, and the mayor decides to tax us to drive more folks to-well, mass transit; in a system that was becoming overcrowded and in need of expansion and repair. Yet, these trends fail to convince the tax plotters of the need to first do the improvements before increasing the tax burden on New Yorkers.
As the Times points out: "The city’s sprawling public transportation system was able to handle such a surge because of vast improvements in service in recent years, Mr. Schaller said, as well as the advent of the MetroCard, which made using the system more efficient. A steep drop in crime made people more willing to use the system, and the construction of housing in areas well served by subways also brought in many more riders."
What the mayor should have been doing in his first two terms, was advocating for the mass transit system first-not promoting a tax that set the city up into two antagonistic camps; realizing at the same time that many of us drive because of the unavailability of convenient mass transit alternatives.
And remember the arguments about traffic in the CBD-a cause for such environmental concern? "Mr. Schaller said that vehicle trips citywide peaked in 1999 and then leveled off, with a dip in 2001 as a result of the terror attack on the World Trade Center. The overall trend has been largely stable traffic volumes across the city from 1999 through 2007. In contrast, during the years when the economy was most buoyant, from 2003 to 2007, transit ridership soared, increasing about 9 percent during those years, according to the city study. The difference is even greater when the focus is on the core commercial district of Manhattan, south of 60th Street. From 2003 to 2007, the study found, traffic entering that area fell by 3 percent. During the same period, transit ridership into the same zone rose 12 percent."
In our mind, this crucial study should have been part of a proper due diligence before any congestion tax scheme was proposed. As the Times tells us: "The flattening of overall traffic volumes, with an actual decline in Manhattan’s main business district, raises questions about the need for congestion pricing, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s failed plan to charge drivers to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan."
All of this underscores the extent to which Mike Bloomberg shoots from the hip-advocating policies that advance his own political agenda but that fail the smell test of data-driven credibility. And now he also wants to add more bike lanes, further congesting local streets. Its time to change our leadership, and get a mayor who's more accountable to the people.
So, let's get this straight. Mike Bloomberg plays Chicken Little for a year in a failed attempt to get his congestion tax passed, and now we find out that: "Instead, virtually the entire increase in New Yorkers’ means of transportation during those robust years occurred in mass transit, with a surge in subway, bus and commuter rail riders. “What you see is that for the first time since at least World War II, all of the growth in travel in the city has been absorbed by non-auto modes, primarily by mass transit,” said Bruce Schaller, New York’s deputy transportation commissioner for planning and sustainability, who wrote the study, which is to be released on Monday."
So New Yorkers were moving to mass transit in what amounts to an organic process, unaided by any particular city policy, and the mayor decides to tax us to drive more folks to-well, mass transit; in a system that was becoming overcrowded and in need of expansion and repair. Yet, these trends fail to convince the tax plotters of the need to first do the improvements before increasing the tax burden on New Yorkers.
As the Times points out: "The city’s sprawling public transportation system was able to handle such a surge because of vast improvements in service in recent years, Mr. Schaller said, as well as the advent of the MetroCard, which made using the system more efficient. A steep drop in crime made people more willing to use the system, and the construction of housing in areas well served by subways also brought in many more riders."
What the mayor should have been doing in his first two terms, was advocating for the mass transit system first-not promoting a tax that set the city up into two antagonistic camps; realizing at the same time that many of us drive because of the unavailability of convenient mass transit alternatives.
And remember the arguments about traffic in the CBD-a cause for such environmental concern? "Mr. Schaller said that vehicle trips citywide peaked in 1999 and then leveled off, with a dip in 2001 as a result of the terror attack on the World Trade Center. The overall trend has been largely stable traffic volumes across the city from 1999 through 2007. In contrast, during the years when the economy was most buoyant, from 2003 to 2007, transit ridership soared, increasing about 9 percent during those years, according to the city study. The difference is even greater when the focus is on the core commercial district of Manhattan, south of 60th Street. From 2003 to 2007, the study found, traffic entering that area fell by 3 percent. During the same period, transit ridership into the same zone rose 12 percent."
In our mind, this crucial study should have been part of a proper due diligence before any congestion tax scheme was proposed. As the Times tells us: "The flattening of overall traffic volumes, with an actual decline in Manhattan’s main business district, raises questions about the need for congestion pricing, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s failed plan to charge drivers to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan."
All of this underscores the extent to which Mike Bloomberg shoots from the hip-advocating policies that advance his own political agenda but that fail the smell test of data-driven credibility. And now he also wants to add more bike lanes, further congesting local streets. Its time to change our leadership, and get a mayor who's more accountable to the people.
Fat Attax
So, in an effort to reduce the weight of New Yorkers, as well as the state's huge budget deficit, Governor Paterson's proposed a fat tax: "The Democrat also reportedly plans to increase taxes on insurance policies, on non-diet sodas under an "obesity tax," reviving the state sales tax on clothing, and changes in funding of hospitals and health care providers that could shift more health costs on individuals and employers."
It looks as if Mayor Bloomberg has a competitor in the nanny department: "Errol Cockfield, spokesman for Gov. David Paterson who is scheduled to release his budget proposal Tuesday to the Legislature, wouldn't deny the tax proposals first reported in the Albany Times Union Sunday. He said details of the budget will be released Tuesday. The obesity tax would raise $404 million, according to the report."
What's next? When will the state realize that taxing shouldn't be a methodology used for behavior modification-and as with all of these sin taxes, it is low income New Yorkers, who can least afford it, who bear the biggest burden. But the fat tax is just the tip of the iceberg. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Gov. David A. Paterson will propose a $4 billion package of taxes and fees on a range of items, from sugary soft drinks made by Coca-Cola and Pepsi to luxury items like furs and boats, when he unveils his plan to close a deficit that has ballooned to $15 billion, people with knowledge of the plan said on Sunday."
Everyone and every one's interests will be gored in this budget-so be prepared for an Albany Armageddon this session-especially for health care: "Hospitals, nursing homes and other health care centers, already pinched by the first round of budget cuts earlier this year, are bracing for a fight. “I expect it to be an unmitigated disaster for health care institutions in New York,” Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said in an interview on Friday. “I expect we will see a significant downsizing of the health care delivery system, and it’s at a time when people can least afford the cutbacks.”
All of which is exacerbated by the absence of any senate leadership: "One of the biggest obstacles Mr. Paterson will have to overcome is a Senate narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans that has yet to settle on a leader for next year, amid continued wrangling among Democrats."
This is all shaping up to be a bloodbath-with interest groups and political careers likely to become victims of the battle. In this climate, why anyone would want the mantle of leadership is the question.
It looks as if Mayor Bloomberg has a competitor in the nanny department: "Errol Cockfield, spokesman for Gov. David Paterson who is scheduled to release his budget proposal Tuesday to the Legislature, wouldn't deny the tax proposals first reported in the Albany Times Union Sunday. He said details of the budget will be released Tuesday. The obesity tax would raise $404 million, according to the report."
What's next? When will the state realize that taxing shouldn't be a methodology used for behavior modification-and as with all of these sin taxes, it is low income New Yorkers, who can least afford it, who bear the biggest burden. But the fat tax is just the tip of the iceberg. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Gov. David A. Paterson will propose a $4 billion package of taxes and fees on a range of items, from sugary soft drinks made by Coca-Cola and Pepsi to luxury items like furs and boats, when he unveils his plan to close a deficit that has ballooned to $15 billion, people with knowledge of the plan said on Sunday."
Everyone and every one's interests will be gored in this budget-so be prepared for an Albany Armageddon this session-especially for health care: "Hospitals, nursing homes and other health care centers, already pinched by the first round of budget cuts earlier this year, are bracing for a fight. “I expect it to be an unmitigated disaster for health care institutions in New York,” Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said in an interview on Friday. “I expect we will see a significant downsizing of the health care delivery system, and it’s at a time when people can least afford the cutbacks.”
All of which is exacerbated by the absence of any senate leadership: "One of the biggest obstacles Mr. Paterson will have to overcome is a Senate narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans that has yet to settle on a leader for next year, amid continued wrangling among Democrats."
This is all shaping up to be a bloodbath-with interest groups and political careers likely to become victims of the battle. In this climate, why anyone would want the mantle of leadership is the question.
Dickering Dummy
With Malcolm Smith floundering for a leadership foothold, the NY Post's Fred Dicker throws him a Paterson lifeline-but it looks as if there's an anchor attached to it. Dicker avers that the governor believes that Smith can rise to the top spot in the senate through what amounts to immaculate conception: "GOV. PATERSON has shifted gears and now believes that the bitter battle for state Senate control can end with an agreement excluding the renegade Democrats known as the "Gang of Three," the Post has learned."
Dicker goes further to argue that all of a sudden Paterson believes that the deal itself maybe illegal: "He's even told associates that he fears that Gang of Three members have made demands bordering on the illegal - especially in light of the Illinois scandal involving Gov. Rod Blagojevich."
OK, so how does this new deal get done-and what's the price? "Paterson, who helped negotiate an initial agreement with Gang members earlier this month only to see it fall apart last week, told associates he's hoping current Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Nassau) will negotiate a final deal with Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) making Smith the new majority leader in January, at which point Democrats will hold a 32-30 majority."
Dean Skelos, who the governor has expressed an open distaste for, is now going to do a deal to elevate the hapless Smith (and what happened to the Bill Hammond column in yesterday's NY Daily News that excoriated Smith but was never posted on the website?) to the head of the senate? What's in it for Skelos?
But, according to Dicker, the reason in the shift lies with the fact that the three dissidents simply can't be trusted: "The main reason for Paterson's strategy shift is that he, Smith, and other Democratic and Republican senators have concluded that none of the Gang members - Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn and Sen. Ruben Diaz and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada, both of The Bronx - can be trusted."
What a load of crap! The interesting rub here is, if the governor's aides are spinning this tale, than what does it mean that the governor is burning the phone lines to the distrusted ones? In fact, it is Malcolm in the Middle who cannot be trusted to negotiate a deal that can be lived up to; and if the governor is seen to midwife a deal that bypasses a leadership post for Hispanics, where will that put him in 2010 with a community that sees itself as shortchanged?
Of course, who knows where-or from what-Dicker's getting his source material from. As Liz Benjamin tells us in her column this morning-contradicting the Dickerings: "The Gang of Three saga continues. Now that the Senate leadership stalemate is back in high gear after the death of the rebels' deal with Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens), a Republican lawmaker says the GOP is the last best hope for the renegades. "It's likely they will end up with nothing," Sen. George Winner of Elmira said of the gang. "Their only ability to save themselves really from complete back-bench material is to vote with the Republicans."
Kruger, for his part, believes that the governor's budget crisis will necessitate a quick resolution to the leadership fight-and Smith is denying any talks with Republicans: "Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat and the Gang of Three ringleader, called Winner "a voice in the wilderness," and insisted "negotiations are ongoing" between himself and fellow detractors Sen.-elect Pedro Espada Jr. and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. Kruger also said the "urgency" of the state's ever-worsening budget crisis will likely bring the leadership fight to a "quick conclusion." Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said he could not confirm any talks between Smith and the Gang of Three. He also insisted Smith has not reached out to any GOP senators seeking the three votes he needs to become leader."
This thing may actually finish up soon-because if it doesn't the fiscal mess will worsen, as stalemate prevents curative political action. It should be fascinating in Albany this week.
Dicker goes further to argue that all of a sudden Paterson believes that the deal itself maybe illegal: "He's even told associates that he fears that Gang of Three members have made demands bordering on the illegal - especially in light of the Illinois scandal involving Gov. Rod Blagojevich."
OK, so how does this new deal get done-and what's the price? "Paterson, who helped negotiate an initial agreement with Gang members earlier this month only to see it fall apart last week, told associates he's hoping current Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Nassau) will negotiate a final deal with Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) making Smith the new majority leader in January, at which point Democrats will hold a 32-30 majority."
Dean Skelos, who the governor has expressed an open distaste for, is now going to do a deal to elevate the hapless Smith (and what happened to the Bill Hammond column in yesterday's NY Daily News that excoriated Smith but was never posted on the website?) to the head of the senate? What's in it for Skelos?
But, according to Dicker, the reason in the shift lies with the fact that the three dissidents simply can't be trusted: "The main reason for Paterson's strategy shift is that he, Smith, and other Democratic and Republican senators have concluded that none of the Gang members - Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn and Sen. Ruben Diaz and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada, both of The Bronx - can be trusted."
What a load of crap! The interesting rub here is, if the governor's aides are spinning this tale, than what does it mean that the governor is burning the phone lines to the distrusted ones? In fact, it is Malcolm in the Middle who cannot be trusted to negotiate a deal that can be lived up to; and if the governor is seen to midwife a deal that bypasses a leadership post for Hispanics, where will that put him in 2010 with a community that sees itself as shortchanged?
Of course, who knows where-or from what-Dicker's getting his source material from. As Liz Benjamin tells us in her column this morning-contradicting the Dickerings: "The Gang of Three saga continues. Now that the Senate leadership stalemate is back in high gear after the death of the rebels' deal with Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens), a Republican lawmaker says the GOP is the last best hope for the renegades. "It's likely they will end up with nothing," Sen. George Winner of Elmira said of the gang. "Their only ability to save themselves really from complete back-bench material is to vote with the Republicans."
Kruger, for his part, believes that the governor's budget crisis will necessitate a quick resolution to the leadership fight-and Smith is denying any talks with Republicans: "Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat and the Gang of Three ringleader, called Winner "a voice in the wilderness," and insisted "negotiations are ongoing" between himself and fellow detractors Sen.-elect Pedro Espada Jr. and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. Kruger also said the "urgency" of the state's ever-worsening budget crisis will likely bring the leadership fight to a "quick conclusion." Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said he could not confirm any talks between Smith and the Gang of Three. He also insisted Smith has not reached out to any GOP senators seeking the three votes he needs to become leader."
This thing may actually finish up soon-because if it doesn't the fiscal mess will worsen, as stalemate prevents curative political action. It should be fascinating in Albany this week.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Smith's Slippery Slope
After walking away from a deal that he personally negotiated-and obfuscating the reasons why; along with aspersions against the folks he shook hands with-Malcolm Smith appears to be playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship. As the NY Daily News reports: "Embattled Democratic leader Malcolm Smith Friday dismissed talk of a plot to oust him, saying he expects to become state Senate majority leader next month...For that to happen, Democrats must coax enough Republicans to switch sides because three dissident Dems still remain staunchly opposed to Smith."
So after negotiating in bad faith Smith may try to pass the dissidents by, speeding, as it were, around a steep curve on a winding mountainside road. The chances of him crashing and burning have just increased exponentially: ""He currently has the support of 29 Democrats from the conference and expects he'll have the support of 32 members of the state Senate by the Jan. 7 leadership vote," said one Smith aide. Smith aides said two Republicans have discussed possibly switching to the Democratic side, though lame-duck Republican Majority Leader Dean Skelos insists he has the support of his entire conference."
Looks like a game of chicken to us; and as the NY Post tells us: "State Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith emerged yesterday from another closed-door meeting with his conference promising a Democratic majority in the Senate in January, possibly by enlisting Republican allies to counter resistance from three dissident Democrats."
Smith apparently is throwing down the gauntlet in a chesty manner: "Smith, of Queens, said he would have 32 supporters in January, enough to elect him majority leader. He wouldn't say how many would be Democrats and how many would be Republicans." What does all of this say to the three hold outs?
To us, it seems to be a clear message: either come on board riding coach, or the train will leave without you-first class is no longer an option. Which is a long way from last week-and the level of distrust has been ratcheted up. As the News reminds us: "Smith's guarantee of the Democrats taking control of the Senate is a far cry from earlier this week. At that time, he said his members were ready to remain in the minority rather than cave in to the demands of the renegade Democrats, dubbed the Gang of Three. Smith struck a deal at the start of the week, when he promised the dissidents leadership positions and various other enticements. He aborted the deal Wednesday after backlash from his members."
The governor has his work cut out for him-at least if he really wants to have Democratic control of the senate. And, contrary to what Capitol Confidential opines, he may be running out of time: " As for the “Gang of Three” - letting them sit out in the wilderness for a few weeks may be useful in terms of leverage - they’ve played their hand with both the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats. Watching them negotiate their way with the various sides will give the governor better information about the price of their support. As the old Irving Berlin song goes, “Anything you can do, I can do better” - the governor and Senate Dems can pretty much match and beat anything the Senate Republicans offer."
We'll see. But given the Smith posture, we think the governor doesn't have the luxury to simply take a wait and see attitude. As Spin Cycle cogently points out: "We don't necessarily agree. If the Republicans, for example, offer the same deal that the Democrats just agreed to and then walked away from, the Democrats can hardly do yet another 180 and agree to it again."
So after negotiating in bad faith Smith may try to pass the dissidents by, speeding, as it were, around a steep curve on a winding mountainside road. The chances of him crashing and burning have just increased exponentially: ""He currently has the support of 29 Democrats from the conference and expects he'll have the support of 32 members of the state Senate by the Jan. 7 leadership vote," said one Smith aide. Smith aides said two Republicans have discussed possibly switching to the Democratic side, though lame-duck Republican Majority Leader Dean Skelos insists he has the support of his entire conference."
Looks like a game of chicken to us; and as the NY Post tells us: "State Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith emerged yesterday from another closed-door meeting with his conference promising a Democratic majority in the Senate in January, possibly by enlisting Republican allies to counter resistance from three dissident Democrats."
Smith apparently is throwing down the gauntlet in a chesty manner: "Smith, of Queens, said he would have 32 supporters in January, enough to elect him majority leader. He wouldn't say how many would be Democrats and how many would be Republicans." What does all of this say to the three hold outs?
To us, it seems to be a clear message: either come on board riding coach, or the train will leave without you-first class is no longer an option. Which is a long way from last week-and the level of distrust has been ratcheted up. As the News reminds us: "Smith's guarantee of the Democrats taking control of the Senate is a far cry from earlier this week. At that time, he said his members were ready to remain in the minority rather than cave in to the demands of the renegade Democrats, dubbed the Gang of Three. Smith struck a deal at the start of the week, when he promised the dissidents leadership positions and various other enticements. He aborted the deal Wednesday after backlash from his members."
The governor has his work cut out for him-at least if he really wants to have Democratic control of the senate. And, contrary to what Capitol Confidential opines, he may be running out of time: " As for the “Gang of Three” - letting them sit out in the wilderness for a few weeks may be useful in terms of leverage - they’ve played their hand with both the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats. Watching them negotiate their way with the various sides will give the governor better information about the price of their support. As the old Irving Berlin song goes, “Anything you can do, I can do better” - the governor and Senate Dems can pretty much match and beat anything the Senate Republicans offer."
We'll see. But given the Smith posture, we think the governor doesn't have the luxury to simply take a wait and see attitude. As Spin Cycle cogently points out: "We don't necessarily agree. If the Republicans, for example, offer the same deal that the Democrats just agreed to and then walked away from, the Democrats can hardly do yet another 180 and agree to it again."
Friday, December 12, 2008
Budget Defict and the Indians
As Newsday is reporting, the Indian cigarette bill is before the governor: "A bill to collect state sales tax on cigarettes sold by Indian retailers to non-Indian customers is now on Gov. David Paterson's desk, awaiting his signature or veto. The Assembly delivered the legislation to the governor Thursday, beginning a 10-day clock that gives him until Dec. 23 to make a decision that, either way, is certain to provoke anger. Supporters believe collecting the tax would bring the state $400 million in revenues at a time when Paterson is telling New Yorkers that budget deficits will likely have them paying more to renew drivers licenses and enroll in public colleges."
If the governor vetoes the measure-something that past behavior indicates is likely ("Similar bills have been passed but not enforced by previous administrations.")-than the issue will be thrown into the upcoming budget battle, where the state must find a way to address a $1.2 billion shortfall-one that will mushroom as high as $14 billion next year.
The collection methodology is relatively simple: "The current legislation would shift the collection from reservations to the manufacturing and wholesale level, a tactic that worked in other states." Now all that is missing is the political will; but a determined legislature could insist on this a a quid pro quo of any budget deal. Stay tuned.
If the governor vetoes the measure-something that past behavior indicates is likely ("Similar bills have been passed but not enforced by previous administrations.")-than the issue will be thrown into the upcoming budget battle, where the state must find a way to address a $1.2 billion shortfall-one that will mushroom as high as $14 billion next year.
The collection methodology is relatively simple: "The current legislation would shift the collection from reservations to the manufacturing and wholesale level, a tactic that worked in other states." Now all that is missing is the political will; but a determined legislature could insist on this a a quid pro quo of any budget deal. Stay tuned.
Smith Stands Tall
The revolution appears to have petered out, at least according to what Liz B has posted on the meeting today of the senate Democratic conference: "Following a roughly two-hour meeting in which about two dozen of the 32 Senate Democrats participated, Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith emerged from 250 Broadway and confidently declared to reporters: "I want to be real clear about the fact that despite the rumors, the members (are) very united, and we're going to move forward with the majority come January. We will have 32 come January."
This, of course, leaves aside the nettlesome question of how Smith is gonna get from point A to point B, something that Senator Dilan answers: "Sen. Martin Malave Dilan, whose name was mentioned in the memo of agreement drawn up by the Gang of Three, said Smith perhaps "got a bit zealous in trying to get us to the majority," but then realized the error of his ways.
Now, according to Dilan, Smith has assured his members that if decides to renegotiate a deal with the renegade trio, the most that will be offered will be committee chairmanships. "They're not going to walk into leadership," Dilan said."
Well., we guess that clears this all up-but what appears to be a solid bet after all of the posturing-is that the numbers aren't there; for either a coup, or for Smith's ascension into leadership. Klein, for his part, appeared to be conciliatory: "Sen. Jeff Klein, who is most often mentioned as a potential challenger to Smith, participated in today's meeting by phone from Florida, where he is visiting his mother. "There is no coup," Klein told me, emphatically. "I support Malcolm. I think the most important thing we need to do is move forward as 32 Democrats, usher in a new Albany and deal with the problems that are so important to the residents of New York State."
So it seems that what the senate really needs is more math majors. As Liz wrote earlier: "Another reason why Smith is safe for now: Gov. David Paterson. Both sides, the conference and the Gang of Three, are waiting for word from the governor as to how he wants this whole thing to be resolved, and Paterson appears to want to keep his distance for the time being. The issue of racial politics is hard to overlook here. Since Paterson became the first African American to hold a legislative leadership post in 2002, the caucus has been loathe to give up the seat, and given their dominance of the conference, there is no way a coup attempt could succeed without their votes. Of the people who lost out to Smith in the 2006 minority leader battle, only one, Sen. Martin Malave Dilan, is a minority. The others - Klein, Sen. Eric Schneiderman and Sen. Neil Breslin - are all white."
So we're back at the drawing board, and as we pointed out before, simply awaiting divine intervention. It seems that discomfort will have to be a persistent problem until the successful intervention is effected.
This, of course, leaves aside the nettlesome question of how Smith is gonna get from point A to point B, something that Senator Dilan answers: "Sen. Martin Malave Dilan, whose name was mentioned in the memo of agreement drawn up by the Gang of Three, said Smith perhaps "got a bit zealous in trying to get us to the majority," but then realized the error of his ways.
Now, according to Dilan, Smith has assured his members that if decides to renegotiate a deal with the renegade trio, the most that will be offered will be committee chairmanships. "They're not going to walk into leadership," Dilan said."
Well., we guess that clears this all up-but what appears to be a solid bet after all of the posturing-is that the numbers aren't there; for either a coup, or for Smith's ascension into leadership. Klein, for his part, appeared to be conciliatory: "Sen. Jeff Klein, who is most often mentioned as a potential challenger to Smith, participated in today's meeting by phone from Florida, where he is visiting his mother. "There is no coup," Klein told me, emphatically. "I support Malcolm. I think the most important thing we need to do is move forward as 32 Democrats, usher in a new Albany and deal with the problems that are so important to the residents of New York State."
So it seems that what the senate really needs is more math majors. As Liz wrote earlier: "Another reason why Smith is safe for now: Gov. David Paterson. Both sides, the conference and the Gang of Three, are waiting for word from the governor as to how he wants this whole thing to be resolved, and Paterson appears to want to keep his distance for the time being. The issue of racial politics is hard to overlook here. Since Paterson became the first African American to hold a legislative leadership post in 2002, the caucus has been loathe to give up the seat, and given their dominance of the conference, there is no way a coup attempt could succeed without their votes. Of the people who lost out to Smith in the 2006 minority leader battle, only one, Sen. Martin Malave Dilan, is a minority. The others - Klein, Sen. Eric Schneiderman and Sen. Neil Breslin - are all white."
So we're back at the drawing board, and as we pointed out before, simply awaiting divine intervention. It seems that discomfort will have to be a persistent problem until the successful intervention is effected.
Deceitful Dealing
A legal memo that purports to outline the proposed senate leadership deal has surfaced at the City Room blog-and the only logical source for the document is the Smith team; in an attempt, we feel, to further tarnish the dissidents: "But a memorandum obtained by The Times gives a more detailed glimpse of what was discussed by the men last week. The document, which was circulated at the meeting, spells out in extraordinary detail the dissidents’ requests — requests that the three men have insisted Mr. Smith agreed to oblige, with only a few exceptions."
But, on analysis, there are some rich reform proposals in the memo. To wit: enhanced power to committee chairs and bipartisan ability to introduce and move legislation. As the memo stated: "The chair shall control the flow of all legislation assigned to the Committee and be authorized to discharge any bill from a committee for a full floor vote..."
And so on-but the Smith focus is elsewhere; designed to misdirect us away from his walk back from the deal he pledged his fealty to. Nothing could be more disingenuous than the following: "An aide to Mr. Smith, who was granted anonymity to discuss the confidential deliberations at the meeting, described the document as no more than a “wish list” presented by the three men.
“There was no final or formalized document from the meeting,” the aide said. The three men have previously said that at Mr. Smith’s insistence, they agreed to a handshake deal, sanctified by a prayer uttered by Mr. Diaz, who is a Pentacostal minister."
The purpose of the memo, drafted with the aid of counsel, was to avoid any misconceptions about what was agreed to-and Smith made some amendments that underscore his active participation in the process. But now, lacking the support of his conference, he flounders around, and leaks a document to deflect from his own responsibility in the failure of a deal that a whole slew of prominent Democrats (and an independent billionaire) saw consummated before their very eyes.
And all of this hasn't been lost on his colleagues-who appear ready perhaps to attempt their own coup in the wake of the deal's collapse. As the NY Daily News reports: "State Senate Democrats plan to meet privately Friday amid talk of a possible coup attempt against leader Malcolm Smith. Sources said Bronx Sen. Jeff Klein, Smith's deputy, has been working the phone in hopes of winning support to become Senate majority leader next month."
Ah, the wages of sin, and all that; but the coupsters aren't sitting pretty here, because the numbers are a challenge to any attempt to replace Smith: "One senator loyal to Smith said he was aware Klein was making calls, but downplayed the chances of success. "I think Malcolm will do what he has to do to make sure his position is secure," the senator said. "People are mistaking frustration in the conference with a desire for change."
In any case, the effort to designate a leader will have to go through the three dissidents who, at least according to Pedro Espada on "Inside City Hall" last night, are united in their common reform goals. A further split in the Democratic conference, will more than likely elevate the chances that Republicans will regain the leadership. Expect more chaos before this is resolved.
But, on analysis, there are some rich reform proposals in the memo. To wit: enhanced power to committee chairs and bipartisan ability to introduce and move legislation. As the memo stated: "The chair shall control the flow of all legislation assigned to the Committee and be authorized to discharge any bill from a committee for a full floor vote..."
And so on-but the Smith focus is elsewhere; designed to misdirect us away from his walk back from the deal he pledged his fealty to. Nothing could be more disingenuous than the following: "An aide to Mr. Smith, who was granted anonymity to discuss the confidential deliberations at the meeting, described the document as no more than a “wish list” presented by the three men.
“There was no final or formalized document from the meeting,” the aide said. The three men have previously said that at Mr. Smith’s insistence, they agreed to a handshake deal, sanctified by a prayer uttered by Mr. Diaz, who is a Pentacostal minister."
The purpose of the memo, drafted with the aid of counsel, was to avoid any misconceptions about what was agreed to-and Smith made some amendments that underscore his active participation in the process. But now, lacking the support of his conference, he flounders around, and leaks a document to deflect from his own responsibility in the failure of a deal that a whole slew of prominent Democrats (and an independent billionaire) saw consummated before their very eyes.
And all of this hasn't been lost on his colleagues-who appear ready perhaps to attempt their own coup in the wake of the deal's collapse. As the NY Daily News reports: "State Senate Democrats plan to meet privately Friday amid talk of a possible coup attempt against leader Malcolm Smith. Sources said Bronx Sen. Jeff Klein, Smith's deputy, has been working the phone in hopes of winning support to become Senate majority leader next month."
Ah, the wages of sin, and all that; but the coupsters aren't sitting pretty here, because the numbers are a challenge to any attempt to replace Smith: "One senator loyal to Smith said he was aware Klein was making calls, but downplayed the chances of success. "I think Malcolm will do what he has to do to make sure his position is secure," the senator said. "People are mistaking frustration in the conference with a desire for change."
In any case, the effort to designate a leader will have to go through the three dissidents who, at least according to Pedro Espada on "Inside City Hall" last night, are united in their common reform goals. A further split in the Democratic conference, will more than likely elevate the chances that Republicans will regain the leadership. Expect more chaos before this is resolved.
Carrion: Dead Meat Spoils in D.C.
We haven't commented on the possible ascension of Adolfo Carrion to a post in the Obama administration because, well, we have so many mixed feelings. It reminds us of the humorous definition of mixed feelings: watching your mother-in-law going over a cliff in your brand new Caddy. Put simply: nothing so becomes Adolfo as his leaving.
At the same time, we're in synch with critics of the BP-particularly Tom Robbins of the Village Voice, who pens a satiric endorsement of AC's move to D.C.We really like Tom's first rationale: "1. A team player: Specifically, for the Yankees. When a bunch of spoilsport members of the local community board objected a couple years ago to giving the richest team in baseball a public park and a few hundred million bucks to build a brand new stadium in his borough, Carrion quickly purged them from the board."
Our buddy Andy Wolf picks up on the community board/Yankee theme: "Bronx Community Board 4 has in recent days become among the best known of the city's 62 community boards. This is the board that voted against the plan to build the new Yankee Stadium. These boards only have advisory power. But having the weight of these "official" representatives of the local neighborhoods behind a project can influence the higher officials who really make the decisions. Tonight, at Bronx Lebanon Hospital on the Grand Concourse, the board will hold its final meeting before old terms expire and new ones begin. Fireworks are expected. The board that will be in place next week will look quite different from the one that will meet tonight. Members of the board who ignored the wishes of the Bronx president, Adolfo Carrion, have been removed, and new, presumably more pliable members will take their place."
And then there's Adolfo's betrayal of the merchants-many of whom were Hispanic-in the old Bronx Terminal market. As Robbins highlights: "5. Gets the big picture: When Bloomberg's development czar Dan Doctoroff announced he wanted to boot 23 long-time merchants and their 1,500 employees from the Bronx Terminal Market to make way for a mega-mall built by Doctoroff's best pal, Steve Ross of Related, Carrion got right on board. His office was supposed to find a new home for the market somewhere in his borough (which boasts the largest amount of vacant industrial space in the city). This didn't happen, but no biggie. They relocated themselves, spread around the city."
Adolfo Carrion simply doesn't have the requisite stature to be given any high cabinet position by the Obama team. Even the addition by subtraction that New York would benefit from, isn't a sufficient reason for supporting his undeserved elevation.
At the same time, we're in synch with critics of the BP-particularly Tom Robbins of the Village Voice, who pens a satiric endorsement of AC's move to D.C.We really like Tom's first rationale: "1. A team player: Specifically, for the Yankees. When a bunch of spoilsport members of the local community board objected a couple years ago to giving the richest team in baseball a public park and a few hundred million bucks to build a brand new stadium in his borough, Carrion quickly purged them from the board."
Our buddy Andy Wolf picks up on the community board/Yankee theme: "Bronx Community Board 4 has in recent days become among the best known of the city's 62 community boards. This is the board that voted against the plan to build the new Yankee Stadium. These boards only have advisory power. But having the weight of these "official" representatives of the local neighborhoods behind a project can influence the higher officials who really make the decisions. Tonight, at Bronx Lebanon Hospital on the Grand Concourse, the board will hold its final meeting before old terms expire and new ones begin. Fireworks are expected. The board that will be in place next week will look quite different from the one that will meet tonight. Members of the board who ignored the wishes of the Bronx president, Adolfo Carrion, have been removed, and new, presumably more pliable members will take their place."
And then there's Adolfo's betrayal of the merchants-many of whom were Hispanic-in the old Bronx Terminal market. As Robbins highlights: "5. Gets the big picture: When Bloomberg's development czar Dan Doctoroff announced he wanted to boot 23 long-time merchants and their 1,500 employees from the Bronx Terminal Market to make way for a mega-mall built by Doctoroff's best pal, Steve Ross of Related, Carrion got right on board. His office was supposed to find a new home for the market somewhere in his borough (which boasts the largest amount of vacant industrial space in the city). This didn't happen, but no biggie. They relocated themselves, spread around the city."
Adolfo Carrion simply doesn't have the requisite stature to be given any high cabinet position by the Obama team. Even the addition by subtraction that New York would benefit from, isn't a sufficient reason for supporting his undeserved elevation.
Waiting for the Deus Ex Machina
For those familiar with Greek drama, there's a literary device used by the playwrights, when the protagonist of the narrative is in trouble. At the moment when it appears as if the hero is doomed, one of the gods intervenes to save the day-a device called the deus ex machina. Such is the situation facing all of our state senate heroes; frustrated by their predicament, they may only be saved by divine intervention. And in this case, only the governor comes close to filling the godhead role.
Some of this is underscored by the continued public antipathy shown by Pedro Espada to Malcolm Smith. As the Politicker tells us: "State Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. doesn't know who he'll support to lead his chamber. He's talking to everyone - Republican,
Democrat...whoever. But not to fellow State Senator Malcolm Smith, who he repeatedly called "a scoundrel and a liar" late Wednesday after Smith announced he would no longer negotiate with Espada or fellow members of the so-called Gang of Three. "There is no way that I would cast my vote for Malcolm Smith, and there is no way I would have conversations with anyone other than the entire conference," he said."
Strong stuff that's tough to walk back on without some help. And here's Espada with Fred Dicker on the radio: "On negotiating with Sen. Malcolm Smith: “Unfortunately, we were talking to someone who misrepresents his authority.” Could negotiations resume at this point? “It would require to have someone else in that conference move to a position of leadership.”
Which leads to the question that Liz asks: "Will Paterson Remain Loyal To Smith?" And, if not, what are the alternatives that are open to him? "The governor, who is scheduled to release his executive 2009-2010 budget Dec. 16 (a whole month early), later praised Smith for having the courage to walk away from the tentative power-sharing deal and insisted he's "supportive" of Smith. But he also didn't rule out the idea of backing someone else, like, say, Sen. Jeff Klein."
So in our view, Paterson might be forced to try to rehabilitate Smith, and resurrect the collapsed deal in the process; unless he can find someone who's not only palatable to him, but to a majority of the Democratic conference: "The TU thinks that Paterson is at fault here, writing today in a harshly-worded editorial: "For the whole mess, the credit goes not just to Mr. Smith, but also to his enabler, Governor Paterson." If you agree with that, then you might also agree that it's Paterson's responsibility to help the Senate Democrats, who, after all, he assisted in winning the majority on Nov. 4, climb their way out of this morass prior to the start of the 2009 session."
All of this may be exacerbated by the drawn out battle over the Padavan/Gennaro recount. As Liz also writes: "The on-again, off-again recount of paper ballots in the 11th SD race is off again - at least until next week - and at the rate things or going, it's highly likely there will be no winner certified by the time the Legislature returns to Albany on Jan. 7."
So we could be facing a real messy stalemate, at least if the governor fails to put a Democratic-driven deal together. Without Padavan's vote, the Republicans will need all three dissidents to align with them; something that might be difficult-although not impossible-to achieve. In any case, it is an outcome that the governor doesn't appear to want; so he needs to reach back for god-like resources in order to get the senate leadership resolved.
Some of this is underscored by the continued public antipathy shown by Pedro Espada to Malcolm Smith. As the Politicker tells us: "State Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. doesn't know who he'll support to lead his chamber. He's talking to everyone - Republican,
Democrat...whoever. But not to fellow State Senator Malcolm Smith, who he repeatedly called "a scoundrel and a liar" late Wednesday after Smith announced he would no longer negotiate with Espada or fellow members of the so-called Gang of Three. "There is no way that I would cast my vote for Malcolm Smith, and there is no way I would have conversations with anyone other than the entire conference," he said."
Strong stuff that's tough to walk back on without some help. And here's Espada with Fred Dicker on the radio: "On negotiating with Sen. Malcolm Smith: “Unfortunately, we were talking to someone who misrepresents his authority.” Could negotiations resume at this point? “It would require to have someone else in that conference move to a position of leadership.”
Which leads to the question that Liz asks: "Will Paterson Remain Loyal To Smith?" And, if not, what are the alternatives that are open to him? "The governor, who is scheduled to release his executive 2009-2010 budget Dec. 16 (a whole month early), later praised Smith for having the courage to walk away from the tentative power-sharing deal and insisted he's "supportive" of Smith. But he also didn't rule out the idea of backing someone else, like, say, Sen. Jeff Klein."
So in our view, Paterson might be forced to try to rehabilitate Smith, and resurrect the collapsed deal in the process; unless he can find someone who's not only palatable to him, but to a majority of the Democratic conference: "The TU thinks that Paterson is at fault here, writing today in a harshly-worded editorial: "For the whole mess, the credit goes not just to Mr. Smith, but also to his enabler, Governor Paterson." If you agree with that, then you might also agree that it's Paterson's responsibility to help the Senate Democrats, who, after all, he assisted in winning the majority on Nov. 4, climb their way out of this morass prior to the start of the 2009 session."
All of this may be exacerbated by the drawn out battle over the Padavan/Gennaro recount. As Liz also writes: "The on-again, off-again recount of paper ballots in the 11th SD race is off again - at least until next week - and at the rate things or going, it's highly likely there will be no winner certified by the time the Legislature returns to Albany on Jan. 7."
So we could be facing a real messy stalemate, at least if the governor fails to put a Democratic-driven deal together. Without Padavan's vote, the Republicans will need all three dissidents to align with them; something that might be difficult-although not impossible-to achieve. In any case, it is an outcome that the governor doesn't appear to want; so he needs to reach back for god-like resources in order to get the senate leadership resolved.
Close the Firehouses!
It's the oldest budget ploy in the books. When the city council is hunkering down and refusing to go along with the mayor, the cry rings out: "We'll just have to close some firehouses." As Azi tells us: "Bloomberg also said that the additional $1.7 billion in cuts from city agencies that he called for yesterday--which includes the elimination of an entire class of firefighters--may not be enough. “The next cut is firehouses,” Bloomberg said."
Sure's a good scare tactic to use on council members who are afraid of losing local fire protection. But what does it say about Bloomberg's governance capacity? AS the NY Post opines this morning-referring to the police cuts this time: "Bloomberg needs to prioritize." That he has put himself in a position of needing to threaten the council with firehouse closings-and police cuts, only underscores his failure to reform the size and scope of government in the first place.
And the mayor's ultimatums are part of the bogarting process: "Facing unexpected resistance in the City Council over his midyear budget changes, Mayor Bloomberg warned yesterday that he'll order more drastic agency cuts in two weeks if a deal isn't reached quickly. "If we decide to - or have to - send out the [$400 property-tax] rebate or the City Council doesn't act, the $1.4 billion cut is not adequate, and we will send out another letter next week," the mayor said."
Someone-public advocate candidates front and center-needs to galvanize neighborhood groups and firefighters; dust off the old Dinkins doomsday firehouse closing list, and mobilize on city hall. This is, of course, all about the council's resistance to Mayor Mike on the rebate issue: "At one point, Skyler said bluntly, “The mayor is doing everything he can to restrain city spending.” But the City Council hasn’t fully embraced his earlier calls for reducing spending. Some City Council members are suing the mayor to force him to release the rebate checks, and others are saying they should raise the taxes on hotel rooms rather than homeowners properties, since the latter is targeted to out-of-towners. Skyler didn’t comment on the hotel tax, but said the lawsuit over the rebate checks brought a policy issue into an inappropriate venue."
Memo to the city council: call his bluff, and then beat him at his own game by belling this cat with his assault on neighborhood safety. Bloomberg really acted like the grasshopper in the old fable-preferring to play with the special interests rather than prepare for the stormy winter to come. He needs to pay politically for his sins.
Sure's a good scare tactic to use on council members who are afraid of losing local fire protection. But what does it say about Bloomberg's governance capacity? AS the NY Post opines this morning-referring to the police cuts this time: "Bloomberg needs to prioritize." That he has put himself in a position of needing to threaten the council with firehouse closings-and police cuts, only underscores his failure to reform the size and scope of government in the first place.
And the mayor's ultimatums are part of the bogarting process: "Facing unexpected resistance in the City Council over his midyear budget changes, Mayor Bloomberg warned yesterday that he'll order more drastic agency cuts in two weeks if a deal isn't reached quickly. "If we decide to - or have to - send out the [$400 property-tax] rebate or the City Council doesn't act, the $1.4 billion cut is not adequate, and we will send out another letter next week," the mayor said."
Someone-public advocate candidates front and center-needs to galvanize neighborhood groups and firefighters; dust off the old Dinkins doomsday firehouse closing list, and mobilize on city hall. This is, of course, all about the council's resistance to Mayor Mike on the rebate issue: "At one point, Skyler said bluntly, “The mayor is doing everything he can to restrain city spending.” But the City Council hasn’t fully embraced his earlier calls for reducing spending. Some City Council members are suing the mayor to force him to release the rebate checks, and others are saying they should raise the taxes on hotel rooms rather than homeowners properties, since the latter is targeted to out-of-towners. Skyler didn’t comment on the hotel tax, but said the lawsuit over the rebate checks brought a policy issue into an inappropriate venue."
Memo to the city council: call his bluff, and then beat him at his own game by belling this cat with his assault on neighborhood safety. Bloomberg really acted like the grasshopper in the old fable-preferring to play with the special interests rather than prepare for the stormy winter to come. He needs to pay politically for his sins.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Smith Survival Shaky?
In today's Crain's Insider, there's speculation that Malcolm Smith may be dead man walking: "Sen. Malcolm Smith’s days as Democratic leader appear to be numbered—not because his deal with dissident Democrats fell apart, but because he made it in the first place. “Malcolm Smith is mortally wounded,” one Democrat says. “He cannot lead this conference. He is going to have to be replaced.”
The central issue-as the dissidents themselves underscored-is trust: "Smith announced yesterday morning that he was pulling out of the agreement with the so-called Gang of Three. But the trio of Sens. Carl Kruger and Ruben Díaz Sr. and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada had already realized that they could not trust Smith, insiders say. “I don’t blame them,” the source says."
The trust has apparently been eroded all over the conference: "At a meeting Saturday, he told them that he had not firmly committed to the deal, and that he could undercut the powers he gave the three rogue senators after the vote to make him leader of the Senate. That left the impression that Smith was untrustworthy, further undermining his support."
The problem, as Crain's points out, is that there is no heir apparent-and with such a slim majority it's difficult to cobble the 32 votes needed to become leader; all of which opens up the possibility for a bipartisan leadership arrangement. Finding the leader in this fiasco will be some challenge. As they say on the Price is Right, "Come on down."
The central issue-as the dissidents themselves underscored-is trust: "Smith announced yesterday morning that he was pulling out of the agreement with the so-called Gang of Three. But the trio of Sens. Carl Kruger and Ruben Díaz Sr. and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada had already realized that they could not trust Smith, insiders say. “I don’t blame them,” the source says."
The trust has apparently been eroded all over the conference: "At a meeting Saturday, he told them that he had not firmly committed to the deal, and that he could undercut the powers he gave the three rogue senators after the vote to make him leader of the Senate. That left the impression that Smith was untrustworthy, further undermining his support."
The problem, as Crain's points out, is that there is no heir apparent-and with such a slim majority it's difficult to cobble the 32 votes needed to become leader; all of which opens up the possibility for a bipartisan leadership arrangement. Finding the leader in this fiasco will be some challenge. As they say on the Price is Right, "Come on down."
Albany Reformation
The NY Daily News editorializes today about the collapse of the deal to make Malcolm Smith the new senate leader-and makes legislative reform its centerpiece. In the process, however, it misconstrues what actually transpired: "State Sen. Malcolm Smith of Queens has called off the unsavory deal he made with three lawmakers who tried to extort power and perks in exchange for backing him as majority leader. Now, Smith must take a bolder step to prove he has what it takes to be one of the three most powerful elected officials in New York: He must deliver on a promise to reform Albany."
What the News sees as. "unsavory," was a deal that encompasses the very reforms the paper feels are vital: "He should campaign for leader on a platform of making the Senate a true legislative body. That would mean ending boss rule. That would mean giving committees independence to hold hearings and shape bills. That would mean giving minority-party members the voice they now lack in the legislative process."
All of these important changes comprised the centerpiece-the very essence-of what the three amigos had negotiated: and what Smith had signed off on. The News goes on to throw down the gauntlet to both Smith and Dean Skelos: "Wednesday, Smith declared that Democrats would rather stay in the minority than do business with shakedown artists - which should have been his guiding principle from the start. Now, let him rebuild his reputation on a reform platform, going head to head with all comers for the job, including Republican rival Dean Skelos. May the the best leader win. What a concept."
Well said, except for the shakedown allegation. The larger truth is that the three dissidents, while looking to enhance their own influence-something that apparently shocks everyone-weren't sure they could trust the Reformation process to Smith without assurances backed by the governor. The governor, who attended the negotiations, did just that. The truth? Malcolm was really rolled by his own folks-who wanted the quids and quos for the pros-themselves.
What the News sees as. "unsavory," was a deal that encompasses the very reforms the paper feels are vital: "He should campaign for leader on a platform of making the Senate a true legislative body. That would mean ending boss rule. That would mean giving committees independence to hold hearings and shape bills. That would mean giving minority-party members the voice they now lack in the legislative process."
All of these important changes comprised the centerpiece-the very essence-of what the three amigos had negotiated: and what Smith had signed off on. The News goes on to throw down the gauntlet to both Smith and Dean Skelos: "Wednesday, Smith declared that Democrats would rather stay in the minority than do business with shakedown artists - which should have been his guiding principle from the start. Now, let him rebuild his reputation on a reform platform, going head to head with all comers for the job, including Republican rival Dean Skelos. May the the best leader win. What a concept."
Well said, except for the shakedown allegation. The larger truth is that the three dissidents, while looking to enhance their own influence-something that apparently shocks everyone-weren't sure they could trust the Reformation process to Smith without assurances backed by the governor. The governor, who attended the negotiations, did just that. The truth? Malcolm was really rolled by his own folks-who wanted the quids and quos for the pros-themselves.
Slush Puppies
According to the NY Post, the city council is running through money again-this time for lawyers to advise members and staff about their legal exposure from the slush fund controversy; and just where is the investigation that necessitates so much expensive advice? As the Post points out: "The City Council is quickly running through taxpayer money paid to two top-of-the-line law firms and a high-profile attorney hired to advise and represent members and staffers snagged in a slush-fund probe - and has even quietly signed another firm, The Post has learned.
White-collar crime specialist Steptoe & Johnson so far has been paid $122,173. A $95,000 retainer for the firm Sullivan & Cromwell already has been depleted. And ex-federal prosecutor Lee Richards, who charges $600 an hour, has been hired as personal criminal defense lawyer for Council Speaker Christine Quinn."
Whew! Self inflicted wounds paid for by the innocent tax payers; and no investigation in sight. The real question here, is how much of the slush is gonna be gone with the budget crisis upon us. And with many of these allocations, it's not really about criminality, but more about unnecessary; the cutting board should be awash with the blood of these tax payer drains.
White-collar crime specialist Steptoe & Johnson so far has been paid $122,173. A $95,000 retainer for the firm Sullivan & Cromwell already has been depleted. And ex-federal prosecutor Lee Richards, who charges $600 an hour, has been hired as personal criminal defense lawyer for Council Speaker Christine Quinn."
Whew! Self inflicted wounds paid for by the innocent tax payers; and no investigation in sight. The real question here, is how much of the slush is gonna be gone with the budget crisis upon us. And with many of these allocations, it's not really about criminality, but more about unnecessary; the cutting board should be awash with the blood of these tax payer drains.
Laughing Stock
According to Spin Cycle's John Riley, the idea, floated by Malcolm Smith, that the failed deal with senate dissidents was a blow for civil rights, is a "Big Joke." As he points out: "In a curious attempt at spin, Malcolm Smith -- with help from NARAL Pro-Choice New York -- is trying to cast himself as a hero of the civil rights movement after his conference rebelled against a deal he (with Paterson's participation) cut to bring the Gang of Three into the fold, forcing him to backtrack and, essentially, renege. Smith, in his statement (after the jump), says, "We are suspending negotiations, effective immediately, because to do so otherwise would reduce our moral standing...." and adds that, "real reform cannot and should not ever include limiting the civil rights of any New Yorkers."
The effort at redefining reality is a perfect fit for a Spin Cycle blog-but Riley's not buying any of it: "The reality: Smith was forced to back off because his conference thought the idea of giving rewards to disloyal Dems was offensive, because other conference members feared loss of status, and because Pedro Espada has been dogged by ethics issues that made his promotion somewhat troublesome. Smith engaged in negotiations that he shouldn't have, struck a deal he shouldn't have, and made a mess. Anything else is spin."
This is all underscored in this morning's NY Times: "Mr. Kruger and Mr. Espada said they had been assured by Mr. Smith that he had the support of his Democratic caucus to make a deal. “I asked him specifically whether he wanted 24 or 48 hours as a return policy,” Mr. Kruger said. “He said ‘absolutely not.’ He said he was very comfortable with it. That was sanctified not by a handshake, but by a prayer service by Reverend Díaz.”
Malcolm's reaching for anything that will divert attention from his own failure to lead. His epiphany resulted from getting cold water poured on the deal he had blessed as one he could sell to his supprters. As Pedro Espada told the Capitol Confidential: “Throughout this process Malcolm Smith has proved to be the not ready for prime time leader,” Espada said. “I will not sit in the room with him again unless he’s got the total support of his own conference.”
Espada goes on to tell Daily Politics: "I think other Democrats have to fill the leadership vacuum that Malcolm has created by defaulting on his responsibilities," Espada continued. "Malcolm simply was not ready for prime time. He lied and simply cannot be trusted."
And he goes on to clearly dramatize Smith's basic failing: "Espada said he asked Smith during negotiations last week whether he had the authority to make deals for his conference and was told he did and received assurances from Smith that he did. That, of course, proved to be not so true, as the rank-and-file later balked at the deal Smith had cut, saying he went too far in giving away power."
And is there, perhaps, a bipartisan future for the senate? Apparently Espada believes so: "We're not going to keep the stalemate going too long," Espada said. "I think there will be a bipartisan effort by Democrats who can no longer work with Malcolm, and it's not just the three of us, and Republicans who want to do the people's business and get on with this."
Which might also be Smith's ploy as well: "Now that Malcolm Smith has forging a united Democratic majority under his leadership, look for the party to redouble its efforts to recruit defectors from the Republican side. State Senator Joe Robach - who used to be a Democrat - could be a target, as well as State Senator Jim Alesi, who was reported earlier as a possibility."
This, of course, is problematic in the extreme-and why would the Republicans defect if they have three dissident Dems as possible partners for a new majority? As Politicker points out: "On the opposite side, both Senators Carl Kruger and Pedro Espada Jr. have ties to the Republicans. Espada flipped parties in 2002 (and was voted out) and Kruger was the only Democrat to serve as a committee chairman when the chamber was controlled by Republicans."
If this is going to be resolved, it's hard to see how Governor Paterson can avoid a hands on approach. As the Times makes clear: "...it leaves the Senate mired in turmoil as the state faces perhaps its most severe fiscal crisis in decades." The timid majority seems unable to take the plunge to insure new leadership-or to at least renegotiate the old deal; the governor's move is awaited by all of the players.
And the efforts of Smith to redefine reality, highlighted this morning in the NY Daily News, by accusing Espada of trying to be greedy, is simply incredulous-the deal was agreed to and Espada never tried to extract a penny of stipend money; it is simply Smith's feeble effort to face save, when he is really in desperate need of a leadership lift: "Smith said the talks in recent days have been less about reform "and more about self interest and personal aggrandizement." In particular, Smith said Senator-elect Pedro Espada (D-Bronx), was pushing for a stipend to become majority leader even though it was agreed the job wouldn't include extra money." Really? What talks? These were concluded last week with an agreement; and Smith has only been talking to his own colleagues, or perhaps himself.
That being said, Smith may have permanently crippled himself-and the governor needs to avoid having his own future tied to this political albatross. The editorial in the NY Post this morning dramatizes this point-even though it goes to great lengths to criminalize almost any logrolling or political negotiation: "That Gov. Paterson chose to demean himself and his office by participating publicly in the sordid deal-making shows a remarkable lack of judgment. And his failure, once engaged, to effect a lasting settlement demonstrates an appalling shortage of political skills. Smith, meanwhile, has committed an unforgivable political blunder: He has rendered himself totally ridiculous, and in public to boot. Paterson isn't far behind. How do the two of them propose actually to govern when the time comes - if, in Smith's case, it ever does come? Actually, it shouldn't."
The leadership vacuum is as wide as the Grand Canyon here; and the longer this festers, the more the governor's credibility will erode. The Post and others lose sight of the reform package that was part of the negotiation-and it was the unwillingness of the Democratic conference to give up their own prerogatives, that has sunk this agreement.
The effort at redefining reality is a perfect fit for a Spin Cycle blog-but Riley's not buying any of it: "The reality: Smith was forced to back off because his conference thought the idea of giving rewards to disloyal Dems was offensive, because other conference members feared loss of status, and because Pedro Espada has been dogged by ethics issues that made his promotion somewhat troublesome. Smith engaged in negotiations that he shouldn't have, struck a deal he shouldn't have, and made a mess. Anything else is spin."
This is all underscored in this morning's NY Times: "Mr. Kruger and Mr. Espada said they had been assured by Mr. Smith that he had the support of his Democratic caucus to make a deal. “I asked him specifically whether he wanted 24 or 48 hours as a return policy,” Mr. Kruger said. “He said ‘absolutely not.’ He said he was very comfortable with it. That was sanctified not by a handshake, but by a prayer service by Reverend Díaz.”
Malcolm's reaching for anything that will divert attention from his own failure to lead. His epiphany resulted from getting cold water poured on the deal he had blessed as one he could sell to his supprters. As Pedro Espada told the Capitol Confidential: “Throughout this process Malcolm Smith has proved to be the not ready for prime time leader,” Espada said. “I will not sit in the room with him again unless he’s got the total support of his own conference.”
Espada goes on to tell Daily Politics: "I think other Democrats have to fill the leadership vacuum that Malcolm has created by defaulting on his responsibilities," Espada continued. "Malcolm simply was not ready for prime time. He lied and simply cannot be trusted."
And he goes on to clearly dramatize Smith's basic failing: "Espada said he asked Smith during negotiations last week whether he had the authority to make deals for his conference and was told he did and received assurances from Smith that he did. That, of course, proved to be not so true, as the rank-and-file later balked at the deal Smith had cut, saying he went too far in giving away power."
And is there, perhaps, a bipartisan future for the senate? Apparently Espada believes so: "We're not going to keep the stalemate going too long," Espada said. "I think there will be a bipartisan effort by Democrats who can no longer work with Malcolm, and it's not just the three of us, and Republicans who want to do the people's business and get on with this."
Which might also be Smith's ploy as well: "Now that Malcolm Smith has forging a united Democratic majority under his leadership, look for the party to redouble its efforts to recruit defectors from the Republican side. State Senator Joe Robach - who used to be a Democrat - could be a target, as well as State Senator Jim Alesi, who was reported earlier as a possibility."
This, of course, is problematic in the extreme-and why would the Republicans defect if they have three dissident Dems as possible partners for a new majority? As Politicker points out: "On the opposite side, both Senators Carl Kruger and Pedro Espada Jr. have ties to the Republicans. Espada flipped parties in 2002 (and was voted out) and Kruger was the only Democrat to serve as a committee chairman when the chamber was controlled by Republicans."
If this is going to be resolved, it's hard to see how Governor Paterson can avoid a hands on approach. As the Times makes clear: "...it leaves the Senate mired in turmoil as the state faces perhaps its most severe fiscal crisis in decades." The timid majority seems unable to take the plunge to insure new leadership-or to at least renegotiate the old deal; the governor's move is awaited by all of the players.
And the efforts of Smith to redefine reality, highlighted this morning in the NY Daily News, by accusing Espada of trying to be greedy, is simply incredulous-the deal was agreed to and Espada never tried to extract a penny of stipend money; it is simply Smith's feeble effort to face save, when he is really in desperate need of a leadership lift: "Smith said the talks in recent days have been less about reform "and more about self interest and personal aggrandizement." In particular, Smith said Senator-elect Pedro Espada (D-Bronx), was pushing for a stipend to become majority leader even though it was agreed the job wouldn't include extra money." Really? What talks? These were concluded last week with an agreement; and Smith has only been talking to his own colleagues, or perhaps himself.
That being said, Smith may have permanently crippled himself-and the governor needs to avoid having his own future tied to this political albatross. The editorial in the NY Post this morning dramatizes this point-even though it goes to great lengths to criminalize almost any logrolling or political negotiation: "That Gov. Paterson chose to demean himself and his office by participating publicly in the sordid deal-making shows a remarkable lack of judgment. And his failure, once engaged, to effect a lasting settlement demonstrates an appalling shortage of political skills. Smith, meanwhile, has committed an unforgivable political blunder: He has rendered himself totally ridiculous, and in public to boot. Paterson isn't far behind. How do the two of them propose actually to govern when the time comes - if, in Smith's case, it ever does come? Actually, it shouldn't."
The leadership vacuum is as wide as the Grand Canyon here; and the longer this festers, the more the governor's credibility will erode. The Post and others lose sight of the reform package that was part of the negotiation-and it was the unwillingness of the Democratic conference to give up their own prerogatives, that has sunk this agreement.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Wither Withering Smith?
In reading some of the blog comments about the way in which Malcolm Smith reneged on a deal that he had stuck in good faith with the senate dissidents, you'd have to believe that marijuana has been suddenly legalized; because to attribute courage to Mr. Smith in this walk back, is to totally misconstrue the essence of what has transpired. Smith's leadership (sic) on this is literally blowin' in the wind.
Which leaves us in the same position we were in before the brokered deal fell through-and with Smith lacking the necessary votes to ascend to the leader's position. As The Politicker points out: "State Senator Malcolm Smith just announced he is ceasing negotiations with three rebellious members of the Democratic conference, even if that means driving them to the other side and tipping the balance of power back to the Republicans in the Senate."
Ah, a line in the sand, one that leaves Governor Paterson, just where? We think that David is not going to allow laissez faire to rule in the current stand off. As he told the Politicker: "So, I guess they would have to go back and try to work it out, and of course it will give the other side an opportunity to present their issues. But what I do think is starting to happen is that it's distracting us from the real issue, which is that we've got to close this deficit. And I hope that as they go through whatever it is that's causing the controversy, that people will think about that once in a while, because when we go back in January, that's where I really need all of the players in this process to come together."
All of this is, of course, predictably messy-this kind of political deal making always is; but to shriek about party disloyalty here is simply stupid. No one screamed publicly about apostasy when David Paterson ousted Marty Conners (with the key votes of Kruger and Dilan); nor were the blogs lit up when Smith prevailed over Dilan to replace Paterson.
And the public approbation of the deal's collapse from certain quarters isn't really a good boost for Smith. As Daily Politics points out: "Two key Democratic interest groups -- pro-choice activists and gay rights activists -- are applauding Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith's decision to break off talks with the so-called "three amigos" -- right-leaning Democrats who have threatened to withhold their votes from Smith for majority leader in January."
All this does is underscore the way in which certain interests hold sway over the Democratic Party-often to its detriment; and if the folks keep hectoring Diaz, accusing him of the worst forms of bigotry, perhaps they should address some of their ire to the president elect who holds a similar position on gay marriage. Diaz's complaint about Smith is legit: "Diaz had secured a promise that a bill to legalize gay marriage would not come to the floor for a vote. Smith said that guarantee is no longer the case. Diaz also blasted Smith for trying to make the majority leader position that was to go to Espada a token position. "He agreed to it. What happened now is he tried to diminish Hispanic power and Pedro Espada and make a joke of the Hispanic community." Asked if he would support a Republican, he said, "Let's see what happens."
Smith, for his part, has tried to put the best face on his blatant about face. As City Room highlights: "On Wednesday morning, Mr. Smith said “the Democratic members of the Senate have elected to cease negotiations on reorganization matters with all three senators,” adding, “We are suspending negotiations effective immediately.” He said he thought the negotiations with the gang of three had been about “reform and about real change” but added that “it became clear to me over time that this was more about personal interest and not the reform that Senate Democrats ran on.” Mr. Smith was asked, “You really thought this was about reform?” “Yes, sir,” Mr. Smith replied."
Once again the cold truth intervenes in this flight of fancy. Smith couldn't sell the deal after agreeing to it and waiving any grace period for further review. So lets not hear any crude references to testicles, when in some cases they clearly haven't descended.
Which leaves us in the same position we were in before the brokered deal fell through-and with Smith lacking the necessary votes to ascend to the leader's position. As The Politicker points out: "State Senator Malcolm Smith just announced he is ceasing negotiations with three rebellious members of the Democratic conference, even if that means driving them to the other side and tipping the balance of power back to the Republicans in the Senate."
Ah, a line in the sand, one that leaves Governor Paterson, just where? We think that David is not going to allow laissez faire to rule in the current stand off. As he told the Politicker: "So, I guess they would have to go back and try to work it out, and of course it will give the other side an opportunity to present their issues. But what I do think is starting to happen is that it's distracting us from the real issue, which is that we've got to close this deficit. And I hope that as they go through whatever it is that's causing the controversy, that people will think about that once in a while, because when we go back in January, that's where I really need all of the players in this process to come together."
All of this is, of course, predictably messy-this kind of political deal making always is; but to shriek about party disloyalty here is simply stupid. No one screamed publicly about apostasy when David Paterson ousted Marty Conners (with the key votes of Kruger and Dilan); nor were the blogs lit up when Smith prevailed over Dilan to replace Paterson.
And the public approbation of the deal's collapse from certain quarters isn't really a good boost for Smith. As Daily Politics points out: "Two key Democratic interest groups -- pro-choice activists and gay rights activists -- are applauding Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith's decision to break off talks with the so-called "three amigos" -- right-leaning Democrats who have threatened to withhold their votes from Smith for majority leader in January."
All this does is underscore the way in which certain interests hold sway over the Democratic Party-often to its detriment; and if the folks keep hectoring Diaz, accusing him of the worst forms of bigotry, perhaps they should address some of their ire to the president elect who holds a similar position on gay marriage. Diaz's complaint about Smith is legit: "Diaz had secured a promise that a bill to legalize gay marriage would not come to the floor for a vote. Smith said that guarantee is no longer the case. Diaz also blasted Smith for trying to make the majority leader position that was to go to Espada a token position. "He agreed to it. What happened now is he tried to diminish Hispanic power and Pedro Espada and make a joke of the Hispanic community." Asked if he would support a Republican, he said, "Let's see what happens."
Smith, for his part, has tried to put the best face on his blatant about face. As City Room highlights: "On Wednesday morning, Mr. Smith said “the Democratic members of the Senate have elected to cease negotiations on reorganization matters with all three senators,” adding, “We are suspending negotiations effective immediately.” He said he thought the negotiations with the gang of three had been about “reform and about real change” but added that “it became clear to me over time that this was more about personal interest and not the reform that Senate Democrats ran on.” Mr. Smith was asked, “You really thought this was about reform?” “Yes, sir,” Mr. Smith replied."
Once again the cold truth intervenes in this flight of fancy. Smith couldn't sell the deal after agreeing to it and waiving any grace period for further review. So lets not hear any crude references to testicles, when in some cases they clearly haven't descended.
Wither Smith and the Democrats?
So now that the senate deal is moribund, what happens next? As Liz is reporting: "It appears Malcolm Smith is poised to go back to being Senate minority leader for the time being, as he's scheduled to hold a press conference right now in Albany at which he will discuss the apparently dead power-sharing deal with the Gang of Three. My DN colleague Glenn Blain who is baby-sitting the Smith event at the LOB, emailed this: Smith says they are suspending negotiations with the three, and said: "New York cannot afford the type of self-serving politics that is being proposed."
We're waiting with a great deal of anticipation for the next leadership deal that avoids the dreaded, "self-serving politics," that Smith feels so tainted the Three Amigo agreement. But Smith and the Dems need to proceed with caution-especially given the Hispanic empowerment issue that partially propelled the original deal. As Gerson Borrero reminded me, there is still a level of wariness between the two communities of color; something that could seriously harm the governor in 2010 if this isn't resolved in a way that calms the ethnic tensions bubbling below-and above-the surface of this battle.
So, if in fact Smith tried to pick off a few Republicans, he would only be able to do so at the expense of Latinos; particularly since he really didn't elevate any of his Hispanic colleagues when choosing committee chairs. Ousting Smith creates other kinds of problems as Liz points out: "There's always the possibility that the Gang of Three could be convinced to support a Democratic leader other than Smith...{but}...the other members of the Democratic conference would have to agree to oust Smith, which is a long shot, particularly since none of the other potential leader candidates (Sen. Jeff Klein, Sen Eric Schneiderman, mostly) are of color. Since Paterson became the first African American ever to hold the minority leader's post, the caucus has refused to entertain letting the post go."
So we sit back and wait to see the game of chicken resume; with many of the players waiting to see how David Paterson will respond-after all, he was in the room when the original deal was struck; and gave it his imprimatur. Your move, Governor.
We're waiting with a great deal of anticipation for the next leadership deal that avoids the dreaded, "self-serving politics," that Smith feels so tainted the Three Amigo agreement. But Smith and the Dems need to proceed with caution-especially given the Hispanic empowerment issue that partially propelled the original deal. As Gerson Borrero reminded me, there is still a level of wariness between the two communities of color; something that could seriously harm the governor in 2010 if this isn't resolved in a way that calms the ethnic tensions bubbling below-and above-the surface of this battle.
So, if in fact Smith tried to pick off a few Republicans, he would only be able to do so at the expense of Latinos; particularly since he really didn't elevate any of his Hispanic colleagues when choosing committee chairs. Ousting Smith creates other kinds of problems as Liz points out: "There's always the possibility that the Gang of Three could be convinced to support a Democratic leader other than Smith...{but}...the other members of the Democratic conference would have to agree to oust Smith, which is a long shot, particularly since none of the other potential leader candidates (Sen. Jeff Klein, Sen Eric Schneiderman, mostly) are of color. Since Paterson became the first African American ever to hold the minority leader's post, the caucus has refused to entertain letting the post go."
So we sit back and wait to see the game of chicken resume; with many of the players waiting to see how David Paterson will respond-after all, he was in the room when the original deal was struck; and gave it his imprimatur. Your move, Governor.
MTA: Hold That Fare Hike
We've been carping about the MTA bailout plan-particularly the part where the East River bridges get tolled. In this morning's NY Daily News, Julia Vitullo-Martin makes an important point about the authority-no more money until the agency accounts for all of its property-and, hopefully, sells it: "Before the state raises everyone's taxes to support the bloated Metropolitan Transportation Authority, shouldn't we first insist that the MTA take advantage of any and all underused real estate that it already owns or controls under long-term leases?"
There's no reason why the MTA should be allowed to continue to hoard valuable real estate, while New Yorkers are being asked to pony up; and, as we've underscored, the entire authority should be scoured before another nickel is extorted from the tax payers.
The issue of the MTA's malfeasance was raised by the NY Times during the congestion tax fight. Now we find that the authority's waste is being given a free pass: "The crown jewel of underused property - standing in shocking deterioration for all to see - is the 13-story Board of Transportation Building at 370 Jay St., on top of Brooklyn's Jay St.-Borough Hall subway station...Owned by the city but operated under a long-term lease to the MTA, 370 Jay St. has been nearly vacant for several years, even as respectable groups like the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership have sought to lease it."
All of this is what someone calls, "legacy real estate." But we don't need an agency with an edifice complex, we need one that is operated efficiently-especially before we ask the folks to pony up more. As Vitullo-Martin indicates: "The MTA must sell off all its excess real estate and consolidate its operations as much as possible at its sprawling East New York, Brooklyn, complex, which is well-served by elevated trains, subways and buses. Just why are MTA headquarters located in one of the world's most expensive neighborhoods anyway? Taxpayers are entitled to an accounting before they are asked to bear yet another set of fare and tax increases."
All of this should be part of the debate on the Ravitch Commission report, one that asked much of others but comparably little of a poorly run or supervised agency. This should be a major issue for the legislature come January.
There's no reason why the MTA should be allowed to continue to hoard valuable real estate, while New Yorkers are being asked to pony up; and, as we've underscored, the entire authority should be scoured before another nickel is extorted from the tax payers.
The issue of the MTA's malfeasance was raised by the NY Times during the congestion tax fight. Now we find that the authority's waste is being given a free pass: "The crown jewel of underused property - standing in shocking deterioration for all to see - is the 13-story Board of Transportation Building at 370 Jay St., on top of Brooklyn's Jay St.-Borough Hall subway station...Owned by the city but operated under a long-term lease to the MTA, 370 Jay St. has been nearly vacant for several years, even as respectable groups like the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership have sought to lease it."
All of this is what someone calls, "legacy real estate." But we don't need an agency with an edifice complex, we need one that is operated efficiently-especially before we ask the folks to pony up more. As Vitullo-Martin indicates: "The MTA must sell off all its excess real estate and consolidate its operations as much as possible at its sprawling East New York, Brooklyn, complex, which is well-served by elevated trains, subways and buses. Just why are MTA headquarters located in one of the world's most expensive neighborhoods anyway? Taxpayers are entitled to an accounting before they are asked to bear yet another set of fare and tax increases."
All of this should be part of the debate on the Ravitch Commission report, one that asked much of others but comparably little of a poorly run or supervised agency. This should be a major issue for the legislature come January.
Double Dealing
As City Room first reported, it now appears as if the shaky leadership deal between the three amigos and Malcolm Smith has been blasted-well, to Smithereens: "Is the deal on the rocks? In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Espada took particular exception to suggestions in published reports that the majority leader title would not have many real responsibilities attached to it, contrary to the agreement with Mr. Smith. For that reason, Mr. Espada said, Mr. Smith had — for now, at least — lost his support, and perhaps that of Mr. Kruger and Mr. Díaz, too."
Indeed so-and, as Liz dramatizes, it seems that it's "all for one, and one for all:" "Malcolm Smith's deal with the Gang of Three is crashing down around his ears, and the renegade trio is accusing him of reneging on significant portions of the power-sharing agreement in the wake of displeasure from his members over how much he gave away to end the leadership stalemate."
One particular sticking point is the question of the status of the majority leader. Remember that when the deal was announced, Pedro Espada was heralded in the Latino media as the highest ranking Hispanic in the state-reinforcing the empowerment issue that the amigos had been pressing on Smith. Smith, however, wants to walk away from this: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist and blogger who is close to the Gang of Three ringleader Carl Kruger, (but, he says, not on the senator's payroll), accused Smith of trying to "slice-and-dice" the majority leader position that was supposed to be going to Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr."
Espada makes himself perfectly clear on this in his comments to the City Room: "I feel tremendously dismayed and disappointed that the office of the majority leader has been gutted and reduced to a sad joke on all New Yorkers, but particularly the Latino community,” Mr. Espada said. “And thus I suspend my support for Malcolm Smith as leader.” And Ruben Diaz does so also in his comments to the NY Daily News: "I think it's in trouble again," said Sen. Ruben Diaz, a Bronx Democrat and one of the dissidents. Diaz accused Smith of trying to minimize the majority leader role carved out for Senator-elect Pedro Espada. "We in the Hispanic community cannot allow that this will only be a position in name only," Diaz said. "They have to live up to the agreement."
The real issue here is the inability of Smith to agree to the deal that was put forward-and consented to-last week; all done with the governor's presence and blessing. As Liz points out: "I reached Kruger who said: "A formal statement will be coming out in 24 hours unless something drastically changes to the contrary. That's all we have to say at the moment." A source with knowledge of the discussions says Kruger may be holding off out of deference to Gov. David Paterson, who was in the room when Smith cut the deal with the Gang of Three and is desperately trying to help his minority leader successor keep this agreement - currently held together with dental floss and chewing gum - intact."
In addition, the dissidents are upset at other Hispanic empowerment issues. As Liz also reports: "...the gang is not happy with word that Sen. Martin Dilan, Kruger's fellow Brooklynite and the longest-serving Latino member of the conference, apparently might be passed over to get the Transportation Committee chairmanship to get head the less-powerful Elections Committee instead. Dilan was supposed to get the chairmanship of the yet-unformed Senate Latino caucus, supplanting former gang member, Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate. But even that seems up in the air." And the fact that Jose Serrano got relegated to the Tourism Committee wasn't sitting well with the group.
So we're back to status quo ante as far as the senate leadership is concerned-and the major sticking point may not be any particular issue, but Smith's credibility; something that the elderly Ed Koch apparently can't quite grasp in his "Wise Guys" commentary on NY1. Koch opined that the three rebel Dems were "rats"-we're guessing because they abandoned the putative party leader. And this comes from the same non partisan turncoat, with distinctive Templeton-like features, who has been Mr. Republican over the past eight years. Easy Ed even had the nerve to say all of this with Mark Green sitting across the table (it was Koch who famously supported the Republican Bloomberg over Green in 2001). It seems to us, that the hypocritical rodent's paw is on the other foot.
The rebel group wasn't particularly enamored of Smith's leadership ability from the very beginning; an impression that has been strengthened over the past few days- even among independent observers-particularly in the media. And the three felt that they had Senator Smith's word; and the developments since the original deal was struck only weakens their ability to take that with anything but a bucket of salt.
Update
We missed Senator Diaz's response to the Koch rat attack-so here it is: "Evidently, Diaz had just caught Koch's weekly appearance on NY1's "Wise Guys" segment during which he, according to Diaz, referred to the Gang of Three as "rats." "The only rat is Ed Koch," Diaz exclaimed. "When he was mayor, nobody in our community wanted him. The only rat he had was this rat. Rev. Diaz. Now this rat is no good anymore."
Indeed so-and, as Liz dramatizes, it seems that it's "all for one, and one for all:" "Malcolm Smith's deal with the Gang of Three is crashing down around his ears, and the renegade trio is accusing him of reneging on significant portions of the power-sharing agreement in the wake of displeasure from his members over how much he gave away to end the leadership stalemate."
One particular sticking point is the question of the status of the majority leader. Remember that when the deal was announced, Pedro Espada was heralded in the Latino media as the highest ranking Hispanic in the state-reinforcing the empowerment issue that the amigos had been pressing on Smith. Smith, however, wants to walk away from this: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist and blogger who is close to the Gang of Three ringleader Carl Kruger, (but, he says, not on the senator's payroll), accused Smith of trying to "slice-and-dice" the majority leader position that was supposed to be going to Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr."
Espada makes himself perfectly clear on this in his comments to the City Room: "I feel tremendously dismayed and disappointed that the office of the majority leader has been gutted and reduced to a sad joke on all New Yorkers, but particularly the Latino community,” Mr. Espada said. “And thus I suspend my support for Malcolm Smith as leader.” And Ruben Diaz does so also in his comments to the NY Daily News: "I think it's in trouble again," said Sen. Ruben Diaz, a Bronx Democrat and one of the dissidents. Diaz accused Smith of trying to minimize the majority leader role carved out for Senator-elect Pedro Espada. "We in the Hispanic community cannot allow that this will only be a position in name only," Diaz said. "They have to live up to the agreement."
The real issue here is the inability of Smith to agree to the deal that was put forward-and consented to-last week; all done with the governor's presence and blessing. As Liz points out: "I reached Kruger who said: "A formal statement will be coming out in 24 hours unless something drastically changes to the contrary. That's all we have to say at the moment." A source with knowledge of the discussions says Kruger may be holding off out of deference to Gov. David Paterson, who was in the room when Smith cut the deal with the Gang of Three and is desperately trying to help his minority leader successor keep this agreement - currently held together with dental floss and chewing gum - intact."
In addition, the dissidents are upset at other Hispanic empowerment issues. As Liz also reports: "...the gang is not happy with word that Sen. Martin Dilan, Kruger's fellow Brooklynite and the longest-serving Latino member of the conference, apparently might be passed over to get the Transportation Committee chairmanship to get head the less-powerful Elections Committee instead. Dilan was supposed to get the chairmanship of the yet-unformed Senate Latino caucus, supplanting former gang member, Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate. But even that seems up in the air." And the fact that Jose Serrano got relegated to the Tourism Committee wasn't sitting well with the group.
So we're back to status quo ante as far as the senate leadership is concerned-and the major sticking point may not be any particular issue, but Smith's credibility; something that the elderly Ed Koch apparently can't quite grasp in his "Wise Guys" commentary on NY1. Koch opined that the three rebel Dems were "rats"-we're guessing because they abandoned the putative party leader. And this comes from the same non partisan turncoat, with distinctive Templeton-like features, who has been Mr. Republican over the past eight years. Easy Ed even had the nerve to say all of this with Mark Green sitting across the table (it was Koch who famously supported the Republican Bloomberg over Green in 2001). It seems to us, that the hypocritical rodent's paw is on the other foot.
The rebel group wasn't particularly enamored of Smith's leadership ability from the very beginning; an impression that has been strengthened over the past few days- even among independent observers-particularly in the media. And the three felt that they had Senator Smith's word; and the developments since the original deal was struck only weakens their ability to take that with anything but a bucket of salt.
Update
We missed Senator Diaz's response to the Koch rat attack-so here it is: "Evidently, Diaz had just caught Koch's weekly appearance on NY1's "Wise Guys" segment during which he, according to Diaz, referred to the Gang of Three as "rats." "The only rat is Ed Koch," Diaz exclaimed. "When he was mayor, nobody in our community wanted him. The only rat he had was this rat. Rev. Diaz. Now this rat is no good anymore."
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Precious Legislative Analysis
Tom Precious of the Buffalo News has given us (via Liz) some keen insights into the future governance structure of the newly realigned state senate: "The muddled doings are more than just inside baseball: The inability of Smith and the Democrats to forge a united front indicates the tenuous hold the party will have next month when the seven decades of Republican dominance in the Senate will end. Smith’s shaky hold on his members — who are privately grumbling about his leadership before he even takes over — could have considerable effects on negotiations between the governor and Legislature on a looming $15 billion budget deficit. It also points to something unusual: The Senate will be more of a coalition-type system on many key issues, akin to Israel’s Knesset."
Exactly as we have pointed out; the senate will not be as leadership driven-with greater power to committee chairs, along with the need to build bipartisan coalitions on all important pieces of legislation. Kruger, however, appears to be poised to become first among equals, after Smith apparently passed over upstater Stachowski for the finance post: "Instead, that job will go to Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn, one of three dissident lawmakers who threatened to help Republicans retain power if their demands — such as the plum committee assignments — were not met. For decades, depending on who held the position, chairmen of the Senate finance panel have been among the most influential lawmakers in Albany. They can drive money into regions, shape the budget policy debate, hold up gubernatorial appointments and raise lots of campaign cash."
All of these changes will make for greater transparency and democratic scope of action; but at the same time pose new challenges for meeting the state's fiscal crisis. Leadership in this context is going to mean sensitivity to member concerns and the ability to bring disparate personalities and interests together. It should be interesting to watch, if nothing else.
Exactly as we have pointed out; the senate will not be as leadership driven-with greater power to committee chairs, along with the need to build bipartisan coalitions on all important pieces of legislation. Kruger, however, appears to be poised to become first among equals, after Smith apparently passed over upstater Stachowski for the finance post: "Instead, that job will go to Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn, one of three dissident lawmakers who threatened to help Republicans retain power if their demands — such as the plum committee assignments — were not met. For decades, depending on who held the position, chairmen of the Senate finance panel have been among the most influential lawmakers in Albany. They can drive money into regions, shape the budget policy debate, hold up gubernatorial appointments and raise lots of campaign cash."
All of these changes will make for greater transparency and democratic scope of action; but at the same time pose new challenges for meeting the state's fiscal crisis. Leadership in this context is going to mean sensitivity to member concerns and the ability to bring disparate personalities and interests together. It should be interesting to watch, if nothing else.
Smith Post Toasted: State Leadership Questioned
The NY post took its shot at senate leader Malcolm Smith today, wondering whether the new head of the chamber was up to the daunting task in this perilous economic times: "Just when you thought Albany dysfunction couldn't get worse, Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith steps up and proves you wrong. Only this time, New York happens to be on the brink of fiscal disaster."
The paper's concern is with Smith's ability to stand up to the pressure-sure to come from all of those interests worried about losing state support. The Post does, however, give him some leeway to recover his balance: "Smith - and his Democratic colleagues - are playing with fire. Amid an anemic economy, the state is staring down the barrel of a $14 billion budget gap. It's time for the shenanigans to end - and if Smith hopes to be a serious player, he needs to be the one to end them. If he can't, well, that's instructive, too. After all, how - as Senate head - will he stand up to all the special pleaders looking to be spared the budget axe if he can't control his own members? On the other hand, if Smith does have what it takes, now's the time to prove it."
This issue of leadership could be even more significant, if Jacob Gershman's analysis of Governor Paterson's shortcomings is in any way accurate: "But the closer one looks, the more cracks one sees in his leadership and in the capabilities of the ever-shifting staff under him. Every week seems to bring fresh news of miscues and mishaps."
All of which magnifies the leadership vacuum in the senate-and raises the power stakes for the masterful maneuverings of Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver: "Already you can hear lawmakers sharpening their claws, as they prepare to shred Paterson's soon-to-be proposed spending cuts. If they learned anything from last month's special session, it's that they can walk over the governor with impunity. Interest groups, particularly health care and education groups, are also ready to pounce. Taking advantage of the chaos in the executive chamber, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is likely to push for a larger and broader-based tax hike than the "millionaire's tax" he championed this year. He'll probably have some support in the Democratic Senate."
But perhaps not. It may turn out that the senate will provide a countervailing force to Silver's assembly-particularly with the more moderate Kruger at the helm of the senate finance committee. We can see Kruger forming, along with Smith, a more moderate centrist position on the state budget-particularly on taxes and government reform.
If this does happen, then the governor will have a powerful ally in his effort to steer the state in a more fiscally responsible direction; and tax payers will be spared the expected evisceration that the left wing of the Democratic Party so gleefully has in mind.
The paper's concern is with Smith's ability to stand up to the pressure-sure to come from all of those interests worried about losing state support. The Post does, however, give him some leeway to recover his balance: "Smith - and his Democratic colleagues - are playing with fire. Amid an anemic economy, the state is staring down the barrel of a $14 billion budget gap. It's time for the shenanigans to end - and if Smith hopes to be a serious player, he needs to be the one to end them. If he can't, well, that's instructive, too. After all, how - as Senate head - will he stand up to all the special pleaders looking to be spared the budget axe if he can't control his own members? On the other hand, if Smith does have what it takes, now's the time to prove it."
This issue of leadership could be even more significant, if Jacob Gershman's analysis of Governor Paterson's shortcomings is in any way accurate: "But the closer one looks, the more cracks one sees in his leadership and in the capabilities of the ever-shifting staff under him. Every week seems to bring fresh news of miscues and mishaps."
All of which magnifies the leadership vacuum in the senate-and raises the power stakes for the masterful maneuverings of Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver: "Already you can hear lawmakers sharpening their claws, as they prepare to shred Paterson's soon-to-be proposed spending cuts. If they learned anything from last month's special session, it's that they can walk over the governor with impunity. Interest groups, particularly health care and education groups, are also ready to pounce. Taking advantage of the chaos in the executive chamber, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is likely to push for a larger and broader-based tax hike than the "millionaire's tax" he championed this year. He'll probably have some support in the Democratic Senate."
But perhaps not. It may turn out that the senate will provide a countervailing force to Silver's assembly-particularly with the more moderate Kruger at the helm of the senate finance committee. We can see Kruger forming, along with Smith, a more moderate centrist position on the state budget-particularly on taxes and government reform.
If this does happen, then the governor will have a powerful ally in his effort to steer the state in a more fiscally responsible direction; and tax payers will be spared the expected evisceration that the left wing of the Democratic Party so gleefully has in mind.
Public Deficits
Charles Bagli reports this morning in the NY Times on the questionable-and shifting-nature of the Yankee Stadium deal-with the city agreeing to a new bond offering as costs continue to rise: "With opening day for the city’s two newest baseball stadiums only four months away, the price tag for taxpayers continues to rise.The Bloomberg administration has issued fresh estimates for utility work, lighting and the cost of replacing the parks and ball fields that once stood where the new stadium for the Yankees is being erected.The city also plans to issue $341.2 million in additional tax-exempt bonds on behalf of the Yankees and Mets to complete the stadiums, whose combined cost is about $2.2 billion."
It's a good thing we're not in a recession, or experiencing a massive budget shortfall, or all of this might be considered serious: "The city and the state are also investing more than $660 million in parks, garages and transportation improvements around the stadiums and are providing the teams with an estimated $500 million in tax breaks related to construction materials and other items. The city had planned to issue a public notice of the latest bond offering and a required public hearing on Monday but decided to wait at least a week until it completed a cost-benefit analysis. With public costs mounting, critics of the deals say the city will be hard pressed to demonstrate that the economic benefits of the stadium projects outweigh the cost to taxpayers."
First decide to do the offering, and then conduct a cost benefit analysis? Maybe the city can get AKRF to do the work? At least it's good to know that Fiscal Mike is our mayor-someone who knows where the buck is-and stops: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has insisted that the city will earn a profit on its investment. And based on the city’s 2006 cost-benefit analysis of Yankee Stadium, the city would earn a net return of slightly more than $40 million over the bonds’ life. Since then, however, project costs have swelled considerably. For instance, the city says it will cost $194.7 million to replace Macombs Dam Park and the ball fields now covered by the new Yankee Stadium on 161st Street, up 50 percent from the 2006 estimate of $129.2 million."
This is, however, no surprise to our friends at Good Jobs, New York-persistent critics of the deal from the get go-as we see in the editorial written last month for the NY Daily News: "In a recent column, Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., led Bronx Boro News readers to believe that the new Yankee Stadium going up across the street from the current stadium is a gold mine for the community. Anyone questioning the project wasn't "in his or her right mind," he wrote. Sadly, Pinsky's arguments are just the city's latest whitewash. It's the Yankees that are mining the gold - at taxpayer expense."
With the city's mounting deficits-with huge cuts in some services on the way-we are once again confronted with evidence that Mike Bloomberg is simply not the man, or the mayor, he pretends-or wants us to believe-he is. The Yankee Stadium deal underscores the extent to which Bloomberg is a big ticket kind of mayor; promoting the large and grandiose at the expense of shrewd governance and accountability to the city's tax payers.
It's a good thing we're not in a recession, or experiencing a massive budget shortfall, or all of this might be considered serious: "The city and the state are also investing more than $660 million in parks, garages and transportation improvements around the stadiums and are providing the teams with an estimated $500 million in tax breaks related to construction materials and other items. The city had planned to issue a public notice of the latest bond offering and a required public hearing on Monday but decided to wait at least a week until it completed a cost-benefit analysis. With public costs mounting, critics of the deals say the city will be hard pressed to demonstrate that the economic benefits of the stadium projects outweigh the cost to taxpayers."
First decide to do the offering, and then conduct a cost benefit analysis? Maybe the city can get AKRF to do the work? At least it's good to know that Fiscal Mike is our mayor-someone who knows where the buck is-and stops: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has insisted that the city will earn a profit on its investment. And based on the city’s 2006 cost-benefit analysis of Yankee Stadium, the city would earn a net return of slightly more than $40 million over the bonds’ life. Since then, however, project costs have swelled considerably. For instance, the city says it will cost $194.7 million to replace Macombs Dam Park and the ball fields now covered by the new Yankee Stadium on 161st Street, up 50 percent from the 2006 estimate of $129.2 million."
This is, however, no surprise to our friends at Good Jobs, New York-persistent critics of the deal from the get go-as we see in the editorial written last month for the NY Daily News: "In a recent column, Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., led Bronx Boro News readers to believe that the new Yankee Stadium going up across the street from the current stadium is a gold mine for the community. Anyone questioning the project wasn't "in his or her right mind," he wrote. Sadly, Pinsky's arguments are just the city's latest whitewash. It's the Yankees that are mining the gold - at taxpayer expense."
With the city's mounting deficits-with huge cuts in some services on the way-we are once again confronted with evidence that Mike Bloomberg is simply not the man, or the mayor, he pretends-or wants us to believe-he is. The Yankee Stadium deal underscores the extent to which Bloomberg is a big ticket kind of mayor; promoting the large and grandiose at the expense of shrewd governance and accountability to the city's tax payers.
Three Ring Circus
The leadership drama in the state senate has become so intense that-we kid you not-even some reporters are feeling that Roberto Duran feeling: "No mas!" It's getting so that it's all too much to absorb-beginning today with yesterday's Smith press conferences. As the City Room blog reports: " Malcolm A. Smith, the Queens Democrat who appears set to become president of the State Senate next month, baffled the press this morning by calling a news conference, then hurriedly walking out of the room shortly after it started."
It was definitely a Satchel Paige moment; the great Negro League star was fond of telling folks; "Don't look back, cause somethin' may be gaining on you." Smith did leave that first presser with a great deal of alacrity; fleeing from the fearsome Albany press corps, ostensibly to get to his next meeting in a timely fashion. As Capitol Confidential quips, his press conference was, "shovel ready."
In the process, however, he left his members behind to answer questions that they clearly were ill equipped to answer. As Liz B reported: "President Pro Tempore-to-be Malcolm Smith's Albany media availability this morning - his first since striking a deal with the Gang of Three last week - was ostensibly held to show the Democrats are moving forward and ready to take control of the Senate. But the event proved to be such a free-for-all that one veteran Albany scribe described it as "the worst press conference I'd ever seen."
He did return later for another availability: "Well at least he stuck around this time. At his second attempt at facing the Capitol press corps today, Malcolm Smith apologized for ducking out on reporters this morning and then proceeded to avoid answering most of their queries this time around, too, DN Albany Bureau Chief Ken Lovett reports. Smith refused to confirm the roles the Gang of Three will play in the Senate next year, even though the trio has been discussing their new jobs with the media for days."
What's clear here is that there is still a discomfort level with the New Deal that was struck last week-it's hard to accept being snookered by the Three Amigos. As the Times Union relates: "There are some very positive aspects to the power-sharing arrangement that Mr. Smith, as the reigning Senate Democrat, clearly had little choice to accept in order to win over Mr. Espada and the rest of the so-called Gang of Three. The idea of letting committee chairmen bring bills to the floor, rather than having them go through the leadership, is long overdue. One of those chairmen, in fact, might well be Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn leading the Finance Committee, and presumably with more autonomy and power in budget negotiations than his predecessors."
Hard indeed, especially for all of the other huffers and puffers who plotted behind the scenes, only to become faint of heart at the moment of taking the necessary decisive action-which only must inflame the timid renegade wanna bees even more. As the City Room reminds us: "That means that details of the secret power sharing deal he agreed to last week with three dissident Democrats will remain secret, at least officially. Good government groups and even some fellow Democrats have been concerned about the arrangement that was worked out behind closed doors."
But Smith did let something out of the bag at the second presser. As The Politicker reports: "Smith was also asked repeatedly about whether the committee chairs members of the self-titled Gang of Three have stated they will control are accurate. Smith said there will be an announcement on Wednesday, but that "each of them know the position they are going to receive." The NY Post also reports this in this morning's paper.
All of this doesn't sit well with the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond. Hammond compares Smith to the Giants' Plaxico Burress, saying that Smith, "shot himself in the foot," with a series of leadership gaffs: "First, he let himself get sucked into a very ugly deal with "three amigos" Pedro Espada Jr., Carl Kruger and Ruben Diaz - a trio of Democratic senators who had balked at supporting him for leader. Then he compounded the damage a hundred times over with a series of PR blunders."
In addition, he feels that Smith simply gave too much away: "Kruger, best known for playing footsie with the Republicans, is to head the powerful Finance Committee, which passes judgment on every major bill and gubernatorial appointment. In short, Smith gave away the store. Even though he had Gov. Paterson and other political heavyweights backing him up. Even though the amigos had to know that abandoning their party would surely cost them reelection in 2010."
This evaluation is, however, a bit too simplistic-especially the part about the governor's support; and while Smith might have been more deft in his responses, the Hammond analysis doesn't give enough credit to the three amigos for the execution of a brilliant game plan; something that Gerson Borrerro does in his El Diario column yesterday.
We'll give the TU the last word on all of this political drama:
"The Issue:
The Democrats strike a deal so they can take control of the state Senate.
The Stakes:
What's the price of three dissidents with so much power?"
It was definitely a Satchel Paige moment; the great Negro League star was fond of telling folks; "Don't look back, cause somethin' may be gaining on you." Smith did leave that first presser with a great deal of alacrity; fleeing from the fearsome Albany press corps, ostensibly to get to his next meeting in a timely fashion. As Capitol Confidential quips, his press conference was, "shovel ready."
In the process, however, he left his members behind to answer questions that they clearly were ill equipped to answer. As Liz B reported: "President Pro Tempore-to-be Malcolm Smith's Albany media availability this morning - his first since striking a deal with the Gang of Three last week - was ostensibly held to show the Democrats are moving forward and ready to take control of the Senate. But the event proved to be such a free-for-all that one veteran Albany scribe described it as "the worst press conference I'd ever seen."
He did return later for another availability: "Well at least he stuck around this time. At his second attempt at facing the Capitol press corps today, Malcolm Smith apologized for ducking out on reporters this morning and then proceeded to avoid answering most of their queries this time around, too, DN Albany Bureau Chief Ken Lovett reports. Smith refused to confirm the roles the Gang of Three will play in the Senate next year, even though the trio has been discussing their new jobs with the media for days."
What's clear here is that there is still a discomfort level with the New Deal that was struck last week-it's hard to accept being snookered by the Three Amigos. As the Times Union relates: "There are some very positive aspects to the power-sharing arrangement that Mr. Smith, as the reigning Senate Democrat, clearly had little choice to accept in order to win over Mr. Espada and the rest of the so-called Gang of Three. The idea of letting committee chairmen bring bills to the floor, rather than having them go through the leadership, is long overdue. One of those chairmen, in fact, might well be Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn leading the Finance Committee, and presumably with more autonomy and power in budget negotiations than his predecessors."
Hard indeed, especially for all of the other huffers and puffers who plotted behind the scenes, only to become faint of heart at the moment of taking the necessary decisive action-which only must inflame the timid renegade wanna bees even more. As the City Room reminds us: "That means that details of the secret power sharing deal he agreed to last week with three dissident Democrats will remain secret, at least officially. Good government groups and even some fellow Democrats have been concerned about the arrangement that was worked out behind closed doors."
But Smith did let something out of the bag at the second presser. As The Politicker reports: "Smith was also asked repeatedly about whether the committee chairs members of the self-titled Gang of Three have stated they will control are accurate. Smith said there will be an announcement on Wednesday, but that "each of them know the position they are going to receive." The NY Post also reports this in this morning's paper.
All of this doesn't sit well with the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond. Hammond compares Smith to the Giants' Plaxico Burress, saying that Smith, "shot himself in the foot," with a series of leadership gaffs: "First, he let himself get sucked into a very ugly deal with "three amigos" Pedro Espada Jr., Carl Kruger and Ruben Diaz - a trio of Democratic senators who had balked at supporting him for leader. Then he compounded the damage a hundred times over with a series of PR blunders."
In addition, he feels that Smith simply gave too much away: "Kruger, best known for playing footsie with the Republicans, is to head the powerful Finance Committee, which passes judgment on every major bill and gubernatorial appointment. In short, Smith gave away the store. Even though he had Gov. Paterson and other political heavyweights backing him up. Even though the amigos had to know that abandoning their party would surely cost them reelection in 2010."
This evaluation is, however, a bit too simplistic-especially the part about the governor's support; and while Smith might have been more deft in his responses, the Hammond analysis doesn't give enough credit to the three amigos for the execution of a brilliant game plan; something that Gerson Borrerro does in his El Diario column yesterday.
We'll give the TU the last word on all of this political drama:
"The Issue:
The Democrats strike a deal so they can take control of the state Senate.
The Stakes:
What's the price of three dissidents with so much power?"
Monday, December 08, 2008
Wheeling and Dealing
Will the center hold? That seems to be the question as we await the official announcements of state senate leader Malcolm Smith as to which of his members will rise to positions of influence. As of yesterday, after it appeared as if Smith had tried to walk away from his publicly heralded-as well as lambasted-deal with the senate rebels, it looked as if the deal had been cobbled back together. As Liz B reported: "A sign that Malcolm Smith is indeed confident the deal he struck (whatever its terms) with the Gang of Three to make him majority leader will hold: He's poised to announce four committee chairmanships tomorrow morning. None of the posts in question are the biggies supposedly going to two of the three renegades (Finance - Sen. Carl Kruger; Majority Leader, Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr.). But the imminent announcement is nonetheless very telling. First of all, Smith is poised to make Buffalo Sen. Bill Stachowski deputy majority leader. Stachowski is currently the ranking Democrat on the powerful Finance Committee, which means he's getting passed over to ascend to the chairmanship so Smith can make Kruger happy."
But this is the kind of deal-like some kind of delicate souffle-that needs to be watch constantly, less it deflates and spoils. And, at least according to Liz, it appears that the senator who was most upset at Saturday's closed door meeting was Jeff Klein: "Making Stachowski deputy majority leader appears to be a slap to Bronx Sen. Jeff Klein, who is currently the deputy minority leader and also widely speculated to be interested in ousting Smith - or, at the very least, stepping into the breach to take control when and if Smith fails as leader of the Democratic conference. Klein was among the few senators who challenged Smith at yesterday's closed-door meeting, suggesting he had given away too much to the Gang of Three in exchange for a pledge of their support."
So whatever actually does happen will be a prelude to a potentially fractious conference-and senate as a whole; although Klein will supposedly get a position that places him right below Smith on the senate depth chart. All of which makes our really old friend Alan Chartock extremely upset-he sees (via Liz) the whole deal as somehow anti-democratic: "Then the Gang of Three was shamelessly diffused by Democratic leader Malcolm Smith, giving away the deputy (No. 2) job to one of the Gang and the chairmanship of the Finance Committee (far and away the most important committee) to another.The Gang had hidden behind all kinds of fictitious issues of principle, such as gay marriage, but it really all came down to naked power. They were blackmailing the larger number of their colleagues to get as much out of the system as they could and, they were successful. They thwarted democracy. It was disgusting."
Pretty strong language, if you ask us, from someone who's supposed to be a veteran observer of politics-indicating that perhaps Chartock had a particular dog in the hunt who was sliced and diced in the sausage meat machine. As he goes on to lament: "The fact that the Gang of Three has won out is not a good sign of things to come. The deputy leader’s job should have gone to an upstater. Now the Upstate voters will get the idea that they don’t count. Like I said, disgusting."
The hand wringing over the ability of these three unlikely senatorial allies to not only effect major changes in government, but to also aggrandize their own positions, is apparently unsettling to some folks. Even Liz gets into the act with the following comments in today's column in the NY Daily News: "The power-sharing deal Smith cut with the Gang of Three - so controversial that even the Republicans rejected it - was all but dead until Gov. Paterson stepped in and convinced Smith to sign on, a source familiar with the negotiations said. Some allies of Smith, who succeeded Paterson as minority leader in 2006, are worried the governor wanted to undermine Smith by weakening him. Meanwhile, one GOP senator called the deal "suicide" and predicted it would result in such "chaos" when the Senate reconvenes in January that it could fuel a GOP comeback in 2010. "We were not going to do what Malcolm did," said Brooklyn Sen. Marty Golden. "The people of this state will see what the Democrats did and say, 'Maybe the Republicans weren't so bad after all.'"
Talk about rewriting history! The only reason the Republicans didn't craft their own similar deal was the inability of Dean Skelos to get it done, on the one hand; and the greater incentive for the dissidents to work it out with their own party, on the other. But who knows? Until the fat lady sings, anything is possible. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Word of Mr. Stachowski’s promotion followed a private meeting in Manhattan on Saturday between Mr. Smith and other Senate Democrats, many of whom appear uncomfortable giving away so much power. According to several of those present, Mr. Smith insisted, as he had publicly, that the only firm element of the deal with the dissidents was to back him as Senate president."
All of this should, as Liz first reported, be settled by no later than Wednesday-but expect the unexpected in this matter. As she cautiously pointed out on Saturday: "A source close to Kruger reports that since I spoke to the senator early this evening, Kruger has received assurances from Smith and Paterson (how, exactly, these assurances were received I don't know), the deal is indeed on in all its glory and some kind of formal announcement will come out of Smith's office Wednesday. Take that with the generous shaking of salt that applies to all things connected to the fight over Senate leadership these days."
But this is the kind of deal-like some kind of delicate souffle-that needs to be watch constantly, less it deflates and spoils. And, at least according to Liz, it appears that the senator who was most upset at Saturday's closed door meeting was Jeff Klein: "Making Stachowski deputy majority leader appears to be a slap to Bronx Sen. Jeff Klein, who is currently the deputy minority leader and also widely speculated to be interested in ousting Smith - or, at the very least, stepping into the breach to take control when and if Smith fails as leader of the Democratic conference. Klein was among the few senators who challenged Smith at yesterday's closed-door meeting, suggesting he had given away too much to the Gang of Three in exchange for a pledge of their support."
So whatever actually does happen will be a prelude to a potentially fractious conference-and senate as a whole; although Klein will supposedly get a position that places him right below Smith on the senate depth chart. All of which makes our really old friend Alan Chartock extremely upset-he sees (via Liz) the whole deal as somehow anti-democratic: "Then the Gang of Three was shamelessly diffused by Democratic leader Malcolm Smith, giving away the deputy (No. 2) job to one of the Gang and the chairmanship of the Finance Committee (far and away the most important committee) to another.The Gang had hidden behind all kinds of fictitious issues of principle, such as gay marriage, but it really all came down to naked power. They were blackmailing the larger number of their colleagues to get as much out of the system as they could and, they were successful. They thwarted democracy. It was disgusting."
Pretty strong language, if you ask us, from someone who's supposed to be a veteran observer of politics-indicating that perhaps Chartock had a particular dog in the hunt who was sliced and diced in the sausage meat machine. As he goes on to lament: "The fact that the Gang of Three has won out is not a good sign of things to come. The deputy leader’s job should have gone to an upstater. Now the Upstate voters will get the idea that they don’t count. Like I said, disgusting."
The hand wringing over the ability of these three unlikely senatorial allies to not only effect major changes in government, but to also aggrandize their own positions, is apparently unsettling to some folks. Even Liz gets into the act with the following comments in today's column in the NY Daily News: "The power-sharing deal Smith cut with the Gang of Three - so controversial that even the Republicans rejected it - was all but dead until Gov. Paterson stepped in and convinced Smith to sign on, a source familiar with the negotiations said. Some allies of Smith, who succeeded Paterson as minority leader in 2006, are worried the governor wanted to undermine Smith by weakening him. Meanwhile, one GOP senator called the deal "suicide" and predicted it would result in such "chaos" when the Senate reconvenes in January that it could fuel a GOP comeback in 2010. "We were not going to do what Malcolm did," said Brooklyn Sen. Marty Golden. "The people of this state will see what the Democrats did and say, 'Maybe the Republicans weren't so bad after all.'"
Talk about rewriting history! The only reason the Republicans didn't craft their own similar deal was the inability of Dean Skelos to get it done, on the one hand; and the greater incentive for the dissidents to work it out with their own party, on the other. But who knows? Until the fat lady sings, anything is possible. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Word of Mr. Stachowski’s promotion followed a private meeting in Manhattan on Saturday between Mr. Smith and other Senate Democrats, many of whom appear uncomfortable giving away so much power. According to several of those present, Mr. Smith insisted, as he had publicly, that the only firm element of the deal with the dissidents was to back him as Senate president."
All of this should, as Liz first reported, be settled by no later than Wednesday-but expect the unexpected in this matter. As she cautiously pointed out on Saturday: "A source close to Kruger reports that since I spoke to the senator early this evening, Kruger has received assurances from Smith and Paterson (how, exactly, these assurances were received I don't know), the deal is indeed on in all its glory and some kind of formal announcement will come out of Smith's office Wednesday. Take that with the generous shaking of salt that applies to all things connected to the fight over Senate leadership these days."
A Bridge Toll to Nowhere?
We haven't been commenting on the Ravitch Report on the MTA's finances until this point, but we think that it is in some ways a fitting epilogue to the congestion tax follies. After all, the plan to toll the East River bridges could be called the Son of Congestion Tax. As the NY Times observed yesterday: "The commission, led by Richard Ravitch, a former chairman of the transportation authority, proposed its rescue plan for the financially teetering authority on Thursday. The recommendations also included a regional payroll tax and regular fare increases. All are controversial. But the notion of bridge tolls, an idea that has been raised and rejected in the past, seems to have already become the political hot potato that no one wants to handle."
Of course, what was missing in the Ravitch magnum opus was any detailing of the authorities finances, and suggestions for making it more efficient and accountable to the public it is supposed to serve. And the idea of taxing in the current economic climate, has come under fire. Here's Nicole Gelinas in last week's NY Post: "After that, Ravitch's proposals get dicier. His biggest idea is to levy a new income-based payroll tax on downstate employers. At one-third of one percent, the tax is supposed to raise $1.5 billion annually. One problem here is that downstate, already so heavily taxed, is well past the ability to absorb new income-based taxes...But the larger problem with the tax is that it imposes another cost on New Yorkers - without asking anything reasonable of the MTA labor force."
Or changes in the governance structure of the MTA, for that matter-labor shouldn't be the only target of cost savings; and, what about all of the patronage jobs at the authority? But it will be the bridge tolls that get all of the attention; and getting this done won't be easy. nor should it. It appears that tolling will have to go through a complex legislative process, one that will impact all layers of local government.
As the Times tells us: "Besides the political hurdles, a key part of the challenge is the complex legal path that must be followed to allow the authority to oversee the bridges. Mr. Ravitch revealed nothing when asked about the legal approvals needed for the authority to take control of the bridges and begin collecting tolls. “It’s very complicated,” he said Thursday, when he announced the rescue plan. He said it was not clear how the transfer would be accomplished and that lawyers for the state and the city would have to study the issue."
Yes, study hall for the politicians; a grand idea! “Our conclusion is that the city would not be permitted to transfer the bridges to the M.T.A. without a new state law,” Kate O’Brien Ahlers, the communications director for the city’s Law Department, said in a written statement on Friday. City officials said that under state law, the bridges were similar to streets and parks, which are inalienable properties of the city. It is a status that requires state legislative action if they are to be sold, leased or otherwise removed from city control."
And the city council will need to emerge from its study hall and vote on this as well: "Ross Sandler, a former commissioner of the city’s Transportation Department who is now the director of the Center for New York City Law at New York Law School, agreed that the Legislature would have to pass a law allowing the city to give up control of the bridges. But he said it was also likely that the Legislature would not do so without seeking a home rule vote from the City Council backing the move, because a provision in the state law protects city property from certain state actions. The Legislature could act without the home rule message, he said, but then it could expose itself to a legal challenge. Mr. Sandler also said that the Legislature would almost certainly have to vote to give the authority the power to collect bridge tolls. Under state law, he said, roads are free, except in the cases where legislation has authorized the collection of tolls."
So what's the prospect of this occurring? "That could create a bleak prospect for bridge tolls because many members of the Assembly and the Council have spoken out against them." And isn't the mayor's silence deafening here? "The legal and political landscapes defining the issue present political risks for the mayor. He invested large amounts of political capital in persuading the Council to extend the term-limit law. But now that he will run next year, it could be politically damaging to embrace bridge tolls, which have long been unpopular with voters, especially in the boroughs outside Manhattan. And yet the toll proposal is similar to the mayor’s congestion pricing plan, which failed this year when the State Assembly refused to vote on it."
Leadership anyone? But Adam Lisberg at the NY Daily News apparently thinks that the mayor's silence is golden: "Last time, Bloomberg tried to play with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. He cut deals and twisted arms to win City Council approval of the plan, but when it went to Albany, Silver wouldn't bring it up for a vote. This time, Bloomberg isn't going to play. When Gov. Paterson and Richard Ravitch unveiled their new plan for bridge tolls and a payroll tax to save the MTA, Bloomberg stood off to the side, praising their work but saying he wouldn't get involved until Albany reached a consensus."The one thing I don't want to do is make this proposal my own," Bloomberg said. "This should not be about personalities. This is for the greater good of everybody."
So, according the the wisdom of Mayor Mike, "the buck stops...elsewhere." Or, as Damon Wayons might have said, "Homey don't play that." But there's wisdom in the old adage, "you can run. but you can't hide." And Mike Bloomberg will not be able to shuck and duck on the MTA and all of the policy issues that go with it. As the Times points out: "As a result, remaining neutral on the toll proposal could be risky for Mr. Bloomberg if it makes him look as if he is moving away from a cause he once championed. So far, the mayor has been cautious, praising Mr. Ravitch while stopping short of endorsing his plan. Instead, he has pointed to the Legislature’s role in aborting congestion pricing and said it was the responsibility of state lawmakers to find a solution to the authority’s financial crisis."
That's what so sweet about having to stand before the voters periodically. The mayor cannot continue to hide under his desk for any length of time-and simply wait for Albany to sort this all out. The same forces that smacked Bloomberg down on his congestion tax, are mobilizing once again: "Some officials from the outer boroughs immediately took aim at the plan's proposal to toll the East River and Harlem River bridges."Many low- and middle-income residents in the outer boroughs live in areas that are underserved by public transit," Councilman Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn) said in a statement. "To have them disproportionately carry the burden of rescuing the MTA is unfair. How can you tax people to enter Manhattan when you don't provide them reasonable alternatives?"
And now, one of Bloomberg's potential opponents has also weighed in: "Comptroller Bill Thompson yesterday blasted Mayor Bloomberg for ducking the politically sensitive issue of tolling the free East River bridges. "Mayor Michael Bloomberg should not be given an E-ZPass on this issue. The mayor needs to lead on this issue and not hide," said Thompson, a Democrat who plans to challenge Bloomberg for mayor."
Something needs to be done; but without leadership, this could all go south pretty fast. People like the mayor-and new senate majority leader Malcolm Smith-will have to step up and devise solutions that are not only fair, but workable and effective as well. This is just one of the many messes that will have to be tackled in the new year. Who said the mantle of leadership was an easy burden?
Of course, what was missing in the Ravitch magnum opus was any detailing of the authorities finances, and suggestions for making it more efficient and accountable to the public it is supposed to serve. And the idea of taxing in the current economic climate, has come under fire. Here's Nicole Gelinas in last week's NY Post: "After that, Ravitch's proposals get dicier. His biggest idea is to levy a new income-based payroll tax on downstate employers. At one-third of one percent, the tax is supposed to raise $1.5 billion annually. One problem here is that downstate, already so heavily taxed, is well past the ability to absorb new income-based taxes...But the larger problem with the tax is that it imposes another cost on New Yorkers - without asking anything reasonable of the MTA labor force."
Or changes in the governance structure of the MTA, for that matter-labor shouldn't be the only target of cost savings; and, what about all of the patronage jobs at the authority? But it will be the bridge tolls that get all of the attention; and getting this done won't be easy. nor should it. It appears that tolling will have to go through a complex legislative process, one that will impact all layers of local government.
As the Times tells us: "Besides the political hurdles, a key part of the challenge is the complex legal path that must be followed to allow the authority to oversee the bridges. Mr. Ravitch revealed nothing when asked about the legal approvals needed for the authority to take control of the bridges and begin collecting tolls. “It’s very complicated,” he said Thursday, when he announced the rescue plan. He said it was not clear how the transfer would be accomplished and that lawyers for the state and the city would have to study the issue."
Yes, study hall for the politicians; a grand idea! “Our conclusion is that the city would not be permitted to transfer the bridges to the M.T.A. without a new state law,” Kate O’Brien Ahlers, the communications director for the city’s Law Department, said in a written statement on Friday. City officials said that under state law, the bridges were similar to streets and parks, which are inalienable properties of the city. It is a status that requires state legislative action if they are to be sold, leased or otherwise removed from city control."
And the city council will need to emerge from its study hall and vote on this as well: "Ross Sandler, a former commissioner of the city’s Transportation Department who is now the director of the Center for New York City Law at New York Law School, agreed that the Legislature would have to pass a law allowing the city to give up control of the bridges. But he said it was also likely that the Legislature would not do so without seeking a home rule vote from the City Council backing the move, because a provision in the state law protects city property from certain state actions. The Legislature could act without the home rule message, he said, but then it could expose itself to a legal challenge. Mr. Sandler also said that the Legislature would almost certainly have to vote to give the authority the power to collect bridge tolls. Under state law, he said, roads are free, except in the cases where legislation has authorized the collection of tolls."
So what's the prospect of this occurring? "That could create a bleak prospect for bridge tolls because many members of the Assembly and the Council have spoken out against them." And isn't the mayor's silence deafening here? "The legal and political landscapes defining the issue present political risks for the mayor. He invested large amounts of political capital in persuading the Council to extend the term-limit law. But now that he will run next year, it could be politically damaging to embrace bridge tolls, which have long been unpopular with voters, especially in the boroughs outside Manhattan. And yet the toll proposal is similar to the mayor’s congestion pricing plan, which failed this year when the State Assembly refused to vote on it."
Leadership anyone? But Adam Lisberg at the NY Daily News apparently thinks that the mayor's silence is golden: "Last time, Bloomberg tried to play with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. He cut deals and twisted arms to win City Council approval of the plan, but when it went to Albany, Silver wouldn't bring it up for a vote. This time, Bloomberg isn't going to play. When Gov. Paterson and Richard Ravitch unveiled their new plan for bridge tolls and a payroll tax to save the MTA, Bloomberg stood off to the side, praising their work but saying he wouldn't get involved until Albany reached a consensus."The one thing I don't want to do is make this proposal my own," Bloomberg said. "This should not be about personalities. This is for the greater good of everybody."
So, according the the wisdom of Mayor Mike, "the buck stops...elsewhere." Or, as Damon Wayons might have said, "Homey don't play that." But there's wisdom in the old adage, "you can run. but you can't hide." And Mike Bloomberg will not be able to shuck and duck on the MTA and all of the policy issues that go with it. As the Times points out: "As a result, remaining neutral on the toll proposal could be risky for Mr. Bloomberg if it makes him look as if he is moving away from a cause he once championed. So far, the mayor has been cautious, praising Mr. Ravitch while stopping short of endorsing his plan. Instead, he has pointed to the Legislature’s role in aborting congestion pricing and said it was the responsibility of state lawmakers to find a solution to the authority’s financial crisis."
That's what so sweet about having to stand before the voters periodically. The mayor cannot continue to hide under his desk for any length of time-and simply wait for Albany to sort this all out. The same forces that smacked Bloomberg down on his congestion tax, are mobilizing once again: "Some officials from the outer boroughs immediately took aim at the plan's proposal to toll the East River and Harlem River bridges."Many low- and middle-income residents in the outer boroughs live in areas that are underserved by public transit," Councilman Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn) said in a statement. "To have them disproportionately carry the burden of rescuing the MTA is unfair. How can you tax people to enter Manhattan when you don't provide them reasonable alternatives?"
And now, one of Bloomberg's potential opponents has also weighed in: "Comptroller Bill Thompson yesterday blasted Mayor Bloomberg for ducking the politically sensitive issue of tolling the free East River bridges. "Mayor Michael Bloomberg should not be given an E-ZPass on this issue. The mayor needs to lead on this issue and not hide," said Thompson, a Democrat who plans to challenge Bloomberg for mayor."
Something needs to be done; but without leadership, this could all go south pretty fast. People like the mayor-and new senate majority leader Malcolm Smith-will have to step up and devise solutions that are not only fair, but workable and effective as well. This is just one of the many messes that will have to be tackled in the new year. Who said the mantle of leadership was an easy burden?
Who's On First?
The closed door meeting held by State Senator Malcolm Smith and some 30 of his Democratic colleagues-ostensibly held to clear the air and reaffirm support for Smith's leadership-seems to have only muddied the waters; with further clarity expected some time early this week. As Liz B reported on Saturday: "The Senate Democrats spent about three-and-a-half hours behind closed doors and emerged, according to an official statement from current Senate Minority Leader Smith's office, "united in their support" of his ongoing leadership and looking forward to being in the majority come January...Unofficially speaking, it's not so cut-and-dried."
The problem lies, at least so it appears, with the fact that Smith has ruffled some of the feathers of his conference with the deal he struck last week with the three amigos: "My source said that while Smith's leadership wasn't officially challenged today, a handful of members made it clear they won't be able to support giving as much power to two of the renegades - Sen. Carl Kruger and Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. - as they claim to have been promised in a handshake deal with Smith as Gov. David Paterson, Tom Golisano and Rep. Greg Meeks looked on."
Smith, for his part, seemed to try to walk back from the deal: "Smith repeatedly assured his members that "everything you've heard and read about in the newspaper has not been agreed on," although he did allow that some of what has appeared has indeed been discussed with the Gang of Three." This, of course, is simply a flight of fantasy-one that was propelled by a desire to quell discontent.
It did lead, however, to the following response from a clearly upset Carl Kruger: "The Brooklyn senator took issue with Smith's suggestion that all 32 members of the Democratic conference remain in his corner, saying that if the leader believes he'll be able to reneg on what the Gang of Three believed was a hard-and-fast agreement "then that's his delusion." Kruger also suggested that Smith might be experiencing some "flights of fantasy." "He has the support of the coalition if he lives up to the agreement in its entirety," a clearly angry Kruger declared. "This is not slice and dice. It's not open to renegotiation. Negotiations are not closed. As far as the three of us are concerned, this is not ongoing. We're holding Malcolm to his word."
It would appear extremely difficult for Smith to walk this deal back. The public record is just too clear. As the NY Times reported last Saturday: "Even as some State Senate Democrats privately questioned a power-sharing deal struck by their leader, Malcolm A. Smith, the three former dissidents who brokered the deal are making clear that they expect him to stand by it."
And the three issued strong public statements: "In a joint statement on Friday, Mr. Espada and the two other dissidents, Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn and Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx, said the deal includes reforms that will “change the way the New York State Senate has been run for the better part of 200 years” and will “make the New York State Senate one of the most bipartisan legislative houses in the United States.”
And, as of late Saturday-after some behind the scenes maneuvering-it appeared as if Smith, with some prodding from some expected quarters, was planning to live up to the negotiated settlement. We believe that public announcement of the new changes is expected by no later than Wednesday. Whatever happens, all is certainly not smooth sailing in the upcoming senate session that begins next month.
With a narrow 32-30 majority, and new more democratic rules, leadership will involve greater negotiation skills. Gone are the days where one man can basically control the flow of all bills in the upper chamber. What this means, is that bipartisan negotiation will have to accompany every piece of contested legislation; and that a concerted coalition of senators can stymie things if they are so determined to do so.
Democracy has its price-and at times it will seem too high if legislation that someone feels is important gets held up in the new open process. At the same time, all of this should take pl;ace in a more transparent manner; so that it will be clear who's obstructing what. Some good government people should keep this in mind-because there will be times, when some of the things they might hold dear, are shunted aside because of a lack of support.
It is also true, that there will be times where some folks may get a bit nostalgic for a more powerful senate leader. In a crisis, the ability of a strong legislative leader to move the body is often welcome; although, clearly, this is a double-edged sword-and your view is determined on where you sit on the issue in question.
Smith appears to recognize this new reality; as Daily Politics points out: "Another source who was present at the meeting said Smith was successful in making it clear just how difficult life will be for the Democrats, even if they do manage to hold their fragile majority in tact, with such a small margin between themselves and the GOP. "People expressed their frustrations and we're talking it through," this source said. "It's going to be challenging. With 32 votes, you've got to keep everyone on board at all times."
The problem lies, at least so it appears, with the fact that Smith has ruffled some of the feathers of his conference with the deal he struck last week with the three amigos: "My source said that while Smith's leadership wasn't officially challenged today, a handful of members made it clear they won't be able to support giving as much power to two of the renegades - Sen. Carl Kruger and Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. - as they claim to have been promised in a handshake deal with Smith as Gov. David Paterson, Tom Golisano and Rep. Greg Meeks looked on."
Smith, for his part, seemed to try to walk back from the deal: "Smith repeatedly assured his members that "everything you've heard and read about in the newspaper has not been agreed on," although he did allow that some of what has appeared has indeed been discussed with the Gang of Three." This, of course, is simply a flight of fantasy-one that was propelled by a desire to quell discontent.
It did lead, however, to the following response from a clearly upset Carl Kruger: "The Brooklyn senator took issue with Smith's suggestion that all 32 members of the Democratic conference remain in his corner, saying that if the leader believes he'll be able to reneg on what the Gang of Three believed was a hard-and-fast agreement "then that's his delusion." Kruger also suggested that Smith might be experiencing some "flights of fantasy." "He has the support of the coalition if he lives up to the agreement in its entirety," a clearly angry Kruger declared. "This is not slice and dice. It's not open to renegotiation. Negotiations are not closed. As far as the three of us are concerned, this is not ongoing. We're holding Malcolm to his word."
It would appear extremely difficult for Smith to walk this deal back. The public record is just too clear. As the NY Times reported last Saturday: "Even as some State Senate Democrats privately questioned a power-sharing deal struck by their leader, Malcolm A. Smith, the three former dissidents who brokered the deal are making clear that they expect him to stand by it."
And the three issued strong public statements: "In a joint statement on Friday, Mr. Espada and the two other dissidents, Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn and Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx, said the deal includes reforms that will “change the way the New York State Senate has been run for the better part of 200 years” and will “make the New York State Senate one of the most bipartisan legislative houses in the United States.”
And, as of late Saturday-after some behind the scenes maneuvering-it appeared as if Smith, with some prodding from some expected quarters, was planning to live up to the negotiated settlement. We believe that public announcement of the new changes is expected by no later than Wednesday. Whatever happens, all is certainly not smooth sailing in the upcoming senate session that begins next month.
With a narrow 32-30 majority, and new more democratic rules, leadership will involve greater negotiation skills. Gone are the days where one man can basically control the flow of all bills in the upper chamber. What this means, is that bipartisan negotiation will have to accompany every piece of contested legislation; and that a concerted coalition of senators can stymie things if they are so determined to do so.
Democracy has its price-and at times it will seem too high if legislation that someone feels is important gets held up in the new open process. At the same time, all of this should take pl;ace in a more transparent manner; so that it will be clear who's obstructing what. Some good government people should keep this in mind-because there will be times, when some of the things they might hold dear, are shunted aside because of a lack of support.
It is also true, that there will be times where some folks may get a bit nostalgic for a more powerful senate leader. In a crisis, the ability of a strong legislative leader to move the body is often welcome; although, clearly, this is a double-edged sword-and your view is determined on where you sit on the issue in question.
Smith appears to recognize this new reality; as Daily Politics points out: "Another source who was present at the meeting said Smith was successful in making it clear just how difficult life will be for the Democrats, even if they do manage to hold their fragile majority in tact, with such a small margin between themselves and the GOP. "People expressed their frustrations and we're talking it through," this source said. "It's going to be challenging. With 32 votes, you've got to keep everyone on board at all times."
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Malcolm in the Mierda?
Well it looks as if Malcolm Smith might have jumped right from the frying pan into the fire. It seems as if some of his Democratic senate colleagues aren't thrilled with the deal he struck with the Gang of Three, As the NY Daily News reports: "A number of angry Senate Democrats are predicting chaos after their leader "sold the store" to a group of three dissidents. "People are quite upset," said one senator, who asked for anonymity. "It sets a dangerous precedent where people can hold [Democratic chief Malcolm Smith] up for their vote."
Perhaps it is, but what does Mr. Anonymous suggest for an alternative-a Republican majority? Whatever one's feelings are about the deal, there are those short hairs to consider: "Sen.-elect Pedro Espada will be majority leader, while Sen. Carl Kruger, who led the insurrection, is expected to be named head of the powerful Finance Committee. "He blinked," one upset Democrat said of Smith. "He didn't have to do all this." Senate Democrats at a retreat this week called on Smith to close the talks down. "It's one thing giving [the dissidents] what they want and another to sell the store," one upset senator said."
Okay, so what's the alternative? Dump Smith after he and the governor basically signed off on the deal in tandem? That would lead to the demise of Malcolm, and in all likelihood, a total revamping pf the shape of the leadership-with Republicans gaining greater power and influence.
Which brings us straight to the Dail News' comic strips-now moved permanently to the paper's editorial page. It seems that the editorialists are upset with Malcolm's maneuvering, calling it a "slimy shuffle:" "State Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith, desperate for his party to secure majority control, has cut what could be one of the slimier deals ever to ooze out of the Legislature. In a quid pro quo meant to pacify three Democrats who threatened to switch parties, Smith reportedly has agreed to give the rabble-rousers high-ranking leadership posts - along with a promise to block action on a major piece of legislation."
Legislative horse trading in Albany? Much like gambling in Casablanca, it is truly shocking to the News' naifs. But then they go over the top with the following: "The amigos should be ashamed for demanding tribute. Smith should be ashamed for granting it. Now, rank-and-file Senate Democrats, who meet Saturday to chew over the plan, must ask themselves: What does it profit them to gain the majority but lose their souls?"
Searching for souls in Albany? Just who are the oxymorons writing this stuff-maybe St. Augustine has been hired by the paper; and should we now allow the editorial writers to choose our leaders? The bottom line here, is that Malcolm Smith needs to hold this all together-or else the entire fiasco goes back into chaos.
As the NY Times indicates, that might just be what will happen: "Some Democratic officials said privately on Friday that it was not certain that all 32 Democrats would sign off on the leadership deal when the caucus meets Saturday in Manhattan, leaving open a possibility for further turmoil. “I don’t think there’s support for it,” a senior Democratic official said, adding that Mr. Smith gave the men too much power."
Again, what's the alternative? And casting aspersions on Espada and Kruger won't make any deal happen-and what's this about a credit card debt for the Brooklyn lawmaker? " A review of public records suggests that Mr. Kruger, who would have oversight of finance policy, has had trouble paying his credit card bills. He had two civil court judgments against him last year for owing Discover Bank sums of $1,252 and $1,132. “Those were some outstanding credit card bills that were satisfied,” said Jason Koppel, a spokesman for Mr. Kruger."
This is all they can come up with? We're wondering whether the mudslingers, and the so-called good government groups that the Times cites, will draw a bead on true miscreants-like the head of the House Ways and Means Committee. If Susan Lerner of Common Cause finds this "worrisome," then what's to make of Charlie Rangel's escapades?
The old saw about those who love the law, shouldn't watch how the law (or sausage) is made, comes to mind here. Good government is government that is run effectively; how leaders are chosen is not always pretty to watch. How the current fight ends will have nothing to do with the Marquis of Queensbury-or the sensibilities of the editorialists over at 33rd Street.
Perhaps it is, but what does Mr. Anonymous suggest for an alternative-a Republican majority? Whatever one's feelings are about the deal, there are those short hairs to consider: "Sen.-elect Pedro Espada will be majority leader, while Sen. Carl Kruger, who led the insurrection, is expected to be named head of the powerful Finance Committee. "He blinked," one upset Democrat said of Smith. "He didn't have to do all this." Senate Democrats at a retreat this week called on Smith to close the talks down. "It's one thing giving [the dissidents] what they want and another to sell the store," one upset senator said."
Okay, so what's the alternative? Dump Smith after he and the governor basically signed off on the deal in tandem? That would lead to the demise of Malcolm, and in all likelihood, a total revamping pf the shape of the leadership-with Republicans gaining greater power and influence.
Which brings us straight to the Dail News' comic strips-now moved permanently to the paper's editorial page. It seems that the editorialists are upset with Malcolm's maneuvering, calling it a "slimy shuffle:" "State Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith, desperate for his party to secure majority control, has cut what could be one of the slimier deals ever to ooze out of the Legislature. In a quid pro quo meant to pacify three Democrats who threatened to switch parties, Smith reportedly has agreed to give the rabble-rousers high-ranking leadership posts - along with a promise to block action on a major piece of legislation."
Legislative horse trading in Albany? Much like gambling in Casablanca, it is truly shocking to the News' naifs. But then they go over the top with the following: "The amigos should be ashamed for demanding tribute. Smith should be ashamed for granting it. Now, rank-and-file Senate Democrats, who meet Saturday to chew over the plan, must ask themselves: What does it profit them to gain the majority but lose their souls?"
Searching for souls in Albany? Just who are the oxymorons writing this stuff-maybe St. Augustine has been hired by the paper; and should we now allow the editorial writers to choose our leaders? The bottom line here, is that Malcolm Smith needs to hold this all together-or else the entire fiasco goes back into chaos.
As the NY Times indicates, that might just be what will happen: "Some Democratic officials said privately on Friday that it was not certain that all 32 Democrats would sign off on the leadership deal when the caucus meets Saturday in Manhattan, leaving open a possibility for further turmoil. “I don’t think there’s support for it,” a senior Democratic official said, adding that Mr. Smith gave the men too much power."
Again, what's the alternative? And casting aspersions on Espada and Kruger won't make any deal happen-and what's this about a credit card debt for the Brooklyn lawmaker? " A review of public records suggests that Mr. Kruger, who would have oversight of finance policy, has had trouble paying his credit card bills. He had two civil court judgments against him last year for owing Discover Bank sums of $1,252 and $1,132. “Those were some outstanding credit card bills that were satisfied,” said Jason Koppel, a spokesman for Mr. Kruger."
This is all they can come up with? We're wondering whether the mudslingers, and the so-called good government groups that the Times cites, will draw a bead on true miscreants-like the head of the House Ways and Means Committee. If Susan Lerner of Common Cause finds this "worrisome," then what's to make of Charlie Rangel's escapades?
The old saw about those who love the law, shouldn't watch how the law (or sausage) is made, comes to mind here. Good government is government that is run effectively; how leaders are chosen is not always pretty to watch. How the current fight ends will have nothing to do with the Marquis of Queensbury-or the sensibilities of the editorialists over at 33rd Street.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Leadership Win for Kruger
As Crain's Insider is reporting this morning (subscription only), State Senator Carl Kruger emerged from the leadership fight as a big winner:
Senate Majority Deal
"State Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn, is the biggest winner in the majority leadership deal announced late yesterday. By enlisting Sen. Pedro Espada and Ruben Diaz Sr. in his gambit, Kruger gave himself leverage to win a plum spot heading the Senate’s Finance Committee. Without them, Kruger would have played a marginal role in a Democratic Senate because he had danced for so long with the Republicans. Kruger also maneuvered for rules changes allowing the committee chairs to move bills to the Senate floor, meaning the chairs will have real influence over legislation."
But all is not peaches and cream on every front. As Liz links for us, Western New York is feeling shortchanged: "Political peace in the State Senate cost upstate a major seat at Albany’s power table Thursday. Sen. William T. Stachowski, D-Lake View, was passed over in his bid for the chairmanship of the powerful Senate Finance Committee as Democrats prepare to take control of the chamber next month. Stachowski — mentioned as the likely committee chairman during his tough re-election battle this fall — saw the position go to Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn, further consolidating New York City’s hold on the Legislature and statewide government offices."
Clearly, some big fence mending is gonna be needed-and Malcolm Smith needs to help smooth the ruffled feathers; as he does with the gay community(also via Liz): "The next step for marriage equality advocates is persuading the New York State Senate, where the new Democratic leadership is facing fractious members and difficult challenges. The Democrats have a bare majority, and three members are proving hard to satisfy. One of them, Reverend Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, is fervently religious and opposed to gay rights. Could his intransigence prevent a vote on marriage equality?"
And any bill, even if it does manage to reach the floor, will need to garner the requisite 32 votes: " The truth is that before there is a vote, a majority of the state senators must support one bill. Creating this bipartisan coalition will require intensive lobbying." The LGBT community will have to make its case. And greater democracy doesn't mean smooth sailing for any interest group-even in a more democratic legislature.
Senate Majority Deal
"State Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn, is the biggest winner in the majority leadership deal announced late yesterday. By enlisting Sen. Pedro Espada and Ruben Diaz Sr. in his gambit, Kruger gave himself leverage to win a plum spot heading the Senate’s Finance Committee. Without them, Kruger would have played a marginal role in a Democratic Senate because he had danced for so long with the Republicans. Kruger also maneuvered for rules changes allowing the committee chairs to move bills to the Senate floor, meaning the chairs will have real influence over legislation."
But all is not peaches and cream on every front. As Liz links for us, Western New York is feeling shortchanged: "Political peace in the State Senate cost upstate a major seat at Albany’s power table Thursday. Sen. William T. Stachowski, D-Lake View, was passed over in his bid for the chairmanship of the powerful Senate Finance Committee as Democrats prepare to take control of the chamber next month. Stachowski — mentioned as the likely committee chairman during his tough re-election battle this fall — saw the position go to Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn, further consolidating New York City’s hold on the Legislature and statewide government offices."
Clearly, some big fence mending is gonna be needed-and Malcolm Smith needs to help smooth the ruffled feathers; as he does with the gay community(also via Liz): "The next step for marriage equality advocates is persuading the New York State Senate, where the new Democratic leadership is facing fractious members and difficult challenges. The Democrats have a bare majority, and three members are proving hard to satisfy. One of them, Reverend Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, is fervently religious and opposed to gay rights. Could his intransigence prevent a vote on marriage equality?"
And any bill, even if it does manage to reach the floor, will need to garner the requisite 32 votes: " The truth is that before there is a vote, a majority of the state senators must support one bill. Creating this bipartisan coalition will require intensive lobbying." The LGBT community will have to make its case. And greater democracy doesn't mean smooth sailing for any interest group-even in a more democratic legislature.
Fire Safety?
As we have commented on before, the city is proposing to treat the fire department as if it were a fast food restaurant. As City Room reports: "The Fire Department will close a firehouse on Governors Island and eliminate night tours at four other firefighting units starting Jan. 17 to achieve an $8.9 million agency budget cut necessitated by New York City’s financial crisis, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta announced Wednesday."
Now we go all the way back on this issue to the Dinkins Administration; and the more things change, the more they stay the same. What Bloomberg is doing, much as Dinkins attempted to do, is a ruse-keeping the firehouse open while gutting the fire suppression capacity at the location: "At three other firehouses, the engine company will not be staffed during the evening shift, but the ladder company will be staffed at all times. Those three firehouses, and their companies, are:
42 South Street, Manhattan: Engine Company 4, Ladder Company 15
278 McClean Avenue, Staten Island: Engine Company 161, Ladder Company 81
392 Himrod Street, Brooklyn: Engine Company 271, Ladder Company 124."
The reality here, however, is that the engine company and the ladder company work in tandem; and if one is down, the existence of the other makes the impacted neighborhood unsafer-since an out of the area engine company will have to be brought in if there is a local fire. The fire commissioner spews the usual incoherance on this issue: "These are difficult times, and they require tough choices,” Mr. Scoppetta said. “However, despite the nighttime closings, we’re able to keep these firehouses open and maintain the services of these units for daytime operations.”
Not! An open firehouse isn't a fully functioning one; and it's impossible to predict where and when fire will occur-which is why you don't staff according to the business practices of a McDonald's; where customer patterns are stable, and the consequences of a mistake aren't deadly.
And any supposed analysis that went into this decision is immediately suspect-since so often these choices are either political or of the pin the tail on the donkey character. Which makes the following statement by the commissioner unintentionally humorous: "Before deciding on nighttime closings of these units, we extensively analyzed our existing resources throughout the city, with the input of our most experienced and knowledgeable fire chiefs,” Mr. Scoppetta said. “Our goal — first and foremost — is to minimize any impact these reductions could have on our ability to continue protecting and serving all New Yorkers. I believe we’ve accomplished that, especially given these trying fiscal times.”
Budget cuts should not be unilateral and across the board-public safety is the last thing that should be curtailed. It's up to the city council to rectify this mistake-before a short staffing leads to the death of a fire fighter and/or a citizen.
Now we go all the way back on this issue to the Dinkins Administration; and the more things change, the more they stay the same. What Bloomberg is doing, much as Dinkins attempted to do, is a ruse-keeping the firehouse open while gutting the fire suppression capacity at the location: "At three other firehouses, the engine company will not be staffed during the evening shift, but the ladder company will be staffed at all times. Those three firehouses, and their companies, are:
42 South Street, Manhattan: Engine Company 4, Ladder Company 15
278 McClean Avenue, Staten Island: Engine Company 161, Ladder Company 81
392 Himrod Street, Brooklyn: Engine Company 271, Ladder Company 124."
The reality here, however, is that the engine company and the ladder company work in tandem; and if one is down, the existence of the other makes the impacted neighborhood unsafer-since an out of the area engine company will have to be brought in if there is a local fire. The fire commissioner spews the usual incoherance on this issue: "These are difficult times, and they require tough choices,” Mr. Scoppetta said. “However, despite the nighttime closings, we’re able to keep these firehouses open and maintain the services of these units for daytime operations.”
Not! An open firehouse isn't a fully functioning one; and it's impossible to predict where and when fire will occur-which is why you don't staff according to the business practices of a McDonald's; where customer patterns are stable, and the consequences of a mistake aren't deadly.
And any supposed analysis that went into this decision is immediately suspect-since so often these choices are either political or of the pin the tail on the donkey character. Which makes the following statement by the commissioner unintentionally humorous: "Before deciding on nighttime closings of these units, we extensively analyzed our existing resources throughout the city, with the input of our most experienced and knowledgeable fire chiefs,” Mr. Scoppetta said. “Our goal — first and foremost — is to minimize any impact these reductions could have on our ability to continue protecting and serving all New Yorkers. I believe we’ve accomplished that, especially given these trying fiscal times.”
Budget cuts should not be unilateral and across the board-public safety is the last thing that should be curtailed. It's up to the city council to rectify this mistake-before a short staffing leads to the death of a fire fighter and/or a citizen.
Follow the Leaders
More information is coming in on the resolution of the state senate leadership fight-a struggle that the NY Times reporters describe as an ongoing "game of chicken:" "The agreement ends weeks of uncertainty following the November elections, which left the Democrats with 32 of the Senate’s 62 seats. Mr. Díaz, Mr. Kruger and Mr. Espada played political chicken, holding out the possibility of their support to both Republicans and Democrats in the chamber."
When the dust clears, however, the Gang of Three dissidents find themselves in positions of power and influence that they couldn't have possibly obtained in the period right after the November 4th election; it took some guts and a great deal of risk to force Malcolm Smith's hand: in effect, it was an offer he couldn't refuse. As the Times points out: "Three dissident Democrats agreed on Thursday to join with their colleagues in the State Senate to make Malcolm A. Smith the chamber’s first Democratic leader in more than 40 years, capping weeks of high-stakes wrangling with a deal that requires Mr. Smith to turn over considerable power to the three men."
While Kruger organized and led the effort, it is Espada who will become, through the hold out negotiation, the highest ranking Hispanic elected official in the state-achieving the Hispanic empowerment that the three rebels were seeking by refusing to immediately support Smith for leader. As the NY Daily News reports: "Among the changes, sources said, the position of Senate president pro tempore and majority leader will be decoupled. Smith will lead the Senate and the Democrats as president pro tempore, while Espada will be named the less-powerful majority leader, making him the highest-ranking Latino leader in state government."
Kruger, however, will inherit a newly empowered finance committee, one that ironically was initially carved out in a template by Dean Skelos who was trying to woo the three dissidents to the Republican banner. As the Times indicates: "Mr. Kruger would most likely become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, with a bigger staff and more autonomy than past committee leaders have had, along with significant sway over budget negotiations and power to approve nominees to top executive branch posts."
The agreement put Skelos and the Republicans in the unusual position of a minority partner in government-with no leadership positions anywhere in NYS. As the NY Post tells us: "The agreement puts an end to a desperate attempt by lame-duck Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Nassau) to hold on to his position despite the Democrats winning a majority in the Senate last month."
And from what we're hearing Senator Diaz, whose issue of gay marriage roiled the month long fight, was given assurances that any legislation on the matter would be referred to-the finance committee chaired by Kruger. Diaz, a leader of the seniors in his district, will be given the chair of the Aging Committee. Here's how the Times reports it: "Mr. Díaz is slated to become chairman of the Senate committee on aging. More important, said people involved in the negotiations, Mr. Díaz is now confident that there will be no vote in the Senate next year on legislation to legalize gay marriage, something which most Senate Democrats support but which Mr. Diaz strongly opposes."
So, in spite of all of the acrimony and uncertainty post-the November election, Democrats will take charge of the state senate for the first time in over forty years. The nature of governance is, however, more than likely to be radically different: "The leadership agreement also includes plans to significantly overhaul the way the Senate does business, a step Mr. Smith had advocated on the campaign trail this year but which the three Democrats had insisted on including in any leadership deal. There will be more parity between Republicans and Democrats in the chamber regarding offices, staff levels and Senate mail privileges, officials said. Republicans and Democrats will sit in alphabetical order, not grouped by party, they said. Mr. Kruger called it “a historic agreement that will change the way the New York State Senate has been run for the better part of 200 years.”
And, as the Times underscores, Kruger and Espada come out of this as the big winners: "The deal is a particular triumph for Mr. Espada and Mr. Kruger, who went from being pariahs in their own party to being two of its leading members." The real challenge ahead, though, is to see just how effective the new leadership-and the new governance structure-can be in the face of the current crisis; all else fades into insignificance if government isn't equipped to act creatively for its citizens.
When the dust clears, however, the Gang of Three dissidents find themselves in positions of power and influence that they couldn't have possibly obtained in the period right after the November 4th election; it took some guts and a great deal of risk to force Malcolm Smith's hand: in effect, it was an offer he couldn't refuse. As the Times points out: "Three dissident Democrats agreed on Thursday to join with their colleagues in the State Senate to make Malcolm A. Smith the chamber’s first Democratic leader in more than 40 years, capping weeks of high-stakes wrangling with a deal that requires Mr. Smith to turn over considerable power to the three men."
While Kruger organized and led the effort, it is Espada who will become, through the hold out negotiation, the highest ranking Hispanic elected official in the state-achieving the Hispanic empowerment that the three rebels were seeking by refusing to immediately support Smith for leader. As the NY Daily News reports: "Among the changes, sources said, the position of Senate president pro tempore and majority leader will be decoupled. Smith will lead the Senate and the Democrats as president pro tempore, while Espada will be named the less-powerful majority leader, making him the highest-ranking Latino leader in state government."
Kruger, however, will inherit a newly empowered finance committee, one that ironically was initially carved out in a template by Dean Skelos who was trying to woo the three dissidents to the Republican banner. As the Times indicates: "Mr. Kruger would most likely become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, with a bigger staff and more autonomy than past committee leaders have had, along with significant sway over budget negotiations and power to approve nominees to top executive branch posts."
The agreement put Skelos and the Republicans in the unusual position of a minority partner in government-with no leadership positions anywhere in NYS. As the NY Post tells us: "The agreement puts an end to a desperate attempt by lame-duck Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Nassau) to hold on to his position despite the Democrats winning a majority in the Senate last month."
And from what we're hearing Senator Diaz, whose issue of gay marriage roiled the month long fight, was given assurances that any legislation on the matter would be referred to-the finance committee chaired by Kruger. Diaz, a leader of the seniors in his district, will be given the chair of the Aging Committee. Here's how the Times reports it: "Mr. Díaz is slated to become chairman of the Senate committee on aging. More important, said people involved in the negotiations, Mr. Díaz is now confident that there will be no vote in the Senate next year on legislation to legalize gay marriage, something which most Senate Democrats support but which Mr. Diaz strongly opposes."
So, in spite of all of the acrimony and uncertainty post-the November election, Democrats will take charge of the state senate for the first time in over forty years. The nature of governance is, however, more than likely to be radically different: "The leadership agreement also includes plans to significantly overhaul the way the Senate does business, a step Mr. Smith had advocated on the campaign trail this year but which the three Democrats had insisted on including in any leadership deal. There will be more parity between Republicans and Democrats in the chamber regarding offices, staff levels and Senate mail privileges, officials said. Republicans and Democrats will sit in alphabetical order, not grouped by party, they said. Mr. Kruger called it “a historic agreement that will change the way the New York State Senate has been run for the better part of 200 years.”
And, as the Times underscores, Kruger and Espada come out of this as the big winners: "The deal is a particular triumph for Mr. Espada and Mr. Kruger, who went from being pariahs in their own party to being two of its leading members." The real challenge ahead, though, is to see just how effective the new leadership-and the new governance structure-can be in the face of the current crisis; all else fades into insignificance if government isn't equipped to act creatively for its citizens.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Deal Done!
As Liz is reporting, the senate insurrection has been put to bed: "The leadership battle that has frozen the Senate since Election Day is over, and the three renegade senators known as the Gang of Three have all pledged to support Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith for majority leader in exchange for an agreement that will result in what Sen. Carl Kruger called "significant and historic reform" of how the chamber operates."
The details of the reform package weren't announced, but it appears that it will encompass the legislative process/transparency and bipartisan governance structure issues that the three amigos had put forward. Before any one can comment more fully on what has transpired, a greater understanding of the nature of the reforms will need to be done.
And as City Room is reporting: "Three dissident Democrats who had been debating whether to side with their own party or join Senate Republicans have worked out a tentative power-sharing deal with Malcolm A. Smith, the Democratic minority leader, that would give Democrats control of the chamber, according to a person involved the negotiations."
Fascinating development, no? And it looks as if Latino empowerment will be advanced as advertised: "One person with intimate knowledge of the closed-door negotiations — which occurred at the University Club, at 1 West 54th Street, in Midtown Manhattan — said that Mr. Smith might become president pro tempore of the Senate, a constitutional office that is the Senate’s top position, while Mr. Espada would be elected majority leader and be appointed vice-chairman of the powerful Senate Rules Committee, giving him significant authority in the chamber and putting a Latino in one of the top positions in New York State."
As for Kruger, who led the effort: "Mr. Kruger would be named chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a major post with the power to approve gubernatorial nominees and a lead role in negotiating state budgets. And the senators will sit in alphabetical order in the chamber, rather than divided by party, along with other changes to the Senate’s rules that will make it more democratic–something Mr. Smith has long advocated."
This is quite some distance from where Kruger-someone who had warm ties to Joe Bruno-stood just a few weeks ago. At that point, it would have been impossible to imagine that he would have been given any position of real importance.
What will be fascinating to see, is how a more democratic state senate will actually operate-and whether process reforms will be helpful-or not-in dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. Still, the three amigos really shook things up; and did so without damaging their own political standing and clout.
Update
As Liz is reporting: "Here's what we know so far. Keep in mind that all of this is based on a handshake deal and requires changes in the Senate rules, which is also subject to a vote. The positions of Senate majority leader and president pro tempore, which were both held by former Majority Leader Joe Bruno, have now been bifurcated. Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. will be the majority leader while Smith is president pro tempore. The majority leader post in other legislative bodies in New York, the City Council and the Assembly, for example, is not one with a lot of power. Espada told me he has been assured by Smith that his position will "have absolute substance," and, as a result, "the Latino empowerment issue has been substantially enhanced."
As for Kruger, who engineered the rebellion: " Sen. Carl Kruger will not get the Housing Committee, as some activists like ACORN's Bertha Lewis, had feared, but he will chair a pumped-up Senate Finance Committee. Recall that this was something the Republicans proposed in an effort to woo the Gang of Three to their side. The committee will have an enhanced staff and a fair degree of independence." And, as Azi affirms: "The third holdout, Carl Kruger, will be named chairman of the powerful finance committee."
Ruben Diaz will get the Aging Committee, as he had hoped; and will not have to fight any gay marriage bill on the floor. As he told Azi: “I, Senator Diaz, am relieved everything is going to be OK.”
The details of the reform package weren't announced, but it appears that it will encompass the legislative process/transparency and bipartisan governance structure issues that the three amigos had put forward. Before any one can comment more fully on what has transpired, a greater understanding of the nature of the reforms will need to be done.
And as City Room is reporting: "Three dissident Democrats who had been debating whether to side with their own party or join Senate Republicans have worked out a tentative power-sharing deal with Malcolm A. Smith, the Democratic minority leader, that would give Democrats control of the chamber, according to a person involved the negotiations."
Fascinating development, no? And it looks as if Latino empowerment will be advanced as advertised: "One person with intimate knowledge of the closed-door negotiations — which occurred at the University Club, at 1 West 54th Street, in Midtown Manhattan — said that Mr. Smith might become president pro tempore of the Senate, a constitutional office that is the Senate’s top position, while Mr. Espada would be elected majority leader and be appointed vice-chairman of the powerful Senate Rules Committee, giving him significant authority in the chamber and putting a Latino in one of the top positions in New York State."
As for Kruger, who led the effort: "Mr. Kruger would be named chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a major post with the power to approve gubernatorial nominees and a lead role in negotiating state budgets. And the senators will sit in alphabetical order in the chamber, rather than divided by party, along with other changes to the Senate’s rules that will make it more democratic–something Mr. Smith has long advocated."
This is quite some distance from where Kruger-someone who had warm ties to Joe Bruno-stood just a few weeks ago. At that point, it would have been impossible to imagine that he would have been given any position of real importance.
What will be fascinating to see, is how a more democratic state senate will actually operate-and whether process reforms will be helpful-or not-in dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. Still, the three amigos really shook things up; and did so without damaging their own political standing and clout.
Update
As Liz is reporting: "Here's what we know so far. Keep in mind that all of this is based on a handshake deal and requires changes in the Senate rules, which is also subject to a vote. The positions of Senate majority leader and president pro tempore, which were both held by former Majority Leader Joe Bruno, have now been bifurcated. Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. will be the majority leader while Smith is president pro tempore. The majority leader post in other legislative bodies in New York, the City Council and the Assembly, for example, is not one with a lot of power. Espada told me he has been assured by Smith that his position will "have absolute substance," and, as a result, "the Latino empowerment issue has been substantially enhanced."
As for Kruger, who engineered the rebellion: " Sen. Carl Kruger will not get the Housing Committee, as some activists like ACORN's Bertha Lewis, had feared, but he will chair a pumped-up Senate Finance Committee. Recall that this was something the Republicans proposed in an effort to woo the Gang of Three to their side. The committee will have an enhanced staff and a fair degree of independence." And, as Azi affirms: "The third holdout, Carl Kruger, will be named chairman of the powerful finance committee."
Ruben Diaz will get the Aging Committee, as he had hoped; and will not have to fight any gay marriage bill on the floor. As he told Azi: “I, Senator Diaz, am relieved everything is going to be OK.”
End Game in Albany?
According to Liz B, the Gang of Three is meeting today with Malcolm Smith to discuss a set of reform proposals-as well as some less celestial things, no doubt: "A source close to the Gang of Three confirms its ringleader, Sen. Carl Kruger, is meeting at this very moment with Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith at 250 Broadway in an attempt to hammer out a deal that would end the leadership stalemate that frozen the chamber since Election Day."
The meeting has, of course, generated speculation that a deal might be in the offing: "A Democratic source said Smith is hopeful that the framework of an agreement could be reached and announced today. But the Gang of Three source cautioned it might be a little early for Smith and his supporters to start celebrating. "This is just a continuing discussion," the source said. "I don't think they're ready to make a deal. It really needs to be vetted properly and put into writing."
The parameters of any deal would have to be properly vetted, and there's no indication that the rebels are eager to shut this down immediately. But with the Padavan race looking as if it would be concluded-and Padavan certified sooner rather than later-the pressure is on Smith to get this done.
If he's unable to come to any agreement, than his vulnerability increases the longer the situation drags out. The longer the delay, however, the better looking the rebels get-and the more their leverage is enhanced.
The meeting has, of course, generated speculation that a deal might be in the offing: "A Democratic source said Smith is hopeful that the framework of an agreement could be reached and announced today. But the Gang of Three source cautioned it might be a little early for Smith and his supporters to start celebrating. "This is just a continuing discussion," the source said. "I don't think they're ready to make a deal. It really needs to be vetted properly and put into writing."
The parameters of any deal would have to be properly vetted, and there's no indication that the rebels are eager to shut this down immediately. But with the Padavan race looking as if it would be concluded-and Padavan certified sooner rather than later-the pressure is on Smith to get this done.
If he's unable to come to any agreement, than his vulnerability increases the longer the situation drags out. The longer the delay, however, the better looking the rebels get-and the more their leverage is enhanced.
Big Changes in the State Senate?
As the NY Daily News is reporting, there may be some big changes in the works up in Albany: "Meanwhile, the three dissidents - Sens. Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn) and Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) and Senator-elect Pedro Espada (D-Bronx) - met yesterday with upstate billionaire Thomas Golisano. Golisano, who put $5million toward reform candidates this year, hopes the three stay with the Democrats and likely Majority Leader Malcolm Smith. The so-called Gang of Three planned to give their demands to Smith last night. Sources said they want greater autonomy for Senate committees, a finance-committee chairmanship for Kruger, more resources for the minority party and more freedom for the minority party to bring bills to the floor."
The reform template is in play-and the ball is in Malcolm Smith's court-not to mention the inscrutable domain of Governor Paterson. In spite of the disbelief that reform could be generated from such an unlikely quarter, it now appears as if Kruger and the amigos are advancing some of the most ambitious proposals that have been seen in Albany for years-and they have the leverage to achieve it.
In any case, the conversation is ongoing, and the goal appears to be to create a governing structure adequate enough to tackle the state's huge fiscal mess-with a level of hoped for bipartisanship that will enable real problem solving to get done. The devil, as always, is in the details-and in the ability of all those involved to negotiate a good deal.
The reform template is in play-and the ball is in Malcolm Smith's court-not to mention the inscrutable domain of Governor Paterson. In spite of the disbelief that reform could be generated from such an unlikely quarter, it now appears as if Kruger and the amigos are advancing some of the most ambitious proposals that have been seen in Albany for years-and they have the leverage to achieve it.
In any case, the conversation is ongoing, and the goal appears to be to create a governing structure adequate enough to tackle the state's huge fiscal mess-with a level of hoped for bipartisanship that will enable real problem solving to get done. The devil, as always, is in the details-and in the ability of all those involved to negotiate a good deal.
School Performance Enhancement
The NY Times is reporting this morning-in what school officials are describing as, "an isolated incident"-that an assistant principle in the Bronx has been fired for cheating on a Regents exam: "The Department of Education said on Wednesday that it would move to fire an assistant principal who cheated on Regents exams this spring by changing her students’ answers."
The money quote in the story: "The city has increased pressure on principals in recent years, by branding schools with letter grades of A through F based primarily on test scores, for example. Some critics have wondered whether cheating would become more commonplace as a result."
As would be expected, the DOE demurs about any allegation that cheating is widespread: "David Cantor, a spokesman for the Department of Education, said Contemporary Arts, which received an A on its report card, had performed so well by other measures that it would retain its grade even after an adjustment based on Mr. Condon’s findings. He said he had “no reason to believe that there has been any other impropriety” at the school, and that there had been no indication that cheating allegations elsewhere had spiked. “There are always allegations,” he said, “and many of them are not substantiated.”
But, as Andy Wolf has written to us, this incident may not be so isolated: "The tip of a huge iceberg. Still no resolution of the investigation of the unexplained 50 point gain three years ago at PS 33 in the Bronx, only to be followed by an immediate drop when the principal retired -- after she won a huge bonus which was used to calculate her pension for the rest of her life -- about $12,000 per year!"
And the pressure on the administrators is immense. As Wolf wrote earlier this year: "A number of incentives for “performance” have been put on the table. Merit pay, which could reach as much as $50,000 a year for principals and $3,000 for teachers, is one. The possibility of the removal of the principal, the “closing” of the school, or unsatisfactory ratings for teachers, are among the possible consequences. All this will be expressed in the new school report card grades, 85% of which will be based on these test scores and improvements posted by students on these tests from year to year. So that is why teachers and administrators across the city are telling me that they feel the pressure. How the principals and teachers will lift the scores of individual students is an interesting question, since it has been my experience that, despite constant rhetoric to the contrary, most city educators are dedicated to doing the best for their charges."
All of which hints to us that the DOE's success may be very much like a Potemkin Village-and that independent evaluation will yield more evidence that test performances aren't as Kosher as they should be-never mind the gap between the city-state-and national exams. And that independent review may be just around the corner in Albany.
The money quote in the story: "The city has increased pressure on principals in recent years, by branding schools with letter grades of A through F based primarily on test scores, for example. Some critics have wondered whether cheating would become more commonplace as a result."
As would be expected, the DOE demurs about any allegation that cheating is widespread: "David Cantor, a spokesman for the Department of Education, said Contemporary Arts, which received an A on its report card, had performed so well by other measures that it would retain its grade even after an adjustment based on Mr. Condon’s findings. He said he had “no reason to believe that there has been any other impropriety” at the school, and that there had been no indication that cheating allegations elsewhere had spiked. “There are always allegations,” he said, “and many of them are not substantiated.”
But, as Andy Wolf has written to us, this incident may not be so isolated: "The tip of a huge iceberg. Still no resolution of the investigation of the unexplained 50 point gain three years ago at PS 33 in the Bronx, only to be followed by an immediate drop when the principal retired -- after she won a huge bonus which was used to calculate her pension for the rest of her life -- about $12,000 per year!"
And the pressure on the administrators is immense. As Wolf wrote earlier this year: "A number of incentives for “performance” have been put on the table. Merit pay, which could reach as much as $50,000 a year for principals and $3,000 for teachers, is one. The possibility of the removal of the principal, the “closing” of the school, or unsatisfactory ratings for teachers, are among the possible consequences. All this will be expressed in the new school report card grades, 85% of which will be based on these test scores and improvements posted by students on these tests from year to year. So that is why teachers and administrators across the city are telling me that they feel the pressure. How the principals and teachers will lift the scores of individual students is an interesting question, since it has been my experience that, despite constant rhetoric to the contrary, most city educators are dedicated to doing the best for their charges."
All of which hints to us that the DOE's success may be very much like a Potemkin Village-and that independent evaluation will yield more evidence that test performances aren't as Kosher as they should be-never mind the gap between the city-state-and national exams. And that independent review may be just around the corner in Albany.
Wal-Mart's Liability
It now appears that the confrontation between two groups of shoppers-those that waited outside on line for the store to open; and those that waited instead in the warmth of their cars- was behind the death of the Wal-Mart worker last week. As Newsday is reporting:
"A competitive, no-cutting-in-line conflict between two large groups of shoppers helped to spark the Black Friday stampede in which a Wal-Mart worker was trampled to death, Nassau police said Wednesday. Shoppers who remained inside their vehicles in the parking lot until the Valley Stream store's special 5 a.m. opening apparently clashed with people who had stood in line for hours outside Wal-Mart, police said. When the store's doors opened, the conflict between the two groups - with "a considerable amount of people" who had stayed in their vehicles rushing to enter the store without waiting in line - fostered "mob mentality," Nassau Police Lt. Kevin Smith said." A whole lot of people started getting out of their cars and made a beeline for that door," Smith said, referring to the one set of doors open to shoppers."
The worker's death will now lead to-what else?-litigation against the Walmonster for its failure to protect the safety of either its workers or its customers: "Meanwhile, an attorney for Damour's family yesterday filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Wal-Mart in state Supreme Court in the Bronx, The Associated Press reported. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Elsie Damour Phillipe, the victim's sister. In a written statement, Hank Mullany, president of Wal-Mart's Eastern Division, said the company is working to implement stronger safety measures."
Talk about closing the barn door after the horses have left! Than Mullaney comes up with this gem: "We consider Mr. Damour part of the Wal-Mart family, and are saddened by his death," Mullany said. "We have been in communication with members of his family to do what we can to help them through this difficult time. Our associates know that when incidents like this occur, we take care of our own."
"Part of the family?" Sure, just like Cinderella was. The rhetoric of family is too often used to camouflage the lack of any real substantive protection and care for employees. Workers don't need the rhetoric-they need good wages and decent benefits; and whether the company CEO feels that they are "family" is besides the point.
The liability of Wal-Mart is pretty clear here-with Nassau County's top cop doing everything possible to mitigate its own responsibility by pointing a strong finger at the company: "Mulvey said it was apparent to him that the Wal-Mart store about 20 miles east of Manhattan lacked adequate security to handle the crowds. He said police representatives met with retailers throughout the county two weeks before Thanksgiving and made it clear that security and crowd control for the sales was the merchants' responsibility."
But the county could also be responsible, since the Nassau cops had been on the scene but left. What is clear, however, is that something terrible happened: "Wal-Mart, the adjacent Green Acres Mall, a realty company that manages the property and a security company hired to patrol the property were all named as defendants..." Oh yes, Vornado Realty and Distrust is the owner of the Wal-Mart shopping center. Karma?
The real bad news here for Wal-Mart? According to the NY Post: "The lawsuit was filed yesterday in state Supreme Court in The Bronx on behalf of Elsie Damour Phillipe, the sister of victim Jdimytai Damour. Phillipe, who lives in The Bronx, is the court-appointed administrator of her brother's estate." The Bronx is home to some of the highest jury awards in the country.
"A competitive, no-cutting-in-line conflict between two large groups of shoppers helped to spark the Black Friday stampede in which a Wal-Mart worker was trampled to death, Nassau police said Wednesday. Shoppers who remained inside their vehicles in the parking lot until the Valley Stream store's special 5 a.m. opening apparently clashed with people who had stood in line for hours outside Wal-Mart, police said. When the store's doors opened, the conflict between the two groups - with "a considerable amount of people" who had stayed in their vehicles rushing to enter the store without waiting in line - fostered "mob mentality," Nassau Police Lt. Kevin Smith said." A whole lot of people started getting out of their cars and made a beeline for that door," Smith said, referring to the one set of doors open to shoppers."
The worker's death will now lead to-what else?-litigation against the Walmonster for its failure to protect the safety of either its workers or its customers: "Meanwhile, an attorney for Damour's family yesterday filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Wal-Mart in state Supreme Court in the Bronx, The Associated Press reported. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Elsie Damour Phillipe, the victim's sister. In a written statement, Hank Mullany, president of Wal-Mart's Eastern Division, said the company is working to implement stronger safety measures."
Talk about closing the barn door after the horses have left! Than Mullaney comes up with this gem: "We consider Mr. Damour part of the Wal-Mart family, and are saddened by his death," Mullany said. "We have been in communication with members of his family to do what we can to help them through this difficult time. Our associates know that when incidents like this occur, we take care of our own."
"Part of the family?" Sure, just like Cinderella was. The rhetoric of family is too often used to camouflage the lack of any real substantive protection and care for employees. Workers don't need the rhetoric-they need good wages and decent benefits; and whether the company CEO feels that they are "family" is besides the point.
The liability of Wal-Mart is pretty clear here-with Nassau County's top cop doing everything possible to mitigate its own responsibility by pointing a strong finger at the company: "Mulvey said it was apparent to him that the Wal-Mart store about 20 miles east of Manhattan lacked adequate security to handle the crowds. He said police representatives met with retailers throughout the county two weeks before Thanksgiving and made it clear that security and crowd control for the sales was the merchants' responsibility."
But the county could also be responsible, since the Nassau cops had been on the scene but left. What is clear, however, is that something terrible happened: "Wal-Mart, the adjacent Green Acres Mall, a realty company that manages the property and a security company hired to patrol the property were all named as defendants..." Oh yes, Vornado Realty and Distrust is the owner of the Wal-Mart shopping center. Karma?
The real bad news here for Wal-Mart? According to the NY Post: "The lawsuit was filed yesterday in state Supreme Court in The Bronx on behalf of Elsie Damour Phillipe, the sister of victim Jdimytai Damour. Phillipe, who lives in The Bronx, is the court-appointed administrator of her brother's estate." The Bronx is home to some of the highest jury awards in the country.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Reviving the Advocate
In this week's Observer, Azi reviews the Public Advocate's race with a focus on Eric Gioia and Bill deBlasio: "For both Eric Gioia and Bill de Blasio, a seat on the City Council was always supposed to be a stepping-stone. Mr. Gioia, 35, has been preparing for higher office since his election to the Council seven years ago, and has raised more money since then than all but three of his Council colleagues. Mr. de Blasio, 47, was a White House aide and the manager for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate bid before he decided to run for Council, and is still a respected name in national Democratic circles."
The real issue, of course, is who among a plethora of candidates, can revive this office so it truly advocates for the folks-and does so by confronting the power of the mayor; an office that is given inordinate control over the city's direction. The Observer gives our take on the two hard chargers:
"As public advocate, said pot-stirring New York lobbyist Richard Lipsky, “the power you have is to do what Eric does, which is create public interest in an issue, and B, to do what de Blasio does, and that’s bring a whole lot of people together. Bill is less enamored with making it a personality vehicle for himself, and that’s one thing Eric has to learn as he gets more experience, is to be able to utilize an issue for his own personal benefit—which all elected officials do—but at the same time learn to share the spotlight with others, so that he can have more power in doing what he’s doing.”
And the one issue that Gioia has distinguished himself-underscoring his potential-is on food stamps; where he continues to hold Costco's hands to the fire. As Crain's Insider reports this morning (subscription only): "Costco has not cut off communication with City Councilman Eric Gioia, D-Queens, since he staged an event to criticize the company for not accepting food stamps. “It’s always a delicate balance of asking nicely but also showing that you won’t back down,” he says. Gioia has spoken with Costco’s chief executive to make the case that rejecting food stamps is bad for business. “They’re turning down the currency that’s used by a million New Yorkers,” he says. The councilman expects to hear from the company soon."
But there are a number of other formidable candidates in the race-John Liu and Norman Siegel come to mind-who could also do well as a robust advocate. Liu in particular has distinguished himself as an advocate for the city's green grocers, bodegas and supermarkets-witness his stellar performance on the peddler issue, as well as on the mayor and term limits (where Norman has also shined in both of his capacities-legal and political).
So, whatever happens next September, the PA's role should become invigorated, and if we have Mayor Mike for a third term the role will be that much more important. Keping the mayor honest-politically-is mission one for the new PA.
The real issue, of course, is who among a plethora of candidates, can revive this office so it truly advocates for the folks-and does so by confronting the power of the mayor; an office that is given inordinate control over the city's direction. The Observer gives our take on the two hard chargers:
"As public advocate, said pot-stirring New York lobbyist Richard Lipsky, “the power you have is to do what Eric does, which is create public interest in an issue, and B, to do what de Blasio does, and that’s bring a whole lot of people together. Bill is less enamored with making it a personality vehicle for himself, and that’s one thing Eric has to learn as he gets more experience, is to be able to utilize an issue for his own personal benefit—which all elected officials do—but at the same time learn to share the spotlight with others, so that he can have more power in doing what he’s doing.”
And the one issue that Gioia has distinguished himself-underscoring his potential-is on food stamps; where he continues to hold Costco's hands to the fire. As Crain's Insider reports this morning (subscription only): "Costco has not cut off communication with City Councilman Eric Gioia, D-Queens, since he staged an event to criticize the company for not accepting food stamps. “It’s always a delicate balance of asking nicely but also showing that you won’t back down,” he says. Gioia has spoken with Costco’s chief executive to make the case that rejecting food stamps is bad for business. “They’re turning down the currency that’s used by a million New Yorkers,” he says. The councilman expects to hear from the company soon."
But there are a number of other formidable candidates in the race-John Liu and Norman Siegel come to mind-who could also do well as a robust advocate. Liu in particular has distinguished himself as an advocate for the city's green grocers, bodegas and supermarkets-witness his stellar performance on the peddler issue, as well as on the mayor and term limits (where Norman has also shined in both of his capacities-legal and political).
So, whatever happens next September, the PA's role should become invigorated, and if we have Mayor Mike for a third term the role will be that much more important. Keping the mayor honest-politically-is mission one for the new PA.
Doggie Bags
The City Council is calling on Governor Paterson to veto the state's plastic bag bill-legislation that effectively overrides the city's "tougher" plastic bag ordinance. As NY1 reports, Councilman Peter Vallone blames, who else, the "special interests," for this alternative state bill: "In the middle of the night, without notice to anyone, Albany passed a bill which protected, basically, the supermarkets and the special interests, without saying a word to anybody, and which guts our bill."
Give us a break. Without going into any great detail, the city's bill will have absolutely no real impact on getting New Yorkers to recycle plastic bags, or reduce their use; there's no incentive in the law for customers to do anything different. There are provisions, however, that would make the city's stores further targets for regulatory abuse-fines for non compliance are sure to come as the municipal budget runs short of funds.
As the Gotham Gazette reports, the state law would be less onerous for city stores: "The Albany bill, which is awaiting the governor’s John Hancock, would exempt stores under 10,000 square feet and also weaken the city’s enforcement powers, said Councilmember Peter Vallone Jr. — the city bill’s primary sponsor. The Albany bill would also exempt certain types of plastic bags."
Vallone, feeling comfortable with his characterization of local business, went on to reiterate the negative portrayal: "“You can have the real law in New York City and have the special interests run Albany,” said Vallone." Well, these so-called special interests, Peter, are disappearing in NYC precisely because of the city's taxing and regulatory policies. Insuring their protection is insuring that local supermarkets can continue to grow and thrive here-supposedly a policy goal of the mayor and the council. What's special interest about that?
Aren't the environmental groups behind the legislation-organizations with little or no concern for business health-also special pleaders? Let's get real. The alternative state bill doesn't mean the end of the world. Both the city and state plastic bag legislation are feel good measures that will have little or no impact on the health, safety or environment of New York.
The current controversy is a tempest in a teapot that deflects attention away from the city's policy confusion. In the process, however, businesses that are vital to the city are getting more regulatory strangulation that will make it harder to do well here.
Give us a break. Without going into any great detail, the city's bill will have absolutely no real impact on getting New Yorkers to recycle plastic bags, or reduce their use; there's no incentive in the law for customers to do anything different. There are provisions, however, that would make the city's stores further targets for regulatory abuse-fines for non compliance are sure to come as the municipal budget runs short of funds.
As the Gotham Gazette reports, the state law would be less onerous for city stores: "The Albany bill, which is awaiting the governor’s John Hancock, would exempt stores under 10,000 square feet and also weaken the city’s enforcement powers, said Councilmember Peter Vallone Jr. — the city bill’s primary sponsor. The Albany bill would also exempt certain types of plastic bags."
Vallone, feeling comfortable with his characterization of local business, went on to reiterate the negative portrayal: "“You can have the real law in New York City and have the special interests run Albany,” said Vallone." Well, these so-called special interests, Peter, are disappearing in NYC precisely because of the city's taxing and regulatory policies. Insuring their protection is insuring that local supermarkets can continue to grow and thrive here-supposedly a policy goal of the mayor and the council. What's special interest about that?
Aren't the environmental groups behind the legislation-organizations with little or no concern for business health-also special pleaders? Let's get real. The alternative state bill doesn't mean the end of the world. Both the city and state plastic bag legislation are feel good measures that will have little or no impact on the health, safety or environment of New York.
The current controversy is a tempest in a teapot that deflects attention away from the city's policy confusion. In the process, however, businesses that are vital to the city are getting more regulatory strangulation that will make it harder to do well here.
Wal-Mart Insecurity
It's the world's richest retailer-noted for its cheap prices-and yet when it came to training and protecting its workers for a Black Friday crush, the Walmonster sat on its wallet. As the NY Daily News editorializes this morning: "There is no imaginable excuse for Wal-Mart's failure to station trained and equipped security personnel outside the door. The cost would have been a few thousand dollars, a trifle compared to the cost of a human life. It's simple: When you pump up the volume of crowds with doorbuster sales and early openings, you must shoulder the responsibility for the safety of customers and staff."
But who can really be surprised? When you have a corporate history of shortchanging your workers, why should you all of a sudden develop a concern for their safety? When your parking lots have been known as mugger-owned territory, why should customer safety all of a sudden become a priority?
Leave it to the NY Times, however, to blame the incident on-of all people-George Bush, and the over all American economy: "It was a tragedy, yet it did not feel like an accident. All those people were there, lined up in the cold and darkness, because of sophisticated marketing forces that have produced this day now called Black Friday. They were engaging in early-morning shopping as contact sport. American business has long excelled at creating a sense of shortage amid abundance, an anxiety that one must act now or miss out."
And more: "After 9/11, President Bush dispatched Americans to the malls as a patriotic act. When the economy faltered early this year, the government gave out tax rebate checks and told people to spend. In a sense, those Chinese-made flat-screen televisions sitting inside Wal-Mart have become American comfort food...Wages for most Americans have fallen in real terms over the last eight years. Pensions have been turned into 401(k) plans that have just relinquished half their value to an angry market. Health benefits have been downgraded or eliminated altogether. Working hours are being slashed, and full-time workers are having to settle for jobs through temp agencies."
The Times, a paper that has been vividly dramatizing just how bad the American economy is because of a desire to give the new president not only more breathing room, but a greater rationale for a more interventionist approach to governing, even went to the incredible length of titling its Wal-Mart article, "A Shopping Guernica Captures the Moment," comparing the death of the worker to the Spanish Civil War.
Let's keep the focus of blame where it belongs-and the Times finally does here, buried deep in the article: "Indeed, this was the situation for the unfortunate man who found himself working at the Valley Stream Wal-Mart at 5 a.m. Friday, a temp at a company emblematic of low wages and weak benefits, earning his dollars by trying to police an unruly crowd worried about missing out."
The United Food and Commercial Workers, the Retail Wholesale Department Store Workers, and the Alliance, have been leading the fight against Wal-Mart's abysmal record on worker rights. The tragedy last week underscores why the Wal-Mart workers need to be organized; it doesn't symbolize all that's wrong with America as a country.
But who can really be surprised? When you have a corporate history of shortchanging your workers, why should you all of a sudden develop a concern for their safety? When your parking lots have been known as mugger-owned territory, why should customer safety all of a sudden become a priority?
Leave it to the NY Times, however, to blame the incident on-of all people-George Bush, and the over all American economy: "It was a tragedy, yet it did not feel like an accident. All those people were there, lined up in the cold and darkness, because of sophisticated marketing forces that have produced this day now called Black Friday. They were engaging in early-morning shopping as contact sport. American business has long excelled at creating a sense of shortage amid abundance, an anxiety that one must act now or miss out."
And more: "After 9/11, President Bush dispatched Americans to the malls as a patriotic act. When the economy faltered early this year, the government gave out tax rebate checks and told people to spend. In a sense, those Chinese-made flat-screen televisions sitting inside Wal-Mart have become American comfort food...Wages for most Americans have fallen in real terms over the last eight years. Pensions have been turned into 401(k) plans that have just relinquished half their value to an angry market. Health benefits have been downgraded or eliminated altogether. Working hours are being slashed, and full-time workers are having to settle for jobs through temp agencies."
The Times, a paper that has been vividly dramatizing just how bad the American economy is because of a desire to give the new president not only more breathing room, but a greater rationale for a more interventionist approach to governing, even went to the incredible length of titling its Wal-Mart article, "A Shopping Guernica Captures the Moment," comparing the death of the worker to the Spanish Civil War.
Let's keep the focus of blame where it belongs-and the Times finally does here, buried deep in the article: "Indeed, this was the situation for the unfortunate man who found himself working at the Valley Stream Wal-Mart at 5 a.m. Friday, a temp at a company emblematic of low wages and weak benefits, earning his dollars by trying to police an unruly crowd worried about missing out."
The United Food and Commercial Workers, the Retail Wholesale Department Store Workers, and the Alliance, have been leading the fight against Wal-Mart's abysmal record on worker rights. The tragedy last week underscores why the Wal-Mart workers need to be organized; it doesn't symbolize all that's wrong with America as a country.
Hail, Hail, The Gang's All Here
Well, well, Liz B is reporting that Tom Golisano may be looking to play a roll in the state senate kerfuffle: "Just when you thought this Gang of Three thing couldn't get any stranger...It appears Tom Golisano wasn't kidding when he said he intends to remain an active force in reshaping the state Legislature, particularly when it comes to the Senate, control of which has been hanging by a thread since the Nov. 4 elections. A source close to Golisano confirms the Rochester-based Paychex billionaire has been chatting with the Gang of Three and is working on putting together a face-to-face meeting with its members - perhaps as early as tomorrow."
But as Liz puts it: "It's unclear what, exactly, Golisano is up to here." What is true, however, is that Golisano has put governmental reform at the top of his agenda-something that Senator Kruger has also listed as a priority: "My source noted that the Gang of Three has been talking of late about power-sharing and breaking the longstanding tradition of majority rule in the Senate, which is something that Golisano, who is big into government reform, appreciates."
What's fascinating here, is the disbelief that Kruger's able to generate when talking about governmental reform-for some folks he just doesn't fit the Upper West Side poster boy image of what passes for reform in NYC. But we've been around long enough to see through the ersatz reform posters; those posing as reformers almost always end up posterizing a gullible public. So, in our view, if David Paterson can morph into a fiscal conservative, than Carl Kruger can certainly champion healthy legislative change-the proof will be in the pudding here.
And, as he tells the Observer's Jimmy Vielkind: "What is Joe Lieberman in the United States Senate, is he a Republican or a Democrat?" Kruger asked. I replied he was an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. "I like to think that at the end of the day when we go into the washroom and we close the door and look into the mirror, we all want to think that we're independent." With the decline of conviction in the state senate, we challenge any one to chastise Kruger for his political independence.
Which doesn't mean that politics will no longer be allowed. As the Observer points out, Kruger has been very generous with his own campaign contributions-at least as far as the governor and the gang is concerned: "A week before the election, State Senator Carl Kruger sent thousands of dollars to fellow members of the now "gang of three" senators, election filings released this week show. State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. received $4,000 on October 27, on top of a $1,000 contribution in August. Kruger also sent $5,000 to State Senator Pedro Espada Jr., the other member of the gang of three, in October."
Any real political reform will need all of the allies it can muster-which means that money will always be an issue; unless, of course, you are the mayor who can posture as a reformer while he practices the hardest of hard ball politics.
But as Liz puts it: "It's unclear what, exactly, Golisano is up to here." What is true, however, is that Golisano has put governmental reform at the top of his agenda-something that Senator Kruger has also listed as a priority: "My source noted that the Gang of Three has been talking of late about power-sharing and breaking the longstanding tradition of majority rule in the Senate, which is something that Golisano, who is big into government reform, appreciates."
What's fascinating here, is the disbelief that Kruger's able to generate when talking about governmental reform-for some folks he just doesn't fit the Upper West Side poster boy image of what passes for reform in NYC. But we've been around long enough to see through the ersatz reform posters; those posing as reformers almost always end up posterizing a gullible public. So, in our view, if David Paterson can morph into a fiscal conservative, than Carl Kruger can certainly champion healthy legislative change-the proof will be in the pudding here.
And, as he tells the Observer's Jimmy Vielkind: "What is Joe Lieberman in the United States Senate, is he a Republican or a Democrat?" Kruger asked. I replied he was an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. "I like to think that at the end of the day when we go into the washroom and we close the door and look into the mirror, we all want to think that we're independent." With the decline of conviction in the state senate, we challenge any one to chastise Kruger for his political independence.
Which doesn't mean that politics will no longer be allowed. As the Observer points out, Kruger has been very generous with his own campaign contributions-at least as far as the governor and the gang is concerned: "A week before the election, State Senator Carl Kruger sent thousands of dollars to fellow members of the now "gang of three" senators, election filings released this week show. State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. received $4,000 on October 27, on top of a $1,000 contribution in August. Kruger also sent $5,000 to State Senator Pedro Espada Jr., the other member of the gang of three, in October."
Any real political reform will need all of the allies it can muster-which means that money will always be an issue; unless, of course, you are the mayor who can posture as a reformer while he practices the hardest of hard ball politics.
Bloomberg: "We Can Do Better"
In this week's Observer, there's an interesting Mike Bloomberg story that details his "coming down to earth." Apparently he's moving from the sublime of national aspirations, to the ridiculousness of local politics:
"Mayor Michael Bloomberg has returned to planet Earth. With a white-cheeked gibbon swinging from branch to branch and a Malayan Tapir drooping its head over a muddy puddle behind him at the Bronx Zoo, on Nov. 24, Mr. Bloomberg explained why, after all the talk over the last couple of years about the stratospheric national offices he could fill, New York needed him for another term.
"We can improve our schools, but we can do better," Mr. Bloomberg told The Observer during a press conference in the zoo's misty jungle world wing, where staff filled the empty seats between a handful of reporters. "We can diversify our economy, but we can always do better. We can help people get a job and have the dignity of being self-supported, but there's always more to help."
We kinda like the slogan, "We can always do better," and would suggest it to both Anthony Weiner and Bill Thompson; because the question here is, just how well has the mayor actually done?-and, does he merit an extension? These are questions that the Observer eschews-continuing with a form of celebrity copulation that has allowed Bloomberg to skate on so many of the city's key issues.
The paper does, however, puncture the notion that any one else really wanted His Eminence; and that his return to NYC was anything but the lack of any other public platform: "But to hear Mr. Bloomberg's present and former aides tell it, the mayor's decision was a selfless one, necessitated by a sense of duty rather than a lack of options."
So, left with no choice, He returns; and He does so only because of his commitment to serve: "He willingly sacrificed a legacy of unprecedented competence and popularity in order to continue to serve the city. He could have gone back to his company and expanded his empire, they say, or flown into Washington like a financial Superman. "The easiest thing would be to leave and rest on those laurels," said Bill Cunningham, a longtime adviser to Mr. Bloomberg and his former communications director. "He looked around at what's looming for the city and made the decision that he would try to change the law."
Sure, sure-what baloney; the reality here is that Mike Bloomberg has a real power jones, one that is accompanied by a continuing need to have the kind of public attention that elevates his out sized ego. In fact, given the city's prospects we would almost wish a third term on the man: "More importantly, though, the politics of a third term-to the extent that politics were a factor in the decision-simply don't compute. The economy is going to stink, forcing the mayor to execute an unending stream of painful and unpopular budget-balancing maneuvers. The strong-arm move to avoid a referendum and overturn term limits in the City Council has injured, perhaps irreparably, the extra-political brand Mr. Bloomberg had built."
Watching Mike Bloomberg struggle in a third term stimulates the kind of mixed feelings that are said to characterize watching your mother-in-law go over a cliff in your brand new Caddy. It would be pleasant, until you realized it was the city you love that went over the cliff.
"Mayor Michael Bloomberg has returned to planet Earth. With a white-cheeked gibbon swinging from branch to branch and a Malayan Tapir drooping its head over a muddy puddle behind him at the Bronx Zoo, on Nov. 24, Mr. Bloomberg explained why, after all the talk over the last couple of years about the stratospheric national offices he could fill, New York needed him for another term.
"We can improve our schools, but we can do better," Mr. Bloomberg told The Observer during a press conference in the zoo's misty jungle world wing, where staff filled the empty seats between a handful of reporters. "We can diversify our economy, but we can always do better. We can help people get a job and have the dignity of being self-supported, but there's always more to help."
We kinda like the slogan, "We can always do better," and would suggest it to both Anthony Weiner and Bill Thompson; because the question here is, just how well has the mayor actually done?-and, does he merit an extension? These are questions that the Observer eschews-continuing with a form of celebrity copulation that has allowed Bloomberg to skate on so many of the city's key issues.
The paper does, however, puncture the notion that any one else really wanted His Eminence; and that his return to NYC was anything but the lack of any other public platform: "But to hear Mr. Bloomberg's present and former aides tell it, the mayor's decision was a selfless one, necessitated by a sense of duty rather than a lack of options."
So, left with no choice, He returns; and He does so only because of his commitment to serve: "He willingly sacrificed a legacy of unprecedented competence and popularity in order to continue to serve the city. He could have gone back to his company and expanded his empire, they say, or flown into Washington like a financial Superman. "The easiest thing would be to leave and rest on those laurels," said Bill Cunningham, a longtime adviser to Mr. Bloomberg and his former communications director. "He looked around at what's looming for the city and made the decision that he would try to change the law."
Sure, sure-what baloney; the reality here is that Mike Bloomberg has a real power jones, one that is accompanied by a continuing need to have the kind of public attention that elevates his out sized ego. In fact, given the city's prospects we would almost wish a third term on the man: "More importantly, though, the politics of a third term-to the extent that politics were a factor in the decision-simply don't compute. The economy is going to stink, forcing the mayor to execute an unending stream of painful and unpopular budget-balancing maneuvers. The strong-arm move to avoid a referendum and overturn term limits in the City Council has injured, perhaps irreparably, the extra-political brand Mr. Bloomberg had built."
Watching Mike Bloomberg struggle in a third term stimulates the kind of mixed feelings that are said to characterize watching your mother-in-law go over a cliff in your brand new Caddy. It would be pleasant, until you realized it was the city you love that went over the cliff.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Yanking the Bronx's Chain
As we commented on yesterday, the city's obsession with luxury boxes at Yankee Stadium stands in sharp contrast with its utter lack of concern about more important public policy concerns-like the absconded park land in the South Bronx. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, in an article appropriately titled, "The Yankees will play, but for now, kids won't:" "While the Yankees will soon have two baseball stadiums at their disposal, the community whose parks were absorbed for the new stadium could be left without any regulation ballfield in the neighborhood for a year or more."
And this comes after Bronx BP Carrion pledged that there would be no loss of local parkland use-after, that is, he strong armed the approval of the new stadium: "Borough President Adolfo Carrión, a strong backer of the stadium project, made clear from the outset that his support hinged on the city's assurance that the neighborhood would have uninterrupted access to interim park facilities in the area. In October, Carrión wrote to city officials complaining that the construction schedule would also close the interim running track - which now wraps around the interim baseball field - when work begins on Garage C, and it won't be fully replaced until the rooftop park on Garage A is finished in late 2009."
Is this the same guy that PE Obama wants in his cabinet? Perhaps it will be Secretary of the Interior. The bottom line here is that the local neighborhood got shafted-abandoned not only by an elitist mayor, but by its own elected officials who were more eager to toady to the Yankees than simply do the job they were elected to do-protect the public interest.
And this comes after Bronx BP Carrion pledged that there would be no loss of local parkland use-after, that is, he strong armed the approval of the new stadium: "Borough President Adolfo Carrión, a strong backer of the stadium project, made clear from the outset that his support hinged on the city's assurance that the neighborhood would have uninterrupted access to interim park facilities in the area. In October, Carrión wrote to city officials complaining that the construction schedule would also close the interim running track - which now wraps around the interim baseball field - when work begins on Garage C, and it won't be fully replaced until the rooftop park on Garage A is finished in late 2009."
Is this the same guy that PE Obama wants in his cabinet? Perhaps it will be Secretary of the Interior. The bottom line here is that the local neighborhood got shafted-abandoned not only by an elitist mayor, but by its own elected officials who were more eager to toady to the Yankees than simply do the job they were elected to do-protect the public interest.
Wal-Mart Worker's Needless Demise
The official verdict is now in on the death of a Wal-Mart worker on Black Friday-the poor man was asphyxiated when he was trampled to death by an out-of-control mob of shoppers. As the NY Daily News reports: "The Wal-Mart worker killed in a Black Friday stampede died of asphyxiation after being trampled by frenzied shoppers, an autopsy revealed Monday.
Jdimytai Damour, 34, of Queens, was crushed in the vestibule of the huge store when 2,000 frenzied bargain hunters surged forward, Nassau County Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey said. "He was in fact trampled to death in the most unfortunate way," Mulvey said."
In our view-admittedly not the most unbiased since we have been stymieing the Walmonster at every turn-the death of Mr. Damour dramatizes just why, as the UFCW and the RWDSU have been fighting and organizing for, the workers at Wal-Mart stores desperately need to have their rights protected. It's not only about wages and benefits when it comes to fighting for the rights of workers at the world's largest retailer.
In other cases around the country, we have seen how Wal-Mart has exhibited little concern for the health and safety of either its employees or its customers-sometimes locking them into the store all night in the guise of store security: "Wal-Mart admitted they have no company-wide written policy on store security for the general public or for its parking lots relating to “third-party criminal attacks” (Rosalinda Fernandez vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Deposition of Dave Gorman, March 26th, 1998)."
The company's lax attitude towards safety and crime is one of the most compelling reasons why the Monsey community rejected the Walmonster earlier this year when it looked to open a supercenter in that Rockland community. And the incident in Nassau County underscores the company's cavalier attitude towards safety-something that officials such as Nassau County Police Commissioner Mulvey are recognizing: "Mulvey called security lapses at the store a "recipe for disaster." "There was not enough security, proper security," Mulvey said. Authorities said it is unlikely that any shoppers will be charged, but were looking into potential liability on the store's part. Cops had met with Wal-Mart and mall officials before Black Friday and offered suggestions to enhance security. Mulvey said the store failed to erect barricades or implement other measures that could have held back the surging crowd."
As the NY post points out, there was a lot going on in the parking lot prior to the stampede-another indication that the store doesn't pay attention to what goes on right outside its doors: "In another development, a 14-year-old girl said yesterday she was punched in the face and knocked to the ground at the Wal-Mart about an hour before the stampede, when she tried to calm a woman who got upset because people in the crowd bumped into her. Alicia Sgro said the woman punched her and her aunt in the face. "I fell down, she pulled my hair and pulled me up by my hair," the teen said. She said her arm and nose were broken when she fell."
So let the litigation begin-and the lawyers are lining up to not only sue the store, but Nassau County as well. As Newsday points out: "The news ca
Jdimytai Damour, 34, of Queens, was crushed in the vestibule of the huge store when 2,000 frenzied bargain hunters surged forward, Nassau County Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey said. "He was in fact trampled to death in the most unfortunate way," Mulvey said."
In our view-admittedly not the most unbiased since we have been stymieing the Walmonster at every turn-the death of Mr. Damour dramatizes just why, as the UFCW and the RWDSU have been fighting and organizing for, the workers at Wal-Mart stores desperately need to have their rights protected. It's not only about wages and benefits when it comes to fighting for the rights of workers at the world's largest retailer.
In other cases around the country, we have seen how Wal-Mart has exhibited little concern for the health and safety of either its employees or its customers-sometimes locking them into the store all night in the guise of store security: "Wal-Mart admitted they have no company-wide written policy on store security for the general public or for its parking lots relating to “third-party criminal attacks” (Rosalinda Fernandez vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Deposition of Dave Gorman, March 26th, 1998)."
The company's lax attitude towards safety and crime is one of the most compelling reasons why the Monsey community rejected the Walmonster earlier this year when it looked to open a supercenter in that Rockland community. And the incident in Nassau County underscores the company's cavalier attitude towards safety-something that officials such as Nassau County Police Commissioner Mulvey are recognizing: "Mulvey called security lapses at the store a "recipe for disaster." "There was not enough security, proper security," Mulvey said. Authorities said it is unlikely that any shoppers will be charged, but were looking into potential liability on the store's part. Cops had met with Wal-Mart and mall officials before Black Friday and offered suggestions to enhance security. Mulvey said the store failed to erect barricades or implement other measures that could have held back the surging crowd."
As the NY post points out, there was a lot going on in the parking lot prior to the stampede-another indication that the store doesn't pay attention to what goes on right outside its doors: "In another development, a 14-year-old girl said yesterday she was punched in the face and knocked to the ground at the Wal-Mart about an hour before the stampede, when she tried to calm a woman who got upset because people in the crowd bumped into her. Alicia Sgro said the woman punched her and her aunt in the face. "I fell down, she pulled my hair and pulled me up by my hair," the teen said. She said her arm and nose were broken when she fell."
So let the litigation begin-and the lawyers are lining up to not only sue the store, but Nassau County as well. As Newsday points out: "The news ca