The NYC effort to conduct an experiment on food stamp recipients may not be a slam dunk-at least according to this NY Times report: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg may face legal and political hurdles in carrying out his ambitious plan to bar food-stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy sugar-sweetened drinks, food policy experts said Thursday."
It appears that the initiative might need congressional approval: "New York City on Wednesday asked the United States Department of Agriculture for permission to conduct a two-year experiment barring the city’s 1.7 million users of food stamps from spending them on soda and other beverages with added sugar. But experts said that the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to grant such permission, and that the proposal would require Congress to change laws governing the food-stamp program."
What do suppose these scientific mavens will be able to determine in a two year time frame? The problem with experiments of these kinds is that they lack the ability to control for other intervening variables-humans being a historically unruly lot. But, what the heck, why not do it anyway and see if we can find out more than we did when the failed menu labeling experiment was initiated by the previous commissioner of health.
When it was documented by the city's own study that calorie posting had really no effect on the targeted obese fast food customer, the DOH didn't call the whole thing off-nor did it ever try to determine what kind of extra costs the measure was imposing on fast food franchise operators (many of whom are minority entrepreneurs). So, the soda restrictions will likely prove nothing but the ability of the government to regulate behavior.
And let's be clear, this regulation is for the uninformed lower class fools-not for the smart guys who work for Bloomberg's own company; as the Times reports: "Bloomberg L.P., the media and financial information company founded by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, has one perk its employees almost universally love: free snacks. At the sixth-floor pantry in its glossy Upper East Side headquarters, employees can pick from a health-conscious menu of celery sticks, bananas, freshly made peanut butter and 100-calorie snack packs. There is also free Coke, Pepsi, orange Fanta, ginger ale and Mountain Dew — exactly the types of drinks Mr. Bloomberg this week said he wanted to prohibit poor New Yorkers from buying with their food stamps."
As the Times notes, the mayor doesn't only chew from both sides of his mouth: "It is hardly the first time that Mr. Bloomberg’s policies as New York City’s health mayor have come into conflict with his personal eating habits, or, in this case, nutritional options at a place he is closely associated with. He is known for negotiating voluntary reductions in salt by food companies, and putting salt on his own saltine crackers; for fighting rising obesity among his constituents, and for serving comfort food like grilled hot dogs and ice cream sundaes at his town house."
But the mayor does put this effort into the right context-it's about cost controls over those who are receiving government largess: "At a news conference on Thursday where he announced that he was requesting federal permission for a two-year ban on the use of food stamps for sugared drinks, Mr. Bloomberg talked about the “enormous correlation” between those drinks and obesity and diabetes, and asserted that taxpayers did not want to subsidize bad nutrition."
So, as we have said, the danger here is not the correlation between obesity and the consumption of soda; but between government subsidies and government control over behavior-and the more someone else is paying for your health benefits, or controlling the size and scope of these benefits, the more it will impose parameters on what is considered acceptable behavior. It goes without saying, that acceptable parameters are always accompanied by a lengthy set of rules and bureaucrats to enforce them.
Is soda the best thing for overweight folks to consume? Of course it isn't-but neither are Hostess Twinkies and Moon Pies. To truly control intake, a wider net will have to be cast; but rest assured that those being schooled in the Bloomberg University Public Health will be prepared when the next wave of health regulatory expansionism is ushered in.
Think not? Well, here's the scary part-Bloomberg thinks of himself as a progressive pioneer in this area: "New York City officials said they are confident that their request to the federal government for a two-year ban on using food stamps to buy sweetened drinks will be approved and ultimately adopted nationwide. "If New York does it and it works, the rest of the world copies,'' Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a news conference Thursday attended by Gov. David Paterson and other officials."
In our view, while the upcoming election cycle is dominated by economic concerns, there is also an underlying worry about the way in which the past two years of government expansion has the real potential to curtail liberty-particularly in the health care schemata that was passed this year. The Bloomberg efforts to regulate and tax health choices and behaviors is the friendly face of an effort that is fraught with danger for those of us who still believe in the sanctity of individual freedom of choice.
If there is a November rebuke to this progressive mindset, than perhaps the mayor's view of NYC's path breaking status will prove to just another example of false prophecy. Stay tuned.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Errol of His Ways
In yesterday's NY Daily News, columnist Errol Louis-relying on an unsubstantiated charge from a left wing web site-slammed the US Chamber of Commerce for using foreign money to help fund its election cycle ads: "ThinkProgress has slammed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for raising funds from foreign businesses and businessmen at the same time it has promised to buy $75 million worth of attack ads to help elect Republicans on Nov. 2."
Well, perhaps Louis submitted his piece before the following NY Times story thoroughly debunked the web site's claims: "But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents. In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance."
Ouch! From the Times, no less, the paper that has made Citizen's United a cause célèbre. Louis also fails to mention that there are plenty of other entities that are international in scope-the SEIU for one-that also gets dues or other sources of foreign money and also involve themselves in election advocacy ads.
But the most egregious admission, in our view, is the still unexamined reception by the 2008 Obama campaign of foreign credit card donations: "The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been and may still be accepting credit-card and prepaid-card contributions from overseas. It has done so in a way that may very likely prevent it from refunding the contributions to “donors,” many of whom may have had their credit cards used without their consent. It’s virtually impossible that the system for accepting card contributions was inadvertently set up without adequate controls, and almost certain that existing controls were instead deliberately disabled to create untraceability. Finally, it is likely that the total dollar amounts involved run in millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars."
Now these were direct donations to the candidate himself-and that makes his use of the Chamber of Commerce as a bogeyman particularly offensive-not to mention hypocritical. The Chamber is being singled out in this election cycle precisely because of the need that Democrats have to change the subject-away from their record, and on to nefarious straw men that they hope will help diffuse the current high level of voter dissatisfaction. Errol Louis, however, should have been more circumspect about swallowing whole the tendentious suppositions of partisans.
Addendum
Over at Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson goes after the president for his blatant hypocrisy-and links the old Credance Clearwater Revival ditty, "Before You Accuse Me, Take a Look at Yourself." Read the whole thing.
Well, perhaps Louis submitted his piece before the following NY Times story thoroughly debunked the web site's claims: "But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents. In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance."
Ouch! From the Times, no less, the paper that has made Citizen's United a cause célèbre. Louis also fails to mention that there are plenty of other entities that are international in scope-the SEIU for one-that also gets dues or other sources of foreign money and also involve themselves in election advocacy ads.
But the most egregious admission, in our view, is the still unexamined reception by the 2008 Obama campaign of foreign credit card donations: "The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been and may still be accepting credit-card and prepaid-card contributions from overseas. It has done so in a way that may very likely prevent it from refunding the contributions to “donors,” many of whom may have had their credit cards used without their consent. It’s virtually impossible that the system for accepting card contributions was inadvertently set up without adequate controls, and almost certain that existing controls were instead deliberately disabled to create untraceability. Finally, it is likely that the total dollar amounts involved run in millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars."
Now these were direct donations to the candidate himself-and that makes his use of the Chamber of Commerce as a bogeyman particularly offensive-not to mention hypocritical. The Chamber is being singled out in this election cycle precisely because of the need that Democrats have to change the subject-away from their record, and on to nefarious straw men that they hope will help diffuse the current high level of voter dissatisfaction. Errol Louis, however, should have been more circumspect about swallowing whole the tendentious suppositions of partisans.
Addendum
Over at Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson goes after the president for his blatant hypocrisy-and links the old Credance Clearwater Revival ditty, "Before You Accuse Me, Take a Look at Yourself." Read the whole thing.
Government's Red Tapeworm
We started in the lobbying business just about thirty years ago right after receiving a doctorate in political science. Coming right out of the academy, we don't need to tell you that our view of business was not a laudatory one-but in defending Mom and Pop beer distributors and immigrant owned food stores, we began to, let's say, evolve in our outlook. We saw first hand just how much effort it took to start up a small business and run it successfully-and especially so in NYC where it seemed that there was a conscious effort on the part of government to strangle entrepreneurism in its womb.
And so it has gone for the better party of three decades, as we have stood up for the beleaguered little guys when it comes to, not only excessive taxation and over-regulation, but the proliferation of subsidized mega retail development that would-if left unchecked-suffocate the neighborhood commerce that makes this city so interesting and unique. In the process, we have helped to stifle Giuliani inspired rezoning for mega stores, helped to keep Wal-Mart at bay on the city's outskirts, and successfully stymied some of the regulatory urges that government periodically unleashes in NYC.
We have also gotten quite an education-and the learning process has given us a unique perspective on the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit; and the role that American exceptionalism plays in its nurturing. In NYC we see immigrants from all over the globe-coming from some of the most culturally stagnant backwaters-blossom as successful business men and women. It couldn't happen in their homelands, but it certainly can happen here-and it does quite often.
But make no mistake about it, the culture that nurtures Dominican and Mexican bodega owners and restaurateurs, and at the same time allows Arab tobacco store owners and Caribbean fruit store owners to prosper, is definitely under siege. And it is a sea of red tape at all levels of government that threatens to stifle this creative entrepreneurial impulse.
In yesterday's NY Daily News, Phillip Howard makes the case, and underscores why small business is particularly at risk: "Government is broken and the economy is gasping. The reason is the same: Americans no longer feel free to roll up their sleeves and make the choices needed to fix things. Governors come to office and find that 90% of the budget is pre-committed to entitlements and mandates enacted by politicians long dead. Teachers no longer have authority to maintain order in the classroom. Legal mandates and entitlements have accumulated, like sediment in the harbor, until it is almost impossible for Americans to get anywhere without trudging through a treacherous legal swamp. Only big businesses, not small entrepreneurs, have the size (and legal staffs) to power through the legal sludge."
The regulatory and tax environment is toxic for business growth: "Instead, the land of opportunity is more like legal quicksand. Small business owners face legal challenges at every step. Municipalities requires multiple and often nonsensical forms to do business. Labor laws expose them to legal threats by any disgruntled employee. Mandates to provide costly employment benefits impose high hurdles to hiring new employees. Well-meaning but impossibly complex laws impose requirements to prevent consumer fraud, provide disability access, prevent hiring illegal immigrants, display warnings and notices and prevent scores of other potential evils. The tax code is incomprehensible. All of this requires legal and other overhead - costing 50% more per employee for small businesses than big businesses."
We have made this same point ad nauseum in regards to NYC-and it seems that the regulatory demi-urge is most persistent here. We have fruit stand owners being charged over $1,000 in fines because water melons extended slightly over the legal five foot stoop stand limit; and we have supermarket owners tagged for $1500 fines if the light over the exit has burned out. Just recently, a state senator told us of a bakery owner in the district that was fined $1600 for failing to put flour down a as covering when he was kneading the dough for his bread.
The entire inspection regime, as Steve Malanga documented so well in the City Journal, is a stacked deck-with a kangaroo court at the end of the process. Think of your effort to get a parking ticket rescinded at a PVB tribunal and you get the picture of the nightmare that small business is put through on a regular basis-as Gotham Gazette highlights: "With parking tickets, one issue revolves around the ability to plead "not guilty." New Yorkers can fight parking tickets, but until the final decision is rendered, they will be presumed guilty of letting the meter run out, parking on the wrong side of the street on alternative side parking days or having incorrectly interpreted the often confusing signs that mark streets in many of the city's businesses district."
And one lawyer's observation about parking tickets is analogous to the daunting task that a neighborhood retailer has when faced with fighting a ticket he or she feels is unjust: The Parking Violations Bureau adjudicated 1.27 million parking summons at in-person hearings in 2009, according to Dennis Boshnack, a Queens attorney with expertise in parking violations cases and a former Parking Violations Bureau administrative law judge or hearing officer. Writing in the New York Law Journal, Boshnack maintains that most drivers give up their fight because they are representing themselves and cannot continue litigation alone and/or pay lawyer's fees that can easily cost more than the fine itself. The small amounts of money involved in individual cases make suing the Parking Violations Bureau "unaffordable or impractical."
But fines are just one aspect of the obstacles faced by small business. Think of the scores of regulatory agencies that oversee business operations in this city-and the myriad of permits necessary just to open one's door. That is why we have fought the cigarette signage regulation-city grocery stores are threatening to be turned into municipal billboards, with permits and "consumer advisories" adorning walls where advertisements for the products sold should be seen.
Which brings us to the proposed sick leave bill that has cause a bit of a stir. City small business is in a severe crisis-as many of the sponsors of the paid sick leave bill realize since they are also sponsoring the Small Business Survival Act. Stores are going bankrupt in record numbers, and the current mayor has done little to address this crisis. National health care is creating additional expensive mandates that large corporations such as McDonald have the wherewith all to get exempted from, but small retailers don't. The repeal of tax cuts on the so-called wealthy will negatively impact small businesses as well.
In this climate, adding an additional expense to smaller firms is both unfair and risky-risky in the sense that it may lead to the reduction of employment at a time when city incomes are falling and jobs are scarce. But the expense goes beyond the workers, because the law sets up a right of action that will further put small business at legal risk-and they are already laboring under expensive workman's comp laws and regulations; not to mention the slip and fall litigation brought by savvy customers.
What we have suggested is that a full cost benefit analysis be done on the legislation-with a particular emphasis on its impact on the small business sector. By all means don't take the NYC Partnership study as gospel, but our experience suggests that an independent evaluation would provide the city council with a cautionary tale.
Fighting on behalf of small neighborhood businesses over the past three decades has been a rewarding experience-as has the more recent fights on behalf of labor and living wage (see our explanation of this in the retrospective we did on the Kingsbridge Armory battle). In the case of Wal-Mart, we see that the interests of small business and labor converge-and the attempts to divide us on the sick leave issue only hurts the need for a united front against the world's largest retail corporation-whose presence is both bad for workers, and devastating to surrounding smaller retailers.
Let's also remember that the one man who stands tall, not only against paid sick leave, but living wage and the Small Business Survival Act as well, is NYC's Mayor Mike Bloomberg. It's always good to realize just who your genuine enemies are when preparing to go to battle. But the real obstacle-and this effects both small business and labor-is NYC's lousy business environment-one that stymies growth and hurts workers at the same time.
During the current economic crisis-and with a Wal-Mart invasion looming large-it is time for all of us to confront and resist the age old tactic of divide and conquer. We have enough real enemies without having to create them from within our own ranks. Above all, we need to avoid Pogo's wise observation concerning a trash filled swamp: "YEP, SON, WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US."
And so it has gone for the better party of three decades, as we have stood up for the beleaguered little guys when it comes to, not only excessive taxation and over-regulation, but the proliferation of subsidized mega retail development that would-if left unchecked-suffocate the neighborhood commerce that makes this city so interesting and unique. In the process, we have helped to stifle Giuliani inspired rezoning for mega stores, helped to keep Wal-Mart at bay on the city's outskirts, and successfully stymied some of the regulatory urges that government periodically unleashes in NYC.
We have also gotten quite an education-and the learning process has given us a unique perspective on the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit; and the role that American exceptionalism plays in its nurturing. In NYC we see immigrants from all over the globe-coming from some of the most culturally stagnant backwaters-blossom as successful business men and women. It couldn't happen in their homelands, but it certainly can happen here-and it does quite often.
But make no mistake about it, the culture that nurtures Dominican and Mexican bodega owners and restaurateurs, and at the same time allows Arab tobacco store owners and Caribbean fruit store owners to prosper, is definitely under siege. And it is a sea of red tape at all levels of government that threatens to stifle this creative entrepreneurial impulse.
In yesterday's NY Daily News, Phillip Howard makes the case, and underscores why small business is particularly at risk: "Government is broken and the economy is gasping. The reason is the same: Americans no longer feel free to roll up their sleeves and make the choices needed to fix things. Governors come to office and find that 90% of the budget is pre-committed to entitlements and mandates enacted by politicians long dead. Teachers no longer have authority to maintain order in the classroom. Legal mandates and entitlements have accumulated, like sediment in the harbor, until it is almost impossible for Americans to get anywhere without trudging through a treacherous legal swamp. Only big businesses, not small entrepreneurs, have the size (and legal staffs) to power through the legal sludge."
The regulatory and tax environment is toxic for business growth: "Instead, the land of opportunity is more like legal quicksand. Small business owners face legal challenges at every step. Municipalities requires multiple and often nonsensical forms to do business. Labor laws expose them to legal threats by any disgruntled employee. Mandates to provide costly employment benefits impose high hurdles to hiring new employees. Well-meaning but impossibly complex laws impose requirements to prevent consumer fraud, provide disability access, prevent hiring illegal immigrants, display warnings and notices and prevent scores of other potential evils. The tax code is incomprehensible. All of this requires legal and other overhead - costing 50% more per employee for small businesses than big businesses."
We have made this same point ad nauseum in regards to NYC-and it seems that the regulatory demi-urge is most persistent here. We have fruit stand owners being charged over $1,000 in fines because water melons extended slightly over the legal five foot stoop stand limit; and we have supermarket owners tagged for $1500 fines if the light over the exit has burned out. Just recently, a state senator told us of a bakery owner in the district that was fined $1600 for failing to put flour down a as covering when he was kneading the dough for his bread.
The entire inspection regime, as Steve Malanga documented so well in the City Journal, is a stacked deck-with a kangaroo court at the end of the process. Think of your effort to get a parking ticket rescinded at a PVB tribunal and you get the picture of the nightmare that small business is put through on a regular basis-as Gotham Gazette highlights: "With parking tickets, one issue revolves around the ability to plead "not guilty." New Yorkers can fight parking tickets, but until the final decision is rendered, they will be presumed guilty of letting the meter run out, parking on the wrong side of the street on alternative side parking days or having incorrectly interpreted the often confusing signs that mark streets in many of the city's businesses district."
And one lawyer's observation about parking tickets is analogous to the daunting task that a neighborhood retailer has when faced with fighting a ticket he or she feels is unjust: The Parking Violations Bureau adjudicated 1.27 million parking summons at in-person hearings in 2009, according to Dennis Boshnack, a Queens attorney with expertise in parking violations cases and a former Parking Violations Bureau administrative law judge or hearing officer. Writing in the New York Law Journal, Boshnack maintains that most drivers give up their fight because they are representing themselves and cannot continue litigation alone and/or pay lawyer's fees that can easily cost more than the fine itself. The small amounts of money involved in individual cases make suing the Parking Violations Bureau "unaffordable or impractical."
But fines are just one aspect of the obstacles faced by small business. Think of the scores of regulatory agencies that oversee business operations in this city-and the myriad of permits necessary just to open one's door. That is why we have fought the cigarette signage regulation-city grocery stores are threatening to be turned into municipal billboards, with permits and "consumer advisories" adorning walls where advertisements for the products sold should be seen.
Which brings us to the proposed sick leave bill that has cause a bit of a stir. City small business is in a severe crisis-as many of the sponsors of the paid sick leave bill realize since they are also sponsoring the Small Business Survival Act. Stores are going bankrupt in record numbers, and the current mayor has done little to address this crisis. National health care is creating additional expensive mandates that large corporations such as McDonald have the wherewith all to get exempted from, but small retailers don't. The repeal of tax cuts on the so-called wealthy will negatively impact small businesses as well.
In this climate, adding an additional expense to smaller firms is both unfair and risky-risky in the sense that it may lead to the reduction of employment at a time when city incomes are falling and jobs are scarce. But the expense goes beyond the workers, because the law sets up a right of action that will further put small business at legal risk-and they are already laboring under expensive workman's comp laws and regulations; not to mention the slip and fall litigation brought by savvy customers.
What we have suggested is that a full cost benefit analysis be done on the legislation-with a particular emphasis on its impact on the small business sector. By all means don't take the NYC Partnership study as gospel, but our experience suggests that an independent evaluation would provide the city council with a cautionary tale.
Fighting on behalf of small neighborhood businesses over the past three decades has been a rewarding experience-as has the more recent fights on behalf of labor and living wage (see our explanation of this in the retrospective we did on the Kingsbridge Armory battle). In the case of Wal-Mart, we see that the interests of small business and labor converge-and the attempts to divide us on the sick leave issue only hurts the need for a united front against the world's largest retail corporation-whose presence is both bad for workers, and devastating to surrounding smaller retailers.
Let's also remember that the one man who stands tall, not only against paid sick leave, but living wage and the Small Business Survival Act as well, is NYC's Mayor Mike Bloomberg. It's always good to realize just who your genuine enemies are when preparing to go to battle. But the real obstacle-and this effects both small business and labor-is NYC's lousy business environment-one that stymies growth and hurts workers at the same time.
During the current economic crisis-and with a Wal-Mart invasion looming large-it is time for all of us to confront and resist the age old tactic of divide and conquer. We have enough real enemies without having to create them from within our own ranks. Above all, we need to avoid Pogo's wise observation concerning a trash filled swamp: "YEP, SON, WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US."
Friday, October 08, 2010
Waiving Health Regulations
Our view of the worthiness of ObamaCare is colored by our overarching concern with the grotesque expansion of the federal government into the most intimate areas of our everyday lives-and the expanding number of mandates and government bureaus underscores this fear. The one single government official who symbolizes the expanding health edifice is HHS Secretary Sibelius; since the two thousand page bill leaves a lot up to her bureaucratic imagination and authority.
The Foundry tells the story here: "There are over 1,000 instances in the more than 2,700 page bill where Congress granted the Secretary of HHS new powers to regulate the health care industry. For example, the power to determine what does or does not count as a medical expense alone will decide the fate of many health insurance firms."
And exercise her authority she does-granting waivers from health care mandates to a slew of businesses and unions. As the NY Times reports: "As Obama administration officials put into place the first major wave of changes under the health care legislation, they have tried to defuse stiffening resistance — from companies like McDonald’s and some insurers — by granting dozens of waivers to maintain even minimal coverage far below the new law’s standards."
So, since the original bill left so much to be determined through regulations, a huge degree of power was given to Sebelius-and as a result, much of the bill's scope is a function of the ad hoc decisions of the HHS secretary. This, of course, opens up the entire regulatory process to ominous politicization-as the waiver granted to the teacher's union exemplifies. The NY Post points this out: "The United Federation of Teachers -- one of President Obama's key political backers -- is the biggest beneficiary of a White House sweetheart deal that will exempt certain outfits from complying with new health-care rules, officials revealed yesterday. The quietly approved federal waivers for 30 companies, health insurers, unions and other groups across the country means the UFT doesn't have to gradually phase out caps on annual health coverage like everyone else."
But what else the waivers underscore, is how the original bill was laden with unintended consequences-impacts that have led to the kind of private sector uncertainty that is contributing to the current stalled economic growth. But one thing we can be sure of, there will be no waivers for the unconnected little guys; and if small business is the country's economic engine, than ObamaCare is the little engine that couldn't.
Hot Air lays out the issue clearly: "Instead of enforcing the ballyhooed standards and mandates for insurers that Congress passed in ObamaCare, Kathleen Sebelius and the White House blinked in the face of bad press and exempted dozens of companies from the law. If the marketplace had uncertainty before, the administration has made the situation much, much worse..."
So the statement from the president in the run up to the health bill's passage that, if you liked your current coverage you could keep it, is subject to the following caveat: only if the secretary of HHS allows you: "Discretion may be the better part of valor, but it’s not something businesses can rely on for planning purposes. Corporations are already hunkered down because of (take your pick) weak demand, hurt feelings as a result of presidential persecution, or uncertainty over future health-care costs and tax rates. It won’t help business confidence to learn the HHS secretary can make and break rules on a case-by-case basis."
There is a reason why ObamaCare is so wildly unpopular, but unpopularity aside, the real problem is that the law is a danger to our liberties as well as a drag on our entire economy-and a major reason why Democrats are likely to take a blood bath in 25 days. We'll give Hot Air the last word: "First, let’s point out that the law turned out to be unworkable, almost before it even got started. Dictating percentages for administration costs in insurance plans isn’t the job of the federal government anyway, but more to the point, that issue is obviously not determinative in value to the consumer — as these waivers proved. This shows what happens when people with no experience in an industry decide that they can construct it better than the market has structured itself."
The Foundry tells the story here: "There are over 1,000 instances in the more than 2,700 page bill where Congress granted the Secretary of HHS new powers to regulate the health care industry. For example, the power to determine what does or does not count as a medical expense alone will decide the fate of many health insurance firms."
And exercise her authority she does-granting waivers from health care mandates to a slew of businesses and unions. As the NY Times reports: "As Obama administration officials put into place the first major wave of changes under the health care legislation, they have tried to defuse stiffening resistance — from companies like McDonald’s and some insurers — by granting dozens of waivers to maintain even minimal coverage far below the new law’s standards."
So, since the original bill left so much to be determined through regulations, a huge degree of power was given to Sebelius-and as a result, much of the bill's scope is a function of the ad hoc decisions of the HHS secretary. This, of course, opens up the entire regulatory process to ominous politicization-as the waiver granted to the teacher's union exemplifies. The NY Post points this out: "The United Federation of Teachers -- one of President Obama's key political backers -- is the biggest beneficiary of a White House sweetheart deal that will exempt certain outfits from complying with new health-care rules, officials revealed yesterday. The quietly approved federal waivers for 30 companies, health insurers, unions and other groups across the country means the UFT doesn't have to gradually phase out caps on annual health coverage like everyone else."
But what else the waivers underscore, is how the original bill was laden with unintended consequences-impacts that have led to the kind of private sector uncertainty that is contributing to the current stalled economic growth. But one thing we can be sure of, there will be no waivers for the unconnected little guys; and if small business is the country's economic engine, than ObamaCare is the little engine that couldn't.
Hot Air lays out the issue clearly: "Instead of enforcing the ballyhooed standards and mandates for insurers that Congress passed in ObamaCare, Kathleen Sebelius and the White House blinked in the face of bad press and exempted dozens of companies from the law. If the marketplace had uncertainty before, the administration has made the situation much, much worse..."
So the statement from the president in the run up to the health bill's passage that, if you liked your current coverage you could keep it, is subject to the following caveat: only if the secretary of HHS allows you: "Discretion may be the better part of valor, but it’s not something businesses can rely on for planning purposes. Corporations are already hunkered down because of (take your pick) weak demand, hurt feelings as a result of presidential persecution, or uncertainty over future health-care costs and tax rates. It won’t help business confidence to learn the HHS secretary can make and break rules on a case-by-case basis."
There is a reason why ObamaCare is so wildly unpopular, but unpopularity aside, the real problem is that the law is a danger to our liberties as well as a drag on our entire economy-and a major reason why Democrats are likely to take a blood bath in 25 days. We'll give Hot Air the last word: "First, let’s point out that the law turned out to be unworkable, almost before it even got started. Dictating percentages for administration costs in insurance plans isn’t the job of the federal government anyway, but more to the point, that issue is obviously not determinative in value to the consumer — as these waivers proved. This shows what happens when people with no experience in an industry decide that they can construct it better than the market has structured itself."
Rats, Food Waste, and Public Health
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and the one above speaks volumes-starring our good friend Brian Ketcham who caught the bloody creature when it was rummaging through his front yard on Pacific Street. It seems that the rats had been initially attracted by Trader Joe's, around the corner from Brian's house, when the store's garbage disposal system had broken down and waste was left on the street for pick up.
What this dramatizes for us-and we hearken back to the Errol Louis column from last July-is the public health need to find a better methodology for controlling food waste. And, as readers of this blog know well, that methodology is food waste disposers-especially for supermarkets like Trader Joe's.
As we said at the time of the Louis column on the rat epidemic in NY:
"Now Louis, is pointing all this out because he feels that the city needs to bring back its rat patrol force...We see these things a bit differently. After all, bringing in the exterminators is an after the fact kind of operation-and does nothing to root out the root causes. And what is one of those major root causes? The veritable Templeton-like smorgasbord of putrescible waste that the city hasn't found a good way to reduce and/or dispose of. As we have pointed out, the city council has launched yet another quixotic attempt to figure out ways to induce New Yorkers to compost organic waste-a silly waste of money when we have a much more effective methodology at our disposal: food waste disposers.
Food waste disposers would greatly reduce the storage of wet garbage at all of the city's restaurants, green grocers and supermarkets-and would, at the same time, reduce the operating expenses of these vital small businesses in our neighborhoods. Disposers, then, would be an excellent public health initiative that would double as an economic development effort during these tough times."
And the rats are everywhere-as this 2008 story from the Lower East Side tells us:
"I try not to come home late at night anymore,” said City Councilmember Rosie Mendez, who, along with Councilmember Alan Gerson and Community Board 3, sponsored the forum in response to community complaints. “It scares me to see these rats running around and playing by the garbage,” she said. Mendez added that the rats were “The largest growing population in the East Village. Our problem has worsened here because of all the bars and restaurants who put out all their garbage at night. We have more of these establishments then any other community.” Echoing the councilmember’s concern was Susan Stetzer, district manager of Community Board 3. “This problem really is a crisis,” she said. “There are areas where people can’t even cross the street at night because of the rats. This year we didn’t even have the little Halloween parade in Tompkins Square Park for the kids because of all the rats.”
Now the fact that it is Ketcham left holding the rat in our posted picture is quite fortuitous-since it was his wife and partner Carolyn Konheim who conducted the original food waste disposer pilot program in the mid 1990s. The study's conclusions can still be found on the DEP's website, and the results clearly demonstrated that disposers posed no threat to the city's waste water treatment system-despite the bleatings of current DEP bureaucrats. In fact, if we compare Konheim's original work to the self serving drivel in the DEP sponsored disposer study of last year, we can readily see through the fallaciousness of the agency's opposition.
The disposer issue is timely for any number of reasons. In the first place, the city is still looking to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a transfer station on 91st Street. If we can dramatically reduce food waste-in both the private as well as the public sector-will will see a concomitant reduction in the need for the current number of waste transfer stations. As a result, neighborhood truck traffic, as well as garbage truck export traffic, will be reduced-not to mention the amount of stored food waste that attracts the kinds of predatory rats that Ketcham caught. In addition, the commercial transfer stations in many of the city's low income areas will become anachronisms with the elimination of putrescible waste to dispose of.
Which gets us to recycling-and the city's anemic effort since the SWMP was passed five years ago. As everyone in the know, knows, organic waste is the biggest impediment to really raising the recycling rates-as we pointed out five years ago. But instead of adopting a proven food waste disposer methodology, the city council is tying itself into composting knots that will never practically address the food waste issue.
It is time for the city to admit its mistakes on the issue of commercial food waste disposers. The current rat and bed bug epidemic underscores just how imperative it is for NYC to become more innovative and less hidebound in this crucial area of organic garbage. If it does, we will see a dramatic improvement of city recycling and neighborhood public health-and an equally dramatic reduction of garbage exporting. It's past time for the city to start thinking outside of the garbage can.
In Sickness and in Health
In this morning's NY Post, we have the opportunity to strongly voice our opposition to the paid sick leave bill currently being considered at the city council: "It's a bizarre time for the City Council to be considering a bill to force every city business to provide a week or more of paid sick leave to every employee. In a severe recession, the council ought to be examining the collateral damage of yet another costly mandate on employers. With small stores and other firms going bankrupt at record rates, does anyone know what kind of impact this would have on the ability of those businesses to keep their current employees and hire new ones?"
As we have said before, it isn't often that we find ourselves on the side of both the mayor and the NYC Partnership, but when it comes to more government mandates-and during the worst recession in the past fifty years-it is time for the legislators on all levels to cease and desist. This is especially true in NYC where regulations have run amok, and entrepreneurs have succeeded in spite of them: "In representing small businesses all over the city for the last 30 years, I've been fortunate to meet energetic and risk-taking folks from a widely diverse -- and mostly immigrant -- background. These entrepreneurs have revitalized food wholesaling and retailing, bringing moribund neighborhoods back to life with new forms of robust commercial activity. They've done it against all odds in a city business climate that is, charitably, less than hospitable to entrepreneurs."
We have said at other times, when the council has proposed legislation, it is imperative that the legislature try to gauge the impact of the bill before voting on it-and in the case of paid sick leave, if the council members don't like the Partnership's Ernst and Young study, let it sponsor its own: "A study from the NYC Partnership -- the advocate for large businesses -- found the bill would impose costs of $149 million a year on small businesses in the city, hitting the restaurant and construction industries especially hard -- and a total of $789 million a year on all city firms. It warned that some small businesses would have to cut payroll or eliminate other benefits to cover the cost of this mandate. I expect the damage would be worse, while the council members pushing the bill don't buy the partnership study. They are, however, being sanguine without any real due diligence -- and in the face of evidence to the contrary. If they don't trust the study, let them hire a firm independent of the players to gauge the bill's impacts -- and get the report before voting on the potentially harmful measure."
And we need to tip our hat to the mayor here who, at least on this key issue, firmly gets it: "Mayor Bloomberg today called a controversial proposal requiring all private businesses to offer paid sick days “disastrous to New York City.” Asked about a possible compromise being discussed among City Council members, Bloomberg said, “It would be a disaster if the government tries to get in to run small businesses. If they run the bars and restaurants, they'll try to run everything else. This is going down a path which is a terrible, terrible idea and would be disastrous to New York City. Let me remind you, New York City created 10 percent of all of the private sector jobs that have been created this year in the whole country. If you want to lose those jobs and lots of others, you start letting the government run small businesses."
It appears that Council Speaker is looking to water down the sick leave measure to balance the interests of her colleagues with the laws of economics-and good for her: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn may be getting the message: Businesses -- and the local economy overall -- will suffer if the council's sick-leave bill passes. As The Post reports today, Quinn appears to be looking to soften some of the bill's provisions. No doubt she wants to limit the damage, particularly after hearing gripes from businesses about the bill's costs. But why not just scrap it altogether? With the economy struggling, this is hardly the time to impose any new costs on any businesses."
Hopefully, what the council finally decides to do will have less harmful effects on the city's less robust small business sector-the one that hasn't rebounded as well as some of the city's other industries. What no one should want is for legislation designed to help people having the opposite effect-and leading to the reduction of employment opportunities in these hard times.
We'll give the last word here-as we did in the column this morning-to Bodega Association head Murphy: "For too long, governments at all levels have promoted tax and regulatory schemes that have stifled economic growth. As we struggle to get past the current severe downturn, I keep in mind the words of Ramon Murphy when I asked him about the proposed law. He turned to me and sighed, "Can't the city reduce my taxes and cut down on all of its regulations? If this continues, we are all gonna be regulated right out of business."
As we have said before, it isn't often that we find ourselves on the side of both the mayor and the NYC Partnership, but when it comes to more government mandates-and during the worst recession in the past fifty years-it is time for the legislators on all levels to cease and desist. This is especially true in NYC where regulations have run amok, and entrepreneurs have succeeded in spite of them: "In representing small businesses all over the city for the last 30 years, I've been fortunate to meet energetic and risk-taking folks from a widely diverse -- and mostly immigrant -- background. These entrepreneurs have revitalized food wholesaling and retailing, bringing moribund neighborhoods back to life with new forms of robust commercial activity. They've done it against all odds in a city business climate that is, charitably, less than hospitable to entrepreneurs."
We have said at other times, when the council has proposed legislation, it is imperative that the legislature try to gauge the impact of the bill before voting on it-and in the case of paid sick leave, if the council members don't like the Partnership's Ernst and Young study, let it sponsor its own: "A study from the NYC Partnership -- the advocate for large businesses -- found the bill would impose costs of $149 million a year on small businesses in the city, hitting the restaurant and construction industries especially hard -- and a total of $789 million a year on all city firms. It warned that some small businesses would have to cut payroll or eliminate other benefits to cover the cost of this mandate. I expect the damage would be worse, while the council members pushing the bill don't buy the partnership study. They are, however, being sanguine without any real due diligence -- and in the face of evidence to the contrary. If they don't trust the study, let them hire a firm independent of the players to gauge the bill's impacts -- and get the report before voting on the potentially harmful measure."
And we need to tip our hat to the mayor here who, at least on this key issue, firmly gets it: "Mayor Bloomberg today called a controversial proposal requiring all private businesses to offer paid sick days “disastrous to New York City.” Asked about a possible compromise being discussed among City Council members, Bloomberg said, “It would be a disaster if the government tries to get in to run small businesses. If they run the bars and restaurants, they'll try to run everything else. This is going down a path which is a terrible, terrible idea and would be disastrous to New York City. Let me remind you, New York City created 10 percent of all of the private sector jobs that have been created this year in the whole country. If you want to lose those jobs and lots of others, you start letting the government run small businesses."
It appears that Council Speaker is looking to water down the sick leave measure to balance the interests of her colleagues with the laws of economics-and good for her: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn may be getting the message: Businesses -- and the local economy overall -- will suffer if the council's sick-leave bill passes. As The Post reports today, Quinn appears to be looking to soften some of the bill's provisions. No doubt she wants to limit the damage, particularly after hearing gripes from businesses about the bill's costs. But why not just scrap it altogether? With the economy struggling, this is hardly the time to impose any new costs on any businesses."
Hopefully, what the council finally decides to do will have less harmful effects on the city's less robust small business sector-the one that hasn't rebounded as well as some of the city's other industries. What no one should want is for legislation designed to help people having the opposite effect-and leading to the reduction of employment opportunities in these hard times.
We'll give the last word here-as we did in the column this morning-to Bodega Association head Murphy: "For too long, governments at all levels have promoted tax and regulatory schemes that have stifled economic growth. As we struggle to get past the current severe downturn, I keep in mind the words of Ramon Murphy when I asked him about the proposed law. He turned to me and sighed, "Can't the city reduce my taxes and cut down on all of its regulations? If this continues, we are all gonna be regulated right out of business."
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Seneca's War Whoop
The Seneca Indians continue to pile on against the tax payers of New York. Capitol Confidential has the story: "Gov. David Paterson’s counsel Peter Kiernan has sent a letter to Seneca Nations President Barry Snyder informing him that the state expects to receive its exclusivity payments for both 2009 and 2010 — $105 million and $109 million, respectively — or the Senecas will risk being in breach of the 2002 Nation-State Gaming Compact. The letter seeks a meeting within 14 days to negotiate a solution."
Maybe if the governor gets down on his knees and begs. The NY Post also weighs in: "Gov. Paterson escalated his war with the Indians yesterday by threatening to close down their three lucrative casinos if they don't meet a 14-day deadline to end a long-running money dispute. Paterson's top lawyer, counsel Peter Kiernan, told the Seneca Nation of Indians to pay more than $200 million it owes for exclusive rights to run gambling in western New York during the past two years. The Senecas' refusal means the state can tear up the 8-year-old Gaming Compact, which legalized gambling in their casinos, Kiernan said."
So, let's get this straight. After stiffing the state for the better part of two decades on the cigarette taxes it owes, the Seneca continue to press their sovereignty luck-and do so in their in your face fashion: "Kiernan's threat yesterday follows an exchange of letters last month in which Snyder argued that the state was the one breaking the 2002 Gaming Compact. Snyder said the state violated the Nation's exclusive rights by allowing slot-machine-like devices called "Moxie Mania" as well as video gambling machines in racinos in Hamburg, Batavia Downs and the Finger Lakes Race Track, all in the region that is off-limits, according to the 2002 agreement."
Adding insult to injury, Snyder tells the gov's posse to come to him-as CC details: "Snyder’s response to the letter suggests that state officials travel out to the Seneca territory to seek resolution. He said the games allowed in the past few years in non-Seneca gaming halls caused the break in revenue sharing. He also questions why the Seneca are paying for a State Police presence in their casinos when the force doesn’t seem to do much."
As his letter states: “The State has also been in violation of the Compact nearly since its adoption in 2002 for excessive and unreasonable State Police charges,” he said. “I have no idea why the State violated our compact, and no idea why it took the governor’s office 9 months to agree to discuss the State’s breach of the compact terms. We certainly look forward to hearing the explanation of why they violated our compact.”
This is what happens when you coddle tax cheats and buttleggers for all these years-they develop a level of breathtaking arrogance. And now, according to City Hall Newspaper, they are planning to use some of their ill-gotten gold to, hold on now, lobby the state: "The Seneca Nation’s decision to ramp up its political operation comes as it attempts to prevent a revenue-hungry state government from collecting taxes on tobacco sales. The Senecas view this as an infringement on their rights as a sovereign nation. Though this is not the first time the Seneca Nation have waded into political waters, the tribe’s willingness to spend up to $1 million on mailers and GOTV operations is a significant departure from past election cycles.
The Seneca are, in our view, the mother of all special interests-and the pity party that they throw for themselves is debunked by the absconded millions they have to spend. But those who they have targeted deserve a taxpayers gold star: "But that will not preclude the nation from targeting incumbents who they view as enemies to their cause of keeping cigarettes sold on reservations tax-free. Currently in their sights are a trio of Senate Democrats—Jeff Klein, Carl Kruger (both seen as safe bets for November) and Craig Johnson—who have been the most vocal in the effort to collect taxes on Indian-sold cigarettes, though it is unclear how the nation will specifically target those Democrats."
This entire situation fits nicely into the defining deviancy down paradigm. Allowed to flout the law for years, the lawbreakers take their game up to the next level; and the NY tax payers bear the burden for years of fecklessness on the part of a slew of elected officials. We have a feeling, though, that Andrew Cuomo will not play patsy for this crew of scofflaws.
Maybe if the governor gets down on his knees and begs. The NY Post also weighs in: "Gov. Paterson escalated his war with the Indians yesterday by threatening to close down their three lucrative casinos if they don't meet a 14-day deadline to end a long-running money dispute. Paterson's top lawyer, counsel Peter Kiernan, told the Seneca Nation of Indians to pay more than $200 million it owes for exclusive rights to run gambling in western New York during the past two years. The Senecas' refusal means the state can tear up the 8-year-old Gaming Compact, which legalized gambling in their casinos, Kiernan said."
So, let's get this straight. After stiffing the state for the better part of two decades on the cigarette taxes it owes, the Seneca continue to press their sovereignty luck-and do so in their in your face fashion: "Kiernan's threat yesterday follows an exchange of letters last month in which Snyder argued that the state was the one breaking the 2002 Gaming Compact. Snyder said the state violated the Nation's exclusive rights by allowing slot-machine-like devices called "Moxie Mania" as well as video gambling machines in racinos in Hamburg, Batavia Downs and the Finger Lakes Race Track, all in the region that is off-limits, according to the 2002 agreement."
Adding insult to injury, Snyder tells the gov's posse to come to him-as CC details: "Snyder’s response to the letter suggests that state officials travel out to the Seneca territory to seek resolution. He said the games allowed in the past few years in non-Seneca gaming halls caused the break in revenue sharing. He also questions why the Seneca are paying for a State Police presence in their casinos when the force doesn’t seem to do much."
As his letter states: “The State has also been in violation of the Compact nearly since its adoption in 2002 for excessive and unreasonable State Police charges,” he said. “I have no idea why the State violated our compact, and no idea why it took the governor’s office 9 months to agree to discuss the State’s breach of the compact terms. We certainly look forward to hearing the explanation of why they violated our compact.”
This is what happens when you coddle tax cheats and buttleggers for all these years-they develop a level of breathtaking arrogance. And now, according to City Hall Newspaper, they are planning to use some of their ill-gotten gold to, hold on now, lobby the state: "The Seneca Nation’s decision to ramp up its political operation comes as it attempts to prevent a revenue-hungry state government from collecting taxes on tobacco sales. The Senecas view this as an infringement on their rights as a sovereign nation. Though this is not the first time the Seneca Nation have waded into political waters, the tribe’s willingness to spend up to $1 million on mailers and GOTV operations is a significant departure from past election cycles.
The Seneca are, in our view, the mother of all special interests-and the pity party that they throw for themselves is debunked by the absconded millions they have to spend. But those who they have targeted deserve a taxpayers gold star: "But that will not preclude the nation from targeting incumbents who they view as enemies to their cause of keeping cigarettes sold on reservations tax-free. Currently in their sights are a trio of Senate Democrats—Jeff Klein, Carl Kruger (both seen as safe bets for November) and Craig Johnson—who have been the most vocal in the effort to collect taxes on Indian-sold cigarettes, though it is unclear how the nation will specifically target those Democrats."
This entire situation fits nicely into the defining deviancy down paradigm. Allowed to flout the law for years, the lawbreakers take their game up to the next level; and the NY tax payers bear the burden for years of fecklessness on the part of a slew of elected officials. We have a feeling, though, that Andrew Cuomo will not play patsy for this crew of scofflaws.
Sweetening Government Power
We have just recently commented on the selective libertarianism of Mayor Mike-telling New Yorkers that government has no business restricting who people should, or shouldn't marry. But, as we said, Bloomberg's concern with government's reach doesn't extend to what you eat-and now he wants to get the permission of the federal government to restrict the use of food stamps for the purchase of sugary soft drinks.
As the NY Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg sought federal permission on Wednesday to bar New York City’s 1.7 million recipients of food stamps from using them to buy soda or other sugared drinks. The request, made to the United States Department of Agriculture, which finances and sets the rules for the food-stamp program, is part of an aggressive anti-obesity push by the mayor that has also included advertisements, stricter rules on food sold in schools and an unsuccessful attempt to have the state impose a tax on the sugared drinks."
But what this really dramatizes-besides the mayor's unbridled need to intrude into the lives and liberty of everyday New Yorkers-is the danger that the expansion of government oversight and control over health will lead to the severe curtailment of individual freedom. Once government is paying the bill-and the food stamp program is a clear example of this-they will reserve the right to mandate what you can eat and, trust us, so much more.
But in our view, if you are going to encourage better choices, it makes more sense if the government, rather than restricting certain foods, gave out specific vouchers for healthier fare such as fruits and vegetables. But in any case, the mayor's urge to purge soda from the diet is the ultimate example of the old maxim: He who pays the piper, calls the tune, It is not only doomed to failure; it is an ominous sign of the future when health care mandates and governmental control will loom all over the personal choices of all Americans.
Thankfully, however, there is even some push back from the food police on the enactment of the Bloomberg Diet: "Public health experts greeted Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal cautiously. George Hacker, senior policy adviser for the health promotion project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said a more equitable approach might be to use educational campaigns to dissuade food-stamp users from buying sugared drinks. “The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages,” Mr. Hacker said. “However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not want to stigmatize people on food stamps.”
No ethical reasons to restrict government's reach? Oh well, we'll take our support from any quarter on this. Bloomberg for his part, is claiming that he wants to conduct this food stamp ban as an experiment-which brings to mind the fact that he launched his silly menu labeling initiative without the benefit of any public health research; and the so-called experiment was a flop.
Here's the mayor's take: "The mayor requested a ban for two years to study whether it would have a positive impact on health and whether a permanent ban would be merited. “In spite of the great gains we’ve made over the past eight years in making our communities healthier, there are still two areas where we’re losing ground — obesity and diabetes,” the mayor said in a statement. “This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment.”
This is, excuse us, rather fatuous of Mike. What the mayor has done is increase governmental health restrictions and mandates without any concomitant healthy gains that would begin to justify the intrusions. What's really droll is that the mayor and his health handmaiden Farley want us to believe that this latest foray will have any impact on the obesity epidemic: "Mr. Bloomberg and his health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, said the ban would help curb the city’s obesity epidemic, which they contend has been fueled by rising soda consumption over the past 30 years. City statistics released last month showed that nearly 40 percent of public-school children in kindergarten through eighth grade were overweight or obese, and that obesity rates were substantially higher in poor neighborhoods. City studies show that consumption of sugared beverages is consistently higher in those neighborhoods."
So much for all of those, "great gains," that Bloomberg has alleged on the health front. So here is what the mayor has done to posture as a health maven: "The health of New Yorkers, and particularly obesity, is one of the mayor’s signature issues. During his first term in office, Mr. Bloomberg expanded the city’s smoking ban to almost all indoor public places, and he is proposing to expand it to beaches, parks and plazas. New York City has banned trans fats in restaurants and requires restaurants to post calorie counts."
Or, to paraphrase the Momas and Poppas, "and nobodies getting fat," but all of the city's low income school children. Yet, in spite of a record of failure, the faux scientists with public health degrees persist in making absurd observations and claims-and our two health commissioners are the Abbot and Costello tandem: "Dr. Farley and Dr. Daines said that over the past 30 years, the consumption of soda and other sugary beverages in the United States had more than doubled, paralleling the rise in obesity. They blame that trend for the rising rate of diabetes, which now afflicts one in eight adults in New York City, and is nearly twice as common among poor New Yorkers as among wealthier ones."
Causation is not the same as correlation-if it was, than we could blame the FDA's nutritional labeling ruling in the early nineties for the obesity epidemic-since the enactment of that rule, designed to educate Americans about healthier eating, is precisely coterminous with the rising obesity trend. Yet no one is claiming causation here; and as absurd as the suggestion is, it isn't that much sillier that the unscientific pointing out of other correlative data.
But back to the larger point. Once the government has a vise-like grip on your health care, it will promulgate all kinds of rules and regulations to insure that certain food consumption patterns and exercise behaviors are followed-in the name of health, but camaflouged as cost savings for tax payers. When the Bloomberg cohort of health fascists finally get the reins of power over individual choice, the whole idea of individual choice will be relegated to an anachronistic, and quaintly old fashioned notion.
As the NY Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg sought federal permission on Wednesday to bar New York City’s 1.7 million recipients of food stamps from using them to buy soda or other sugared drinks. The request, made to the United States Department of Agriculture, which finances and sets the rules for the food-stamp program, is part of an aggressive anti-obesity push by the mayor that has also included advertisements, stricter rules on food sold in schools and an unsuccessful attempt to have the state impose a tax on the sugared drinks."
But what this really dramatizes-besides the mayor's unbridled need to intrude into the lives and liberty of everyday New Yorkers-is the danger that the expansion of government oversight and control over health will lead to the severe curtailment of individual freedom. Once government is paying the bill-and the food stamp program is a clear example of this-they will reserve the right to mandate what you can eat and, trust us, so much more.
But in our view, if you are going to encourage better choices, it makes more sense if the government, rather than restricting certain foods, gave out specific vouchers for healthier fare such as fruits and vegetables. But in any case, the mayor's urge to purge soda from the diet is the ultimate example of the old maxim: He who pays the piper, calls the tune, It is not only doomed to failure; it is an ominous sign of the future when health care mandates and governmental control will loom all over the personal choices of all Americans.
Thankfully, however, there is even some push back from the food police on the enactment of the Bloomberg Diet: "Public health experts greeted Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal cautiously. George Hacker, senior policy adviser for the health promotion project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said a more equitable approach might be to use educational campaigns to dissuade food-stamp users from buying sugared drinks. “The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages,” Mr. Hacker said. “However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not want to stigmatize people on food stamps.”
No ethical reasons to restrict government's reach? Oh well, we'll take our support from any quarter on this. Bloomberg for his part, is claiming that he wants to conduct this food stamp ban as an experiment-which brings to mind the fact that he launched his silly menu labeling initiative without the benefit of any public health research; and the so-called experiment was a flop.
Here's the mayor's take: "The mayor requested a ban for two years to study whether it would have a positive impact on health and whether a permanent ban would be merited. “In spite of the great gains we’ve made over the past eight years in making our communities healthier, there are still two areas where we’re losing ground — obesity and diabetes,” the mayor said in a statement. “This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment.”
This is, excuse us, rather fatuous of Mike. What the mayor has done is increase governmental health restrictions and mandates without any concomitant healthy gains that would begin to justify the intrusions. What's really droll is that the mayor and his health handmaiden Farley want us to believe that this latest foray will have any impact on the obesity epidemic: "Mr. Bloomberg and his health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, said the ban would help curb the city’s obesity epidemic, which they contend has been fueled by rising soda consumption over the past 30 years. City statistics released last month showed that nearly 40 percent of public-school children in kindergarten through eighth grade were overweight or obese, and that obesity rates were substantially higher in poor neighborhoods. City studies show that consumption of sugared beverages is consistently higher in those neighborhoods."
So much for all of those, "great gains," that Bloomberg has alleged on the health front. So here is what the mayor has done to posture as a health maven: "The health of New Yorkers, and particularly obesity, is one of the mayor’s signature issues. During his first term in office, Mr. Bloomberg expanded the city’s smoking ban to almost all indoor public places, and he is proposing to expand it to beaches, parks and plazas. New York City has banned trans fats in restaurants and requires restaurants to post calorie counts."
Or, to paraphrase the Momas and Poppas, "and nobodies getting fat," but all of the city's low income school children. Yet, in spite of a record of failure, the faux scientists with public health degrees persist in making absurd observations and claims-and our two health commissioners are the Abbot and Costello tandem: "Dr. Farley and Dr. Daines said that over the past 30 years, the consumption of soda and other sugary beverages in the United States had more than doubled, paralleling the rise in obesity. They blame that trend for the rising rate of diabetes, which now afflicts one in eight adults in New York City, and is nearly twice as common among poor New Yorkers as among wealthier ones."
Causation is not the same as correlation-if it was, than we could blame the FDA's nutritional labeling ruling in the early nineties for the obesity epidemic-since the enactment of that rule, designed to educate Americans about healthier eating, is precisely coterminous with the rising obesity trend. Yet no one is claiming causation here; and as absurd as the suggestion is, it isn't that much sillier that the unscientific pointing out of other correlative data.
But back to the larger point. Once the government has a vise-like grip on your health care, it will promulgate all kinds of rules and regulations to insure that certain food consumption patterns and exercise behaviors are followed-in the name of health, but camaflouged as cost savings for tax payers. When the Bloomberg cohort of health fascists finally get the reins of power over individual choice, the whole idea of individual choice will be relegated to an anachronistic, and quaintly old fashioned notion.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
High Sierra
The Sierra Club has joined with the Natural Resources Defense Council in calling for an independent study of the Willets Point ramps. When we last left off, the revised ramp report and environmental assessment from EDC-via NYSDOT-was supposed to be oven ready shortly after Labor Day. With nothing yet forthcoming, it appears that the state agency is till having some nettlesome issues with the ramp application-a perfect time to agree with the two environmental groups that an independent second opinion is badly needed.
In its letter to DOT, the Sierra Club made this salient point: "While we take no position on the development itself, we are concerned about insuring that the review of the ramps-particularly because of the massive number of projected vehicle trips that the project will generate-is done in the most transparent and unbiased a manner as possible."
And the group went on to point out that the use of AKRF to evaluate the ramps raises real concerns about impartiality, "Our concerns are magnified by the fact that the consultant hired by EDC, AKRF, is also the contractor that New York State DOT uses to conduct third party reviews. However, because AKRF is the consultant on the ramp project, DOT decided not to utilize any outside vendor to review the traffic impacts of the proposed ramps. So for the Sierra Club, whose only concern is for the most accurate oversight possible, the relationship between AKRF and the state agency is a real cause for alarm."
But, as we have pointed out on innumerable occasions, it isn't only Willets Point that is a cause for alarm-a clear evaluation of the cumulative impact of scores of Queens projects needs to be done if the Bloombergistas are serious about air quality and sustainability: "
The Sierra Club is further concerned by the fact that the Willets Point ramps are designed to facilitate a 10 million square foot development that is just one of an additional 60 or 70 additional projects; projects that will amount to a total of 30 million new square feet of car dependent development in and around this area of Queens. Put simply, there is proposed-or already approved-a huge increase in vehicular traffic for which the current roads and highways are ill equipped to accommodate."
Which brings us to the charade of the mayor's PLaNYC 2030. You can't be promoting all of this auto and truck dependent development while, at the same time, claiming the mantle of Kermit the Mayor. But while the NRDC and the Sierra Club are alive to the mayor's rampant hypocrisy, the NY League of Conservation Voters-along with the Environmental Defense Fund-suffers from a Benjamin-induced lockjaw when it comes to taking any stand that exposes the mayor's double talk.
As far as the NYLCV is concerned it is, as the Marxists say, no accident. In May of this year the mayor was the League's keynote speaker-a reward for the group's supine response to the assault of the Bloomberg economic development team on the city's air quality-and we could find no public comment from League director Marcia Bystryn about the alarming DOH air quality study this past summer.
But the League has been played by Bloomberg for awhile, and it would be interesting for the press to track the money trail from the mayor's sources. This is still a, "not for nothing," city-and there are enough things that the Bloombergistas have done for an independent environmental group to criticize. And, of course the League's and EDF's complicity in the Willets Point development is a blatant signal that their speech isn't as free as it should be.
But silent complicity isn't Bystryn's style-and she told the Observer, after endorsing the mayor's third term last year, "that Bloomberg has "the most comprehensive sustainable agenda in the country." She praised his use of "strategies and metrics." Not sure what that babble means, but when it comes to Bloomnberg's metrics, we're sure that Bystryn really sizes up.
What this means for Queens County is that the environmental chorus has been muted in the face of a massive traffic influx courtesy of EDC and its Big Real Estate sycophancy. When the borough's elected officials-with a few notable exceptions-also remain quiescent it doesn't bode well for the environmental health of Queens residents.
We'll give the Sierra Club the last word on the impacts of the unsustainable Bloomberg development blueprint: "In the past NYSDOT has been blindsided by economic developments in NYC for which the agency was unprepared to deal with-developments that exacerbated the city’s air quality and gridlocked its roads and expressways. Now that it is aware of the potential impacts of the Willets Point project, and numerous additional projects, it is incumbent on DOT, as well as the federal overseers, to insure that the potential impacts of all this auto dependent development is accurately analyzed."
In its letter to DOT, the Sierra Club made this salient point: "While we take no position on the development itself, we are concerned about insuring that the review of the ramps-particularly because of the massive number of projected vehicle trips that the project will generate-is done in the most transparent and unbiased a manner as possible."
And the group went on to point out that the use of AKRF to evaluate the ramps raises real concerns about impartiality, "Our concerns are magnified by the fact that the consultant hired by EDC, AKRF, is also the contractor that New York State DOT uses to conduct third party reviews. However, because AKRF is the consultant on the ramp project, DOT decided not to utilize any outside vendor to review the traffic impacts of the proposed ramps. So for the Sierra Club, whose only concern is for the most accurate oversight possible, the relationship between AKRF and the state agency is a real cause for alarm."
But, as we have pointed out on innumerable occasions, it isn't only Willets Point that is a cause for alarm-a clear evaluation of the cumulative impact of scores of Queens projects needs to be done if the Bloombergistas are serious about air quality and sustainability: "
The Sierra Club is further concerned by the fact that the Willets Point ramps are designed to facilitate a 10 million square foot development that is just one of an additional 60 or 70 additional projects; projects that will amount to a total of 30 million new square feet of car dependent development in and around this area of Queens. Put simply, there is proposed-or already approved-a huge increase in vehicular traffic for which the current roads and highways are ill equipped to accommodate."
Which brings us to the charade of the mayor's PLaNYC 2030. You can't be promoting all of this auto and truck dependent development while, at the same time, claiming the mantle of Kermit the Mayor. But while the NRDC and the Sierra Club are alive to the mayor's rampant hypocrisy, the NY League of Conservation Voters-along with the Environmental Defense Fund-suffers from a Benjamin-induced lockjaw when it comes to taking any stand that exposes the mayor's double talk.
As far as the NYLCV is concerned it is, as the Marxists say, no accident. In May of this year the mayor was the League's keynote speaker-a reward for the group's supine response to the assault of the Bloomberg economic development team on the city's air quality-and we could find no public comment from League director Marcia Bystryn about the alarming DOH air quality study this past summer.
But the League has been played by Bloomberg for awhile, and it would be interesting for the press to track the money trail from the mayor's sources. This is still a, "not for nothing," city-and there are enough things that the Bloombergistas have done for an independent environmental group to criticize. And, of course the League's and EDF's complicity in the Willets Point development is a blatant signal that their speech isn't as free as it should be.
But silent complicity isn't Bystryn's style-and she told the Observer, after endorsing the mayor's third term last year, "that Bloomberg has "the most comprehensive sustainable agenda in the country." She praised his use of "strategies and metrics." Not sure what that babble means, but when it comes to Bloomnberg's metrics, we're sure that Bystryn really sizes up.
What this means for Queens County is that the environmental chorus has been muted in the face of a massive traffic influx courtesy of EDC and its Big Real Estate sycophancy. When the borough's elected officials-with a few notable exceptions-also remain quiescent it doesn't bode well for the environmental health of Queens residents.
We'll give the Sierra Club the last word on the impacts of the unsustainable Bloomberg development blueprint: "In the past NYSDOT has been blindsided by economic developments in NYC for which the agency was unprepared to deal with-developments that exacerbated the city’s air quality and gridlocked its roads and expressways. Now that it is aware of the potential impacts of the Willets Point project, and numerous additional projects, it is incumbent on DOT, as well as the federal overseers, to insure that the potential impacts of all this auto dependent development is accurately analyzed."
Prisoners of Second Avenue
Symbolic of the mind over matter nature of the Bloombergistas' support of small business (They don't mind, and the little guys don't matter) is the plight of those neighborhood retailers in the way of the construction of the Second Avenue Subway. The NY Times reports the grim picture: "The noise, dust, barricades and occasional explosions associated with construction of the long-awaited Second Avenue subway are driving away customers from businesses along the avenue and plunging many shops and restaurants into deep financial trouble, two dozen merchants said."
So, what is the city doing? Not enough: "In July, the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce counted 29 shuttered storefronts between 63rd and 96th Streets — a once-bustling stretch where the subway’s first three stations and the connecting tunnel are being dug. Since then, at least two other businesses have closed. And while the anemic economy has surely taken its toll, many merchants say business has declined 25 percent to 50 percent over the last three years because of the hurdles posed by construction."
Now keep in mind that this is a total disaster for these small businesses-but the sanguine non-response from the so-called Economic Development Corporation-not to mention the MTA-is appalling. And, adding insult to injury was that the local merchants were bamboozled about the nature of the future disruption: "The MTA dis try to help-they posted signs: "Officials say they have honored commitments they made to minimize disruption and mitigate noise and dust. Lois Tendler, a vice president for government and community relations at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said the agency had met regularly with merchants and had signs on its Web site and at Lexington Avenue subway stations urging people to “Shop Second Avenue.”
Not much help there-and the governor deep-sixed an aid package: "Shopkeepers say they need financial help and compensation. But an effort to provide tax relief and grants was vetoed last year by Gov. David A. Paterson. “We have been incredibly responsive to every feasible request,” Ms. Tendler said. “Where we part company with shop owners is that we do not have the ability to pay them for the lost income. We use public money, and we do not know of any government entity that pays for lost business.”
But we hand out multi-million aid packages to big corporations who even hint about relocating; yet when it comes to the small businesses-it's suck wind time. But what really got us going was the totally lame response from the city: "Merchants assert that they often get a runaround when they complain to the city. Officials of the Bloomberg administration say an outreach team from Small Business Services has taken steps to make sure stores are accessible, extend utility payment plans and check that signs advise passers-by where obscured businesses are located."
What, no yellow ribbons? But the real essence of the city's laissez-faire attitude to the plight of the small retailer is contained in the following quote: "But Giorgio Manzio, manager of the three-year-old CiaoBella, which had 25 employees, said that in the months before it closed, the restaurant was ticketed for having tables on too narrow a sidewalk — a sidewalk narrowed by construction. Abigail Lootens, a spokeswoman for the Department of Consumer Affairs, said permits had to be revoked for 13 outdoor cafes along the construction zone, with refunds given."
The essence of bureaucratic efficiency! In the midst of a man made disaster the DCA is fining stores-but in the absence of customers, the agency does have the wherewithal to refund the permit monies. These are good guys after all, n'est-ce pas? In our view, it isn't the MTA's job to remedy this calamity-it is the city that should step up. But since this isn't a multi-billion dollar real estate deal, there isn't much interest in being proactive-and putting the SBS in charge of the relief effort, is the equivalent of sending in the clowns.
What we have said about the NYC's economic development efforts is underscored in rather a stark manner by the city's blase response to economic upheaval on Second Avenue. There's no career advantage in helping small store owners-it is, however, simply the right thing to do. That the Bloomberg administration has done so little for these beleaguered merchants speaks volumes about what it is-and who it stands for.
So, what is the city doing? Not enough: "In July, the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce counted 29 shuttered storefronts between 63rd and 96th Streets — a once-bustling stretch where the subway’s first three stations and the connecting tunnel are being dug. Since then, at least two other businesses have closed. And while the anemic economy has surely taken its toll, many merchants say business has declined 25 percent to 50 percent over the last three years because of the hurdles posed by construction."
Now keep in mind that this is a total disaster for these small businesses-but the sanguine non-response from the so-called Economic Development Corporation-not to mention the MTA-is appalling. And, adding insult to injury was that the local merchants were bamboozled about the nature of the future disruption: "The MTA dis try to help-they posted signs: "Officials say they have honored commitments they made to minimize disruption and mitigate noise and dust. Lois Tendler, a vice president for government and community relations at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said the agency had met regularly with merchants and had signs on its Web site and at Lexington Avenue subway stations urging people to “Shop Second Avenue.”
Not much help there-and the governor deep-sixed an aid package: "Shopkeepers say they need financial help and compensation. But an effort to provide tax relief and grants was vetoed last year by Gov. David A. Paterson. “We have been incredibly responsive to every feasible request,” Ms. Tendler said. “Where we part company with shop owners is that we do not have the ability to pay them for the lost income. We use public money, and we do not know of any government entity that pays for lost business.”
But we hand out multi-million aid packages to big corporations who even hint about relocating; yet when it comes to the small businesses-it's suck wind time. But what really got us going was the totally lame response from the city: "Merchants assert that they often get a runaround when they complain to the city. Officials of the Bloomberg administration say an outreach team from Small Business Services has taken steps to make sure stores are accessible, extend utility payment plans and check that signs advise passers-by where obscured businesses are located."
What, no yellow ribbons? But the real essence of the city's laissez-faire attitude to the plight of the small retailer is contained in the following quote: "But Giorgio Manzio, manager of the three-year-old CiaoBella, which had 25 employees, said that in the months before it closed, the restaurant was ticketed for having tables on too narrow a sidewalk — a sidewalk narrowed by construction. Abigail Lootens, a spokeswoman for the Department of Consumer Affairs, said permits had to be revoked for 13 outdoor cafes along the construction zone, with refunds given."
The essence of bureaucratic efficiency! In the midst of a man made disaster the DCA is fining stores-but in the absence of customers, the agency does have the wherewithal to refund the permit monies. These are good guys after all, n'est-ce pas? In our view, it isn't the MTA's job to remedy this calamity-it is the city that should step up. But since this isn't a multi-billion dollar real estate deal, there isn't much interest in being proactive-and putting the SBS in charge of the relief effort, is the equivalent of sending in the clowns.
What we have said about the NYC's economic development efforts is underscored in rather a stark manner by the city's blase response to economic upheaval on Second Avenue. There's no career advantage in helping small store owners-it is, however, simply the right thing to do. That the Bloomberg administration has done so little for these beleaguered merchants speaks volumes about what it is-and who it stands for.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Dumbest Quote of the Day
Crain's Insider (subsc) is reporting that there was a lot of in-fighting on the John Liu task force on community benefits-and in the end, two of the more extreme positions (or at least most controversial) were not entertained: "After six months of deliberation, a task force on community benefit agreements convened by Comptroller John Liu never addressed what pro-development critics said was the most pressing question: Should the deals that developers cut with community groups in exchange for political support of their mega-projects exist in the first place? Also missing from the recommendations in the task force's report are specific living-wage, job training and affordable-housing provisions—all of which were priorities of the union members on the board."
Well, we guess all of that went over our head-or below our radar-because we didn't catch the draft from those prevailing winds; but as to the first position, let's just say that it would have been absurd to confront the issue of whether CBAs are appropriate since it was the basic assumption of the task force that, since these agreements are here to say, it is important to try to codify them in a way that allows for some degree of predictability for all of the stakeholders-including developers. Or, in other words, we ain't putting that genie back in the bottle any time soon.
As for living wage, we didn't get the sense that the RWDSU's Stu Appelbaum-described as, "an outsized personality"-was putting on a full court press on the task force to insure the inclusion of living wage in the final report. There seemed to be an agreement that this wasn't the right venue for the issue to be aired-even if the agreement may have been grudging at times.
But there should be no conclusion that there was any degree of great acrimony in the group that Liu assembled-as only a very small number of folks bailed on participating. That being said, the dumbest quote of the day goes to the city's former HPD commissioner: "Jerilyn Perine, a former commissioner for the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, resigned after the first meeting. By last week, three more of the 33 board members had followed her out the door. “The underlying assumption was that development in your community is bad, and you as a community need to be able to band together to fight against [it,]” Ms. Perine recalls. “Why assume that our current land-use process doesn't balance the good and the bad?”
This is known as addition by subtraction-and Perine exemplifies what the pollster Scott Rasmussen calls the, "political class;" a group enamored of top down government solutions, and skeptical of the wisdom of the unwashed. For Perine, the "underlying assumption," is that development is good-a product of the wisdom of the so-called experts who really know what is good for you.
That she fails to recognize that much of what passes for planning in the realm of economic development-as Dr. Angotti has pointed out-is driven by the interests of certain connected real estate firms. In this regard the conclusion of the Liu report about why CBA reform is needed is much closer to the truth of NYC development than the observations of the former Bloombergista "The final report called the agreements an “unfortunate byproduct” that “arise because the City does not effectively plan for its neighborhoods and insufficiently considers community needs.”
Well, we guess all of that went over our head-or below our radar-because we didn't catch the draft from those prevailing winds; but as to the first position, let's just say that it would have been absurd to confront the issue of whether CBAs are appropriate since it was the basic assumption of the task force that, since these agreements are here to say, it is important to try to codify them in a way that allows for some degree of predictability for all of the stakeholders-including developers. Or, in other words, we ain't putting that genie back in the bottle any time soon.
As for living wage, we didn't get the sense that the RWDSU's Stu Appelbaum-described as, "an outsized personality"-was putting on a full court press on the task force to insure the inclusion of living wage in the final report. There seemed to be an agreement that this wasn't the right venue for the issue to be aired-even if the agreement may have been grudging at times.
But there should be no conclusion that there was any degree of great acrimony in the group that Liu assembled-as only a very small number of folks bailed on participating. That being said, the dumbest quote of the day goes to the city's former HPD commissioner: "Jerilyn Perine, a former commissioner for the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, resigned after the first meeting. By last week, three more of the 33 board members had followed her out the door. “The underlying assumption was that development in your community is bad, and you as a community need to be able to band together to fight against [it,]” Ms. Perine recalls. “Why assume that our current land-use process doesn't balance the good and the bad?”
This is known as addition by subtraction-and Perine exemplifies what the pollster Scott Rasmussen calls the, "political class;" a group enamored of top down government solutions, and skeptical of the wisdom of the unwashed. For Perine, the "underlying assumption," is that development is good-a product of the wisdom of the so-called experts who really know what is good for you.
That she fails to recognize that much of what passes for planning in the realm of economic development-as Dr. Angotti has pointed out-is driven by the interests of certain connected real estate firms. In this regard the conclusion of the Liu report about why CBA reform is needed is much closer to the truth of NYC development than the observations of the former Bloombergista "The final report called the agreements an “unfortunate byproduct” that “arise because the City does not effectively plan for its neighborhoods and insufficiently considers community needs.”
Bloomberg's Marriage of Convenience
YNN is reporting that Mike Bloomberg has made a web video in support of gay marriage: "I’m Mayor Mike Bloomberg,” the mayor declares in the video. “I’m a New Yorker, and I support marriage equality because government shouldn’t tell you who to love or who to marry.”
It's always comnforting-if a bit disconcerting-to see Mr. Nanny State take a libertarian position. But when it comes to health, Bloomberg has all kinds of reasons why it is the job of government to tell you what to eat, where to eat, how much to eat-not to mention smoking restrictions that challenge God's ability to ventilate the outdoors.
And the NY Post chimes in: "Mayor Bloomberg -- who has no problem telling New Yorkers not to smoke, gobble trans fats or sprinkle too much salt on their food -- insists, "Government shouldn't tell you who to love or who to marry," in a pro-gay marriage Internet video released yesterday."
Bloomberg's position on marriage equality would be reasonably palatable if it was accompanied by a more consistent view of the limitations and proper role of government in our personal lives. But, alas, if consistency is the hobgoblin of mediocre minds, than we have little hope that the city's Philosopher King will stoop to such intellectual mediocrity-it is simply beneath him
It's always comnforting-if a bit disconcerting-to see Mr. Nanny State take a libertarian position. But when it comes to health, Bloomberg has all kinds of reasons why it is the job of government to tell you what to eat, where to eat, how much to eat-not to mention smoking restrictions that challenge God's ability to ventilate the outdoors.
And the NY Post chimes in: "Mayor Bloomberg -- who has no problem telling New Yorkers not to smoke, gobble trans fats or sprinkle too much salt on their food -- insists, "Government shouldn't tell you who to love or who to marry," in a pro-gay marriage Internet video released yesterday."
Bloomberg's position on marriage equality would be reasonably palatable if it was accompanied by a more consistent view of the limitations and proper role of government in our personal lives. But, alas, if consistency is the hobgoblin of mediocre minds, than we have little hope that the city's Philosopher King will stoop to such intellectual mediocrity-it is simply beneath him
Now You EDC It, Now You Don't
Professor Tom Angotti has a thoughtful analysis of the role of EDC in city planning, as well as in overall economic development in NYC-and raises some interesting points on transparency and the public interest: "In the last eight years the EDC has sponsored over 500 projects, including some of the largest new developments in the five boroughs and citywide. With this portfolio, EDC probably has more to do with planning the city -- where, how and when new development happens -- than all the city agencies that are entrusted with doing so. Despite that, the agency receives little scrutiny or even attention."
And EDC likes it that way because it allows it to move ahead unencumbered by any system of checks and balances-until a project has reached such critical mass that its inevitability can't be challenged-Kingsbridge was an exception to this rule: "Perhaps it was only in the final stages of the recent and failed Kingsbridge Armory Project in the Bronx, which would have handed over the vacant property to the Related Corp. for development of a mall, that EDC's role as intermediary between developers and the mayor's office emerged clearly into the sunshine. EDC had spent years brokering the deal only to find that the community/labor coalition it had engaged would not back down on the issue of a living wage for workers at the proposed mall."
In carving out this unassailed niche, and the power that goes with it, EDC manages to operate below the radar in the interstices of government (and in ways that avoid scrutiny) without actually being a government agency: "What is this city entity that is sometimes called quasi-governmental, a city agency or an arm of the mayor's office? Despite its name it is not a private corporation or financial institution, nor is it an independent public authority like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or the Port Authority, entities Robert Moses helped invent to protect decision-makers from public oversight. EDC is a non-profit that is wholly owned and financed by the city. The mayor appoints its board of directors, and most of its budget of over three quarters of a billion dollars comes from the city."
Three quarters of a billion dollars!-and little or no scrutiny; a structure intended to operate in Robert Moses fashion to get things done. But for whom? And that gets us to the corporation's raison d'être: "EDC's stated mission is "fostering economic growth." It does this by responding to private-sector proposals and helps to pave the way for their success. With New York advertising itself as the "Real Estate Capital of the World," major real estate deals including malls, condos and business centers, get special attention from EDC. Since an uncontested doctrine links the city’s economic health to its ability to keep the cement mixers going, growth is usually assumed to be good."
So in essence, EDC is a real estate deal-driven entity that assumes that what's good for big real estate is good for the city-no questions asked. It is the city's central planner that does no real planning: "Despite having one foot squarely in the private sector, EDC is considered the "lead agency" on just about every major development proposal. Even though it's not a city agency, it has become, in effect, the city’s most significant entity for land use planning...Because of the corporation's unique commitment to "public-private partnerships," its plans tend to support those of private developers whereas the presumption is that city agencies should operate in the public interest. For example, EDC issued a Request for Expressions of Interest for the Willets Point project in Queens. The responses, submitted by private developers, shaped the physical plan and zoning that were finalized by city agencies and approved by City Council."
So EDC "vision" is one that isn't really an internalized world view; but is simply a refection of private sector interests-which in turn is internalized and refracted into a public interest veneer. The way in which the corporation is a revolving door into the real estate sector underscores this interest co-optation process: "Below the executives is a legion of mostly young professionals who enter and exit through EDC's revolving doors as they learn the ropes and discover that the real power and money is with the companies with whom the agency is supposed be a partner."
But, as Angotti lays out, this real estate-EDC symbiosis eschews any real urban planning: "While the New York City Planning Department boasts of having done more than 100 rezonings since 2002, these only change regulations, while EDC actually negotiates the deals with major developers that determine what gets built. EDC's planning is always limited to the individual project and does not necessarily extend to neighborhoods or the city as a whole. But neighborhood-level and citywide planning rarely occurs in this city. Unlike other major U.S. cities, New York has never had a comprehensive master plan except for a 1969 draft that never even received a hearing at the City Planning Commission."
Everything that EDC does, it does on a project by project basis, which tends to minimize what potentially are negative-and cumulative-community impacts; as we have seen in both the Willets Point and Flushing Commons developments. Underscoring the manner in which the EDC entity is a refraction of private sector interests is the corporation's business model: "Though entirely under the mayor's control, EDC is set up to work more like a private corporation than a city agency. The mayor appoints its directors without having to worry about incidentals such as unions and civil service regulations. EDC boasts that it promotes "public service with a private sector culture," and has an "operational flexibility" that leaves it free from many of the agency rules and procedures that often hold back innovation and change."
EDC then radiates its real estate clientts' interests-something that can be seen clearly by its reliance on consultants-no competitive bidding, please-that themselves are reflections of those same private interests: "One of EDC's most impressive powers is its ability to contract out studies and planning without having to go through competitive bidding or rely on the city's experienced professional staff." This jaundiced reality is highlighted by a consultant culture that avoids any real evaluation of collateral damages-reflecting the developer press release world view of collateral benefits all the time.
As a result, we have a de-facto planning process that not only doesn't plan, but when it embarks on promoting development through its parasitical city agency marionettes, it does so in a thoroughly dishonest Master of the House manner-rooking the guests, and cooking the books. Since it totally dominates the data collection process, it can simply overwhelm the opposition-whether in the city council or in the community.
But by doing so, great damage is done to the democratic planning process-and communities are effectively red lined out of any control over their neighborhoods. Efficiency and narrow private interests flood the planning process at the expense of a different and less selfish public interest. It is high time that the corporation had its sails trimmed-after all, making sure that the trains run on time for the priviledged few shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of urban planning.
And EDC likes it that way because it allows it to move ahead unencumbered by any system of checks and balances-until a project has reached such critical mass that its inevitability can't be challenged-Kingsbridge was an exception to this rule: "Perhaps it was only in the final stages of the recent and failed Kingsbridge Armory Project in the Bronx, which would have handed over the vacant property to the Related Corp. for development of a mall, that EDC's role as intermediary between developers and the mayor's office emerged clearly into the sunshine. EDC had spent years brokering the deal only to find that the community/labor coalition it had engaged would not back down on the issue of a living wage for workers at the proposed mall."
In carving out this unassailed niche, and the power that goes with it, EDC manages to operate below the radar in the interstices of government (and in ways that avoid scrutiny) without actually being a government agency: "What is this city entity that is sometimes called quasi-governmental, a city agency or an arm of the mayor's office? Despite its name it is not a private corporation or financial institution, nor is it an independent public authority like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or the Port Authority, entities Robert Moses helped invent to protect decision-makers from public oversight. EDC is a non-profit that is wholly owned and financed by the city. The mayor appoints its board of directors, and most of its budget of over three quarters of a billion dollars comes from the city."
Three quarters of a billion dollars!-and little or no scrutiny; a structure intended to operate in Robert Moses fashion to get things done. But for whom? And that gets us to the corporation's raison d'être: "EDC's stated mission is "fostering economic growth." It does this by responding to private-sector proposals and helps to pave the way for their success. With New York advertising itself as the "Real Estate Capital of the World," major real estate deals including malls, condos and business centers, get special attention from EDC. Since an uncontested doctrine links the city’s economic health to its ability to keep the cement mixers going, growth is usually assumed to be good."
So in essence, EDC is a real estate deal-driven entity that assumes that what's good for big real estate is good for the city-no questions asked. It is the city's central planner that does no real planning: "Despite having one foot squarely in the private sector, EDC is considered the "lead agency" on just about every major development proposal. Even though it's not a city agency, it has become, in effect, the city’s most significant entity for land use planning...Because of the corporation's unique commitment to "public-private partnerships," its plans tend to support those of private developers whereas the presumption is that city agencies should operate in the public interest. For example, EDC issued a Request for Expressions of Interest for the Willets Point project in Queens. The responses, submitted by private developers, shaped the physical plan and zoning that were finalized by city agencies and approved by City Council."
So EDC "vision" is one that isn't really an internalized world view; but is simply a refection of private sector interests-which in turn is internalized and refracted into a public interest veneer. The way in which the corporation is a revolving door into the real estate sector underscores this interest co-optation process: "Below the executives is a legion of mostly young professionals who enter and exit through EDC's revolving doors as they learn the ropes and discover that the real power and money is with the companies with whom the agency is supposed be a partner."
But, as Angotti lays out, this real estate-EDC symbiosis eschews any real urban planning: "While the New York City Planning Department boasts of having done more than 100 rezonings since 2002, these only change regulations, while EDC actually negotiates the deals with major developers that determine what gets built. EDC's planning is always limited to the individual project and does not necessarily extend to neighborhoods or the city as a whole. But neighborhood-level and citywide planning rarely occurs in this city. Unlike other major U.S. cities, New York has never had a comprehensive master plan except for a 1969 draft that never even received a hearing at the City Planning Commission."
Everything that EDC does, it does on a project by project basis, which tends to minimize what potentially are negative-and cumulative-community impacts; as we have seen in both the Willets Point and Flushing Commons developments. Underscoring the manner in which the EDC entity is a refraction of private sector interests is the corporation's business model: "Though entirely under the mayor's control, EDC is set up to work more like a private corporation than a city agency. The mayor appoints its directors without having to worry about incidentals such as unions and civil service regulations. EDC boasts that it promotes "public service with a private sector culture," and has an "operational flexibility" that leaves it free from many of the agency rules and procedures that often hold back innovation and change."
EDC then radiates its real estate clientts' interests-something that can be seen clearly by its reliance on consultants-no competitive bidding, please-that themselves are reflections of those same private interests: "One of EDC's most impressive powers is its ability to contract out studies and planning without having to go through competitive bidding or rely on the city's experienced professional staff." This jaundiced reality is highlighted by a consultant culture that avoids any real evaluation of collateral damages-reflecting the developer press release world view of collateral benefits all the time.
As a result, we have a de-facto planning process that not only doesn't plan, but when it embarks on promoting development through its parasitical city agency marionettes, it does so in a thoroughly dishonest Master of the House manner-rooking the guests, and cooking the books. Since it totally dominates the data collection process, it can simply overwhelm the opposition-whether in the city council or in the community.
But by doing so, great damage is done to the democratic planning process-and communities are effectively red lined out of any control over their neighborhoods. Efficiency and narrow private interests flood the planning process at the expense of a different and less selfish public interest. It is high time that the corporation had its sails trimmed-after all, making sure that the trains run on time for the priviledged few shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of urban planning.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Grades of Mediocrity
The NY Post states the obvious today-the DOE's grading system for NYC schools is simply a failure: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Schools Chancellor Joel Klein is doing no one any favors -- not the public, and certainly not himself -- by assigning letter-grade report cards to city schools. The jerry-rigged system for determining the grades obscures more than it reveals. Thus, the information the cards impart is worse than misleading -- it's virtually useless."
But why stop there? So much of what the Kleinberg regime has done lacks utility for the school kids-beginning with the colossal waste of huge extra expenditures of money that simply hasn't done much to improve the performance of the children; and the chancellor's heavy top down management style has one longing for the more decentralized approach that came under such heavy fire when the mayor rode into office on his white limousine.
And it's nice to finally see the Post rise from its editorial slumber on all things Bloomberg: "Start with the fact that this year's grades, released last week, show a steep drop in the number of schools getting A's -- from 889 last year to 289 Thursday. Have schools suddenly gotten that much worse? Not at all. Turns out, educrats simply recalibrated standards, making tests harder to pass. So the schools look worse."
But when the phony tests were pumping up the mayor's volume, the Post and its cheerleader companion NY Daily News were gyrating with euphoria-and we could fairly say, paraphrasing the Post, that the schools weren't better, but that the school tests were watered down so that they would look like they were. At the time, however, the Post and News suspended their disbelief-and the public was misinformed about the state of city education under the mayor.
Now, nine years into his term, we hear that Bloomberg is going to really do something about teacher tenure: "We'll do more to support teachers and reward great teaching, and that includes ending tenure as we know it, so that tenure is awarded for performance, not taken for granted," Bloomberg said on MSNBC as part of NBC's "Education Nation" program."
The reality here is that the Bloomberg miracle was of the legend in his own mind variety-but with the ability to spend legendary amounts of money on self promotion and the enlistment of sycophants and toadies, a false positive was attributed to schools that haven't really risen much beyond where they were when the mayor came into office. When the dust settles, we believe that the retrospective view of Mike Bloomberg will be in line with the, "poor player," observation of Macbeth:
"That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
But why stop there? So much of what the Kleinberg regime has done lacks utility for the school kids-beginning with the colossal waste of huge extra expenditures of money that simply hasn't done much to improve the performance of the children; and the chancellor's heavy top down management style has one longing for the more decentralized approach that came under such heavy fire when the mayor rode into office on his white limousine.
And it's nice to finally see the Post rise from its editorial slumber on all things Bloomberg: "Start with the fact that this year's grades, released last week, show a steep drop in the number of schools getting A's -- from 889 last year to 289 Thursday. Have schools suddenly gotten that much worse? Not at all. Turns out, educrats simply recalibrated standards, making tests harder to pass. So the schools look worse."
But when the phony tests were pumping up the mayor's volume, the Post and its cheerleader companion NY Daily News were gyrating with euphoria-and we could fairly say, paraphrasing the Post, that the schools weren't better, but that the school tests were watered down so that they would look like they were. At the time, however, the Post and News suspended their disbelief-and the public was misinformed about the state of city education under the mayor.
Now, nine years into his term, we hear that Bloomberg is going to really do something about teacher tenure: "We'll do more to support teachers and reward great teaching, and that includes ending tenure as we know it, so that tenure is awarded for performance, not taken for granted," Bloomberg said on MSNBC as part of NBC's "Education Nation" program."
The reality here is that the Bloomberg miracle was of the legend in his own mind variety-but with the ability to spend legendary amounts of money on self promotion and the enlistment of sycophants and toadies, a false positive was attributed to schools that haven't really risen much beyond where they were when the mayor came into office. When the dust settles, we believe that the retrospective view of Mike Bloomberg will be in line with the, "poor player," observation of Macbeth:
"That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Related's Big Gamble
As more and more evidence comes in that Related Companies has cut a deal with Walmart to take 180,000 square feet in the expansion footprint of Gateway Estates, it appears to us that the real estate giant is embarking on a risky venture. Steve Ross, and his slick sidekick Glen Goldstein, apparently feel that getting the Walmoster into the city is worth the opprobrium it will be facing from the entire political establishment-apart, of course, from the Related fan fav at city hall.
Put simply, even if it manages to get past the demonstrations and expected law suits, it will be certain to face a black list for the next three years from the city council-and into the future as far as we can see, since the next mayor and council will likely to be much less inclined to do the Related's bidding. This is a far cry from the past nine years where the incestuous relationship between Deputy Dan Doctoroff and Steve Ross has led to a favored nation status that bore fruit in two mega deals-both appropriately named Gateway; in these cases gateways to no bid riches.
Which gets us to the Gateway Estates corrupt bargain-something that we highlighted in 2007 when the East New York no bid shenanigans was approved by the city council:
"The original 1996 development that was approved, stipulated that 2,385 units of new housing was to be built with the financing to come from proceeds of the huge adjacent retail mall. Subsequently, the Related Companies bought the commercial component, leaving the residential piece totally in limbo. Related, when asked about the residential development, stated that it had nothing to do with any residential development.
Now, over a decade later, and with the Gateway Mall generating millions of dollars in profits for Related, an huge expansion is in land use review. The new project, with a greatly expanded box store component, now pledges that the housing units that were never built as promised, will be included in the expansion; but the financing will be done exclusively with public funds.
This has got to be one of the great bait and switches of all time (Where's DCA when you need it?). Not only that, it also needs to be pointed out that Related, a recognized "favored nation" in this city, was awarded the Gateway expansion without the benefit of any competitive bidding. A reward for the failure to fulfill the original housing pledge perhaps?
Now Related sloughed off the housing to Reverend Youngblood, but the proceeds from the expanded mall will go directly into its pocket. The instigator of the corrupt bargain, Deputy Dan, is now cutting deals as head of Blooberg LLP; but the entire process should be re-opened in order to expose the corrupt underbelly of the current mayoralty-one that laughably claims to be above the special interests. If you remember the lame, the halt, and the blind, over at the Bloomberg controlled Conflicts of Interest Board ruled that the longstanding personal and business friendship between Doctoroff and Related's Ross posed no conflict at all.
Afterwards, Ross laughed his butt off all the way to the no bid contract to develop the Gateway mall on the graveyard of the Bronx Terminal Market-and swiftly got the no bid expansion of the Gateway Estates Mall even while other developers salivated over the property-a bidding war that would have garnered the city millions of dollars more (as would a similar process at the old BTM).
And in both cases, the fruits of the favoritism have meant hardships, not only for evicted minority wholesalers and small businesses, but for the communities that are forced to host the mega developments. Simply put, they are environmental nightmares-and in the case of the Bronx Gateway, the mall generates thousands of truck and car trips a day right along asthma alley (which was way we laughed hysterically when Ross and Related ponied up thousands of dollars fronting for the mayor's congestion pricing plan).
But the prospects of a Walmonster at Gateway Estates makes its Bronx cousin look like small potatoes indeed-and the EIS that paved the way for Related's land grab never contemplated a use of this proportion. As we said three years ago:
"What's even worse is the fact that an analysis of the original traffic study will show that, surprise, surprise, it severely underestimated the number of cars that the mall would generate, a failure that the current DEIS proudly replicates. The current project will double the amount of traffic on the Belt as well as on local roads, the equivalent of approximately seven Wal-Mart super centers.
Which brings us to the mayor's about face on carbon dioxide emissions, and the concomitant need to reduce traffic in the city. The expanded Gateway development will generate approximately 40,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually, violating the mayor's commitment to reduce these emissions by 30% by 2030."
But there's another compelling reason why Related will be in for a public stoning: they simply lied to the face of local council member Charles Barron about the possibility of a Walmart tenant at Gateway II-a falsification that gives the company a used car salesman image that will come back to haunt it when problems arise over on the Far West Side; and when Mikey isn't around to carry the company's water, Related will become a juicy piñata for every city pol.
And the truly egregious nature of this in your face effort, is the fact that, according to our sources, there is a certain supermarket chain-unionized and all-that is willing to take 100,000 sq. ft of the expansion footprint. Related, rather than taking this popular alternative-there is no, build or no build, scenario here-is hell bent on self immolation. And we have a theory about this-it all stems from the bitch slapping the company took at the Kingsbridge Armory. Related is simply hell bent on revenge.
Well, so be it. But the gauntlet is being thrown down-in particular in front of the city council that allowed this application to be approved without any restrictive covenant-like the one that was negotiated at the Bronx Gateway and excluded the Walmonster; ain't like it couldn't be done. In particular, Speaker Quinn is on the hot seat since she stands a straddle of the land use levers in this town. She needs to find a way to derail this exercise in hubris by Related-or go into 2013 as the one person who allowed Walmart in when a simple act of foresight could have prevented it.
Still, this promises to be the mother of all Walmart battles-and when the dust settles, the political road could well be littered by the carcasses of politicians that could-a been contenders.
Put simply, even if it manages to get past the demonstrations and expected law suits, it will be certain to face a black list for the next three years from the city council-and into the future as far as we can see, since the next mayor and council will likely to be much less inclined to do the Related's bidding. This is a far cry from the past nine years where the incestuous relationship between Deputy Dan Doctoroff and Steve Ross has led to a favored nation status that bore fruit in two mega deals-both appropriately named Gateway; in these cases gateways to no bid riches.
Which gets us to the Gateway Estates corrupt bargain-something that we highlighted in 2007 when the East New York no bid shenanigans was approved by the city council:
"The original 1996 development that was approved, stipulated that 2,385 units of new housing was to be built with the financing to come from proceeds of the huge adjacent retail mall. Subsequently, the Related Companies bought the commercial component, leaving the residential piece totally in limbo. Related, when asked about the residential development, stated that it had nothing to do with any residential development.
Now, over a decade later, and with the Gateway Mall generating millions of dollars in profits for Related, an huge expansion is in land use review. The new project, with a greatly expanded box store component, now pledges that the housing units that were never built as promised, will be included in the expansion; but the financing will be done exclusively with public funds.
This has got to be one of the great bait and switches of all time (Where's DCA when you need it?). Not only that, it also needs to be pointed out that Related, a recognized "favored nation" in this city, was awarded the Gateway expansion without the benefit of any competitive bidding. A reward for the failure to fulfill the original housing pledge perhaps?
Now Related sloughed off the housing to Reverend Youngblood, but the proceeds from the expanded mall will go directly into its pocket. The instigator of the corrupt bargain, Deputy Dan, is now cutting deals as head of Blooberg LLP; but the entire process should be re-opened in order to expose the corrupt underbelly of the current mayoralty-one that laughably claims to be above the special interests. If you remember the lame, the halt, and the blind, over at the Bloomberg controlled Conflicts of Interest Board ruled that the longstanding personal and business friendship between Doctoroff and Related's Ross posed no conflict at all.
Afterwards, Ross laughed his butt off all the way to the no bid contract to develop the Gateway mall on the graveyard of the Bronx Terminal Market-and swiftly got the no bid expansion of the Gateway Estates Mall even while other developers salivated over the property-a bidding war that would have garnered the city millions of dollars more (as would a similar process at the old BTM).
And in both cases, the fruits of the favoritism have meant hardships, not only for evicted minority wholesalers and small businesses, but for the communities that are forced to host the mega developments. Simply put, they are environmental nightmares-and in the case of the Bronx Gateway, the mall generates thousands of truck and car trips a day right along asthma alley (which was way we laughed hysterically when Ross and Related ponied up thousands of dollars fronting for the mayor's congestion pricing plan).
But the prospects of a Walmonster at Gateway Estates makes its Bronx cousin look like small potatoes indeed-and the EIS that paved the way for Related's land grab never contemplated a use of this proportion. As we said three years ago:
"What's even worse is the fact that an analysis of the original traffic study will show that, surprise, surprise, it severely underestimated the number of cars that the mall would generate, a failure that the current DEIS proudly replicates. The current project will double the amount of traffic on the Belt as well as on local roads, the equivalent of approximately seven Wal-Mart super centers.
Which brings us to the mayor's about face on carbon dioxide emissions, and the concomitant need to reduce traffic in the city. The expanded Gateway development will generate approximately 40,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually, violating the mayor's commitment to reduce these emissions by 30% by 2030."
But there's another compelling reason why Related will be in for a public stoning: they simply lied to the face of local council member Charles Barron about the possibility of a Walmart tenant at Gateway II-a falsification that gives the company a used car salesman image that will come back to haunt it when problems arise over on the Far West Side; and when Mikey isn't around to carry the company's water, Related will become a juicy piñata for every city pol.
And the truly egregious nature of this in your face effort, is the fact that, according to our sources, there is a certain supermarket chain-unionized and all-that is willing to take 100,000 sq. ft of the expansion footprint. Related, rather than taking this popular alternative-there is no, build or no build, scenario here-is hell bent on self immolation. And we have a theory about this-it all stems from the bitch slapping the company took at the Kingsbridge Armory. Related is simply hell bent on revenge.
Well, so be it. But the gauntlet is being thrown down-in particular in front of the city council that allowed this application to be approved without any restrictive covenant-like the one that was negotiated at the Bronx Gateway and excluded the Walmonster; ain't like it couldn't be done. In particular, Speaker Quinn is on the hot seat since she stands a straddle of the land use levers in this town. She needs to find a way to derail this exercise in hubris by Related-or go into 2013 as the one person who allowed Walmart in when a simple act of foresight could have prevented it.
Still, this promises to be the mother of all Walmart battles-and when the dust settles, the political road could well be littered by the carcasses of politicians that could-a been contenders.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Hold the Pickle, Hold the Health Care
The WSJ is reporting that McDonald's might son be telling its 30,000 employees to hold their health care, since the costs and mandates of ObamaCare may no longer make it cost effective for good old Ronald to cover all of his low wage workers: "McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul. The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world."
Who knew? Remember all of the fatuous claims from the purveyors of this miracle cure tonic? No one will be forced to leave a health plan that was working for them; costs of care would go down, yadda yadda ya. As IBD points out: "A big employer mulls dropping health insurance coverage due to ObamaCare's mandates. The claim that if you like your plan you can keep it was a lie, and the effort to destroy private insurance is working."
Maybe lawmakers really should have read the bill before passing it. As WSJ tells us: "McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees. More recently, insurers have proposed a round of double-digit premium increases and said new coverage mandates in the law are partly to blame. HHS has criticized the proposed increases as unwarranted."
And some of the more Obama-cloying pundits are wondering why there are solid majorities to repeal this, "historic," legislation-or blaming Tea Partiers or other so-called obstructionists for the plummeting presidential popularity (when not charging large swaths of the public with sheer stupidity). The fact is that this health care legislation will lead to the most dangerous enlargement of government in our lifetime-with an encroachment on individual liberty that will be as unhealthy as our rising premiums and tax obligations.
It's already started with HHS head Sibelius threatening insurers for the temerity of raising their rates to cover the ObamaCare mandates-and have you examined the extent to which this legislation will give the health secretary unprecedented power over our lives? IBD lays some of this out: "This administration doesn't understand how businesses operate and really doesn't care. As for private insurers, the White House doesn't care if they're driven out of business due to higher costs. We now know health care premiums and costs will rise due to Obama-Care, another health care reform lie. The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that "premiums for millions of American families in 2016 will be 10% — 13% higher than they otherwise would be. This represents a $2,100 increase per family, compared with the status quo."
But the expansion of government power appears to be the raison d'être of the entire effort: "ObamaCare distorts a system based on risk and turns it into an entitlement that is based on political considerations and aimed at getting as many people totally dependent on government as possible." And IBD concludes with the following ominous thought: "The irony here is that in this jobless bummer recovery, an hourly position at McDonald's may be the only thing people entering the work force can find."
The fact remains that economic recovery-not to mention real growth and prosperity-doesn't rest on any expanding government linchpin; quite the opposite. The more regulation, the more tax burdens, the more government grows at the expense of economic health-which is why we have taken issue with the local paid sick leave mandate that the city council is considering.
Stimulating vibrant economic growth is what gives workers opportunities to find work that will give them the pay and benefits that they want-and the promotion of unfunded government mandates for business leads to less growth and fewer employment opportunities. And Council member Brewer who sponsors the sick leave bill (someone who is one of the most conscientious law makers we have in NYC) needs to recognize that the way to help the workers is to forcefully advocate for less regulation and lower taxes for the businesses that employ them.
Over the past nine years, taxes have been raised on retailers all over the city, while the Bloombergistas have stepped up the regulatory assault that has taken tens of millions of unnecessary penalty dollars out of the local cash registers. And while the city's overall economy is stronger than the national one, local small business is squeezed beyond belief-as City Room has visually documented: "Nearly a year after the Federal Reserve Bank of New York deemed the recession over, many small-business owners are still waiting for real signs of recovery. In this video, part of a series of articles and videos that have followed several small businesses in New York City since 2008, one gets a glimpse of how unevenly the economic rebound is playing out across the city and various industries,"
You can't advocate for more costly concessions from an already struggling small business community, while at the same time promoting the growth of a costly municipal government-the end result, as the NY Post reports, is to keep robust employment growth tamped down: "Angry small-business owners said yesterday that the City Council's mandatory paid sick-leave proposal will prevent them from adding new workers. John Bonizio, owner of Metro Optics Eyewear in The Bronx, employs 19 people in one of his three shops. He said the bill would deter him from hiring a 20th person because he would have to increase the number of paid sick days he provides to each worker from five to nine annually based on the legislation's definition of "small business" as having fewer than 20 workers. "I have a company with 19 employees. I will not hire one more," Bonizio said after a breakfast hosted by the Five Borough Chamber of Commerce yesterday."
From ObamaCare nationally, to paid sick leave locally, we have elected officials unmindful of the manner in which the golden goose can be cooked-and blithely, even arrogantly, ignorant of the way in which economic growth depends on the risk taking of entrepreneurs, and not on the waving of government pens.
Who knew? Remember all of the fatuous claims from the purveyors of this miracle cure tonic? No one will be forced to leave a health plan that was working for them; costs of care would go down, yadda yadda ya. As IBD points out: "A big employer mulls dropping health insurance coverage due to ObamaCare's mandates. The claim that if you like your plan you can keep it was a lie, and the effort to destroy private insurance is working."
Maybe lawmakers really should have read the bill before passing it. As WSJ tells us: "McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees. More recently, insurers have proposed a round of double-digit premium increases and said new coverage mandates in the law are partly to blame. HHS has criticized the proposed increases as unwarranted."
And some of the more Obama-cloying pundits are wondering why there are solid majorities to repeal this, "historic," legislation-or blaming Tea Partiers or other so-called obstructionists for the plummeting presidential popularity (when not charging large swaths of the public with sheer stupidity). The fact is that this health care legislation will lead to the most dangerous enlargement of government in our lifetime-with an encroachment on individual liberty that will be as unhealthy as our rising premiums and tax obligations.
It's already started with HHS head Sibelius threatening insurers for the temerity of raising their rates to cover the ObamaCare mandates-and have you examined the extent to which this legislation will give the health secretary unprecedented power over our lives? IBD lays some of this out: "This administration doesn't understand how businesses operate and really doesn't care. As for private insurers, the White House doesn't care if they're driven out of business due to higher costs. We now know health care premiums and costs will rise due to Obama-Care, another health care reform lie. The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that "premiums for millions of American families in 2016 will be 10% — 13% higher than they otherwise would be. This represents a $2,100 increase per family, compared with the status quo."
But the expansion of government power appears to be the raison d'être of the entire effort: "ObamaCare distorts a system based on risk and turns it into an entitlement that is based on political considerations and aimed at getting as many people totally dependent on government as possible." And IBD concludes with the following ominous thought: "The irony here is that in this jobless bummer recovery, an hourly position at McDonald's may be the only thing people entering the work force can find."
The fact remains that economic recovery-not to mention real growth and prosperity-doesn't rest on any expanding government linchpin; quite the opposite. The more regulation, the more tax burdens, the more government grows at the expense of economic health-which is why we have taken issue with the local paid sick leave mandate that the city council is considering.
Stimulating vibrant economic growth is what gives workers opportunities to find work that will give them the pay and benefits that they want-and the promotion of unfunded government mandates for business leads to less growth and fewer employment opportunities. And Council member Brewer who sponsors the sick leave bill (someone who is one of the most conscientious law makers we have in NYC) needs to recognize that the way to help the workers is to forcefully advocate for less regulation and lower taxes for the businesses that employ them.
Over the past nine years, taxes have been raised on retailers all over the city, while the Bloombergistas have stepped up the regulatory assault that has taken tens of millions of unnecessary penalty dollars out of the local cash registers. And while the city's overall economy is stronger than the national one, local small business is squeezed beyond belief-as City Room has visually documented: "Nearly a year after the Federal Reserve Bank of New York deemed the recession over, many small-business owners are still waiting for real signs of recovery. In this video, part of a series of articles and videos that have followed several small businesses in New York City since 2008, one gets a glimpse of how unevenly the economic rebound is playing out across the city and various industries,"
You can't advocate for more costly concessions from an already struggling small business community, while at the same time promoting the growth of a costly municipal government-the end result, as the NY Post reports, is to keep robust employment growth tamped down: "Angry small-business owners said yesterday that the City Council's mandatory paid sick-leave proposal will prevent them from adding new workers. John Bonizio, owner of Metro Optics Eyewear in The Bronx, employs 19 people in one of his three shops. He said the bill would deter him from hiring a 20th person because he would have to increase the number of paid sick days he provides to each worker from five to nine annually based on the legislation's definition of "small business" as having fewer than 20 workers. "I have a company with 19 employees. I will not hire one more," Bonizio said after a breakfast hosted by the Five Borough Chamber of Commerce yesterday."
From ObamaCare nationally, to paid sick leave locally, we have elected officials unmindful of the manner in which the golden goose can be cooked-and blithely, even arrogantly, ignorant of the way in which economic growth depends on the risk taking of entrepreneurs, and not on the waving of government pens.
Failing to Make the Grade
The NY Times is reporting on the grade deflation in the DOE's NYC school report card-with tougher tests yielding poorer evaluations: "The number of New York City public schools earning an A on the city’s A-to-F school report cards has plunged, according to results released on Thursday, as schools began to feel the impact of the state’s decision to make its standardized English and math exams tougher to pass."
This has meant a more sobering look at how the school's are actually doing-as opposed to how the Kleinberg regime touted their putative success: "For the 2009-10 academic year, only 25 percent of city elementary and middle schools received A’s, down from 84 percent the previous year, when many more students excelled under the easier standards. Because city students failed the exams at a significantly higher rate in the last academic year, even fewer schools might have earned A’s had the city not decided to grade its schools on a curve. "
Grading on a curve? So, when realistic tests dramatized just how little the mayoral control governance team has done to actually improve city schools-the supposed evaluative tool we were supposed to use to determine Bloomberg's political success-the DOE went and watered down its grading system in order to deflect a cold hard look on the real level of failure: "Going from an A to a C is a big wake-up call, and it’s important,” said Shael Polakow-Suransky, the deputy chancellor for performance and accountability. He defended the curve as necessary to ensure fairness in a system in which a D or an F on a school report card can have serious consequences, including the closing of the school or removal of its principal. Over all, he said, he believed this year’s grades were a more accurate measure than last year’s, and parents should take them seriously."
The wake up call should be a bugle blaring down at Chambers Street-and if the school marks have been so radically adjusted, where does that leave the school system's overall grade? But this sleight-of-hand continues, and no amount of curvaceous duplicity can cover up s system that, in spite of almost doubling its funds, is redolent of failure. But if enough obfuscation is utilized for this grading calaculus, a clear understanding of how little the school system has improved is a more difficult judgment to reach: "One outside expert said that with the variability in scores and the adjustments to the methodology, it was difficult to judge whether this year’s D was more valid than last year’s B. “When we have a configuration where schools are bouncing around from year to year, the letter grades just aren’t that helpful,” said Aaron Pallas, a professor of sociology and education at Teachers College at Columbia University."
So, who will hold the system itself accountable for little real progress-and those who covered for the mayor while he ran for an unethical third term? And all of the hoopla for charters-alternatives that are obviously needed-is disingenuous at best when it is led by those who hyped mayoral control. That being said, we agree with Eva Moskowitz and her promotion of school choice.
Moskowitz, a former council member who founded a Harlem charter school that is doing very well, describes the difficulty in getting one of these alternatives started: "Another obstacle to growth is the endless red tape to which we are subjected. Getting schools approved and sited requires a punishing battery of public hearings. This year, the Success Academies will face more than a dozen such hearings. One technical mistake can be fatal. For example, hearing notices have been challenged for being posted on a website rather than mailed even when the hearings were well publicized and attended. (Ironically, the law passed requiring many of these hearings wasn't subject to a single one.)"
And what could be more graphic a demonstration about the public school failures than the fierce comp to get into charters? Moskowitz lays it out-referencing the new Waiting for Superman movie: "In "Waiting for Superman," a documentary in theaters now, five students enter lotteries to attend public charter schools, including the Harlem Success Academy, which I founded. These children, like others, face long odds. Last year in New York City, there were more than 50,000 applications for 11,000 spots. Parents across the city are frustrated. Why can't charter schools make room for every student who applies?"
In our view-and we taught in the NYC schools forty years ago when the first real debate over the efficacy of the system raged-little has changes; and billions of dollars later, parents are voting with their feet (just as parents with high incomes have been doing forever-see the Obamas in DC as a case in point). So when the new mayor is inaugurated in three years, she or he will face the same dilemmas that we faced in the late sixties. If you're a taxpayer in NY you might want to ask, Where do we go to get our money back from a defrauding mayor?
This has meant a more sobering look at how the school's are actually doing-as opposed to how the Kleinberg regime touted their putative success: "For the 2009-10 academic year, only 25 percent of city elementary and middle schools received A’s, down from 84 percent the previous year, when many more students excelled under the easier standards. Because city students failed the exams at a significantly higher rate in the last academic year, even fewer schools might have earned A’s had the city not decided to grade its schools on a curve. "
Grading on a curve? So, when realistic tests dramatized just how little the mayoral control governance team has done to actually improve city schools-the supposed evaluative tool we were supposed to use to determine Bloomberg's political success-the DOE went and watered down its grading system in order to deflect a cold hard look on the real level of failure: "Going from an A to a C is a big wake-up call, and it’s important,” said Shael Polakow-Suransky, the deputy chancellor for performance and accountability. He defended the curve as necessary to ensure fairness in a system in which a D or an F on a school report card can have serious consequences, including the closing of the school or removal of its principal. Over all, he said, he believed this year’s grades were a more accurate measure than last year’s, and parents should take them seriously."
The wake up call should be a bugle blaring down at Chambers Street-and if the school marks have been so radically adjusted, where does that leave the school system's overall grade? But this sleight-of-hand continues, and no amount of curvaceous duplicity can cover up s system that, in spite of almost doubling its funds, is redolent of failure. But if enough obfuscation is utilized for this grading calaculus, a clear understanding of how little the school system has improved is a more difficult judgment to reach: "One outside expert said that with the variability in scores and the adjustments to the methodology, it was difficult to judge whether this year’s D was more valid than last year’s B. “When we have a configuration where schools are bouncing around from year to year, the letter grades just aren’t that helpful,” said Aaron Pallas, a professor of sociology and education at Teachers College at Columbia University."
So, who will hold the system itself accountable for little real progress-and those who covered for the mayor while he ran for an unethical third term? And all of the hoopla for charters-alternatives that are obviously needed-is disingenuous at best when it is led by those who hyped mayoral control. That being said, we agree with Eva Moskowitz and her promotion of school choice.
Moskowitz, a former council member who founded a Harlem charter school that is doing very well, describes the difficulty in getting one of these alternatives started: "Another obstacle to growth is the endless red tape to which we are subjected. Getting schools approved and sited requires a punishing battery of public hearings. This year, the Success Academies will face more than a dozen such hearings. One technical mistake can be fatal. For example, hearing notices have been challenged for being posted on a website rather than mailed even when the hearings were well publicized and attended. (Ironically, the law passed requiring many of these hearings wasn't subject to a single one.)"
And what could be more graphic a demonstration about the public school failures than the fierce comp to get into charters? Moskowitz lays it out-referencing the new Waiting for Superman movie: "In "Waiting for Superman," a documentary in theaters now, five students enter lotteries to attend public charter schools, including the Harlem Success Academy, which I founded. These children, like others, face long odds. Last year in New York City, there were more than 50,000 applications for 11,000 spots. Parents across the city are frustrated. Why can't charter schools make room for every student who applies?"
In our view-and we taught in the NYC schools forty years ago when the first real debate over the efficacy of the system raged-little has changes; and billions of dollars later, parents are voting with their feet (just as parents with high incomes have been doing forever-see the Obamas in DC as a case in point). So when the new mayor is inaugurated in three years, she or he will face the same dilemmas that we faced in the late sixties. If you're a taxpayer in NY you might want to ask, Where do we go to get our money back from a defrauding mayor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)