Not Good Enouugh To Open

The fact that the West Suide restaurant, Good Enough to Eat, remains closed one week after a gas leak shut the place, is symbolic of the struggles of all small businesses in NY. As Julia Vitullo-Martin explains in this morning's NY Post: "How hostile is the city to its businesses? Consider the plight of Good Enough to Eat -- a renowned restaurant on Manhattan's West Side, that can't seem to reopen in the wake of a gas leak one week ago. A Con Edison meter reader smelled gas in the small, 18-unit apartment building that also houses Good Enough at 2:45 p.m. last Thursday. An inspector quickly arrived, found several leaks and turned off the gas. The repairs needed to get gas back on couldn't start without a permit from the city -- and it was too late in the day to get one. Carrie Levin, Good Enough's owner, says: "I'm a cook. I was preparing for our biggest weekend of the year -- Halloween, the Marathon, plus great weather. I faced a financial calamity and had no idea what to do."

For the past eight years, small businesses have been abandoned by the city-left to their own devices to struggle to succeed against man-made barriers that could easily be eliminated if the will existed. Owner Levin exemplifies the struggle against a regulatory system that's a maze-and we haven't even begun to touch the confiscatory taxes that saddle all small retailers in this town. The record levels of store foreclosures underscore just how bad things are-a fact that wasn't visible during the relentless Bloomberg advertising blitz about ersatz economic plans.

But in the case of small business, Good Enough to Eat's plight demonstrates that in his last term, the mayor needs to send small business head Rob Walsh packing, and revamp the agency to actually be in a position to speed help to businesses-especially those in an emergency situation.
The difficulties Levin faces should be the wake-up call the mayor responds to: "Of course, gas leaks aren't to be trifled with. But Levin's dilemma shows how badly the city's bureaucratic maze frustrates its businesses, especially smaller ones. There's no clear (let alone efficient) system for small businesses facing catastrophic closure. Instead, each owner has to figure out a path on his or her own. Levin sat down with a list of government numbers and started calling. Turns out that 311 only helps private citizens, not businesses. The office of Small Business Services promised to look into the problem and call back. It never did."

The mayor's resume is padded with the title of management guru-and he spent the last days of his campaign acting as the best friend of the little retailers. But the fact that Good Enough is still closed and Walsh is still employed exposes the padding and the campaign posing as well. The only real help that arrived for Levin was when Council member Gale Brewer got involved: "Says Levin: "Each time I think I'm done, they come up with something else. Once your business is shut down, all these rules and regulations keep you from opening again." The building's leaks are finally getting fixed, with another inspection to go when work's done. Maybe the restaurant will survive, thanks to the councilwoman's help with the bureaucracy. But no one should need a politician's pull in such situations -- the vast city workforce ought to be helping its citizens, especially a jobs-generating businesswoman."

Small businesses like Levin's are vital to the city's neighborhoods-and are the real engine for economic and community stability. Good Enough's success story-at least before the current snafu-is replicated thousands of times over all around this town: "When Levin opened for business in 1981, Amsterdam Avenue at 81st Street was forlorn and dangerous. Her tiny restaurant, serving old-fashioned American food stylishly prepared (she's French-trained), became an immediate success and ushered in the rebirth of the neighborhood. In 1989, she moved across the street and two blocks north to her current, larger space. She replaced bullet-pocked windows, installed a pretty awning and enclosed her sidewalk café with a white picket fence. Lines of customers snaking down the block became a regular West Side sight."

In the mayor's final term, the centrality of the small business engine needs to be acknowledged in a tangible way. Unlike the past eight years, with one large real estate initiative after initiative being constantly unveiled, the next four should be a focus on how we help the tens of thousands of small neighborhood firms not only recover or thrive. And if this task is beneath Mike Bloomberg, that others need to step up and re-focus the city's political energies where they can do the most good.

Carrie Levin's fate is a cautionary tale for the future: "Now her future looks grim -- the delays in reopening could kill the business...Fans have set up a Facebook page to monitor the situation -- and to call 311 as private citizens. Maybe e-democracy will help. But surely the Bloomberg administration could establish an advocate's office to ensure that no business in New York closes needlessly." It should-and that's an ingredient for a five borough economic plan that should be Good Enough to Eat.

Mr. Vulnerability

Mike Bloomberg has never been known as an empathic kind of guy, but people sometimes do change. And that is why we were fascinated by the NY Times analysis of the mayor's victory: "For the first time in years, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg finds himself governing New York City from a most unaccustomed vantage point: Vulnerability."

So, inquiring minds want to know, will this new vulnerability be translated into an enhanced concern for the welfare of ordinary New Yorkers? Even the NY Daily News editorialists, shameless shills as they have been, see the need for a bit more rachmones from the imperious mayor:

"Bloomberg's record on education, as well as on service delivery in general, was key to reelection. He had a fight on his hands partly because of term limits and partly because so many New Yorkers feel squeezed by rising costs, including taxes, subway and bus fares, parking fees and revenue-producing ticket blitzes. On this front, the mayor must reduce the expense of government. With unemployment at 10% and with the death of the Wall Street cash cow, New Yorkers face service reductions and/or higher levies unless Bloomberg dramatically alters the city's cost structure."

And while the News notes this cost factor, it really doesn't lay appropriate blame where it belongs-at the feet of a mayor who is a true believer in expansive, and expensive, government. In order to realize the News' imperative, Bloomberg will have to somehow reinvent himself-and he should start-if he's serious about this, and aware of what the close vote portends-by cleaning house among his closest advisers. There is simply little creativity in the Bloomberg inner circle.

But he needs to be mindful that the ground has shifted under his feet. The Times captures this potential sea change: "Ninety million dollars and a near-constant loop of negative commercials about his opponent later, the mayor ended election night in possession of a surprisingly modest margin of victory — far narrower than pollsters had predicted and with 100,000 fewer votes than he won in 2005. This could have profound implications for the tenor of a third Bloomberg term, not least that it is likely to hinder the mayor’s well-honed ability to cow Democrats and liberal interest groups."

The race for 2013 is about to start, and the long knives are being sharpened: "You’re going to see Democrats lining up to run in 2013, and they’ll start next week,” said George Arzt, a longtime campaign consultant who generally works for Democrats. “For a mayor who is very confident in himself, this is an earthquake.”

Which brings us to the Council speaker's conundrum. Will Christine Quinn see the narrow Bloomberg triumph as handwriting on the wall-and a signal that she needs to tack closer to her populist roots as an advocate and community organizer? Will Quinn understand the new landscape, and interpret the change as a call for greater independence from the mayor? If so, we could well see, "The New Adventures of Old Christine."

But, even if Quinn doesn't go back to her future as we would wish, the changed political landscape-along with the fact that a good chunk of the electorate is chafing from the mayor's haughtiness-will put inordinate demands on Bloomberg to make adjustments; but at 67 years old, can he really change now? As the Times observes: "Now, given his huge financial advantage in the campaign, he will have to confront the question of whether his five-point margin offers a different mandate: to change his governing style."

We'll see. But the one thing we're pretty sure of, is that the next four years will pose some unique challenges-made more so by the message of no confidence in Mayor Mike that last night's close vote signified. In our view, the amen choir will soon be short quite a few hymnals.

"This is Hardly a Mandate"

Mike Bloomberg escaped last night by the leather skin of his wallet-and the five point margin that no one expected to be that close, could very well be a harbinger of some tough times ahead for the big spending incumbent. As the NY Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pulled out a narrow re-election victory on Tuesday, as voters angry over his maneuver to undo the city’s term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending provided an unexpected lift to his vastly underfinanced challenger, William C. Thompson Jr."

So, as it turns out, New Yorkers weren't so easily bought-and hats off to their independence: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pulled out a narrow re-election victory on Tuesday, as voters angry over his maneuver to undo the city’s term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending provided an unexpected lift to his vastly underfinanced challenger, William C. Thompson Jr."

The folks were truly pissed off by the over turning of term limits as well as his incessant intrusion of campaign commercials, junk mail and telephone calls that drove people nuts: "But voters from Park Slope in Brooklyn to Morrisania in the Bronx seemed torn. While they praised his competence and intelligence, many were put off by what they saw as Mr. Bloomberg’s heavy-handed move to rewrite the law that would have limited him to two consecutive terms, saying it was obviously self-serving. The mayor had previously opposed any undoing of term limits, which voters had approved twice."

And the political pushback will soon begin. As Juan Gonzales observes in the NY Daily News:

"No doubt, many voters rebelled against the constant harangue of Bloomberg flyers and those nasty Bloomberg commercials and phone calls and just wanted them to end. The mayor will still call this a democratic victory - final proof that New Yorkers endorse his naked power grab last year to overturn term limits. He fools no one. In the midst of the city's worst economic crisis in 60 years, Bloomberg spent money like a million drunken sailors to buy his job for the third time. Quite simply, he buried democracy under mountains of cash - because he could. Mike Filippou, a former worker at the Stella D'Oro factory, was one those in the Bronx who voted for Thompson. A Connecticut private equity firm shuttered Filippou's factory a few weeks ago. The closing followed a yearlong struggle between the plant's owner and its unionized workers. The owners wanted to drastically cut pay and benefits. When they couldn't succeed, they closed the plant and sold the brand to an Ohio company. "Bloomberg never lifted a finger to save our jobs," Filippou said. "At least Thompson tried."

Make no mistake about it, as our new comptroller points out, this will be no third term cakewalk. As the News reports: "Bloomberg will face scrutiny from a new public advocate and controller - vocal opponents of his term-limit extension, who are expected to spend four years throwing hard punches at him. "This third term will not be a cakewalk," said Councilman John Liu, elected last night as the next city controller. "The well of good will has been substantially drained, if not evaporated altogether."

And Gonzales hones in on three areas where trouble lies ahead for the good will drained mayor:

"1) Computerization of government. Under Bloomberg, city agencies spent billions for new computer systems that haven't delivered what they promised and have exploded in cost - beginning with the new 911 system. Many of those contracts were awarded with little or no bidding. It's a scandal waiting to be unearthed.

2) Land development. Bloomberg's people spent years giving favored developers public spaces, city subsidies, and friendly zoning for huge megaprojects - many of which stalled in the economic slowdown. The price will now come due.

3) Education reform. The mayor's biggest claim has been improving the school system. But as more independent reviews come out of his reforms - from charter schools to improved test scores - proof mounts that much of the progress is smoke and mirrors. City test scores could prove to be as reliable as all those Triple A-rated subprime mortgages Bloomberg's Wall Street friends peddled."

And speaking of the second point, isn't it fortuitous that the Kingsbridge Armory fight will be first up on the land use agenda-with the very issues that Juan cites, particularly the question of large subsidies-livening the debate down at the city council this month. In addition, we just might also get people taking a second look at the entire Willets Point project-wondering whether this is simply another boon for wealthy real estate speculators and not in the larger public interest.

But we come back to the shocked Bloomberg ballroom for our final observations. Right up until the very end, the mayor had the spending faucet turned on full blast, partying like it was 1999. So we can take a great deal of satisfaction with the swells shocked realization, amidst the free beer wine and liquor, that widespread dissatisfaction exists with what the mayor did over the past year-a dissatisfaction that will animate the next four difficult years.

The Daily News is right on this, and we'll give the paper's Erin Einhorn the last word: "As thousands of supporters milled around waiting for a victory speech they expected hours earlier, Bloomberg aides sat glumly in an anteroom staring into their BlackBerries as the embarrassingly close results trickled in. "This is not what they expected," a Bloomberg campaign consultant fretted. "People are going to think it's a waste of $100 million." Another aide sorrowfully checked his iPhone, muttering, "This is hardly a mandate."

An "Icon of Political Autonomy"

Over at the Observer-and this post was written before the election returns came in last night-Steve Kornacki muses about just how Mike Bloomberg, once assumedly elected, struggles to maintain his relevancy: " If New York voters hand Mr. Bloomberg his third term today, there will be no talk of a 2012 presidential campaign and there will be no second term-limits extension. Nor is there the prospect of a Bloomberg for Governor campaign (speculation about that came and went - briefly - last year) or a Bloomberg Senate bid. The clock will be ticking."

But, according to Steve, there's still opportunity for the vast fortune to be put to some use: "Nonetheless, Mr. Bloomberg in his third term should still have an opportunity to continue playing a leading role on the national political stage - even though the threat of a future campaign for any office will be off the table. The key to his relevance, this time, will be the unique reputation -genuine political independent entrenched in one of the most powerful perches in the country, and backed up by billions of idle dollars - that he's carved out for himself."

Pardon if we demur here. In our view, Mike Bloomberg's vaunted independent status is seriously overrated-and to us, his political stances reflect a quotidian social liberalism that doesn't always play well in the heartland. In fact, Bloomberg can be seen in some ways as a kind of John Lindsay on cash-driven steroids.

But his relevancy on the national stage will, we believe, be dependent on the direction that the country goes after the current midterm elections. If, as is certainly possible, the country trends right-frustrated and upset by the Obama governing philosophy-than what role could a Mike Bloomberg possibly play? His independent status, then, is truly unmoored from a coherent world view that goes beyond his reflexive social liberalism-and onanistic trumpeting of things such as gun control, smoking cessation, and calorie counting.

And then there's New York City itself. Mike Bloomberg has indeed been fortunate to rule-in the post 9/11 era-in a time of rising revenue that obscured, for a period of time, the truly disastrous 2002 decision to raise taxes to record levels in the city. That period, however, has come and gone; and the coming era will challenge Bloomberg's autocratic and non-empathic governing style. The austerity that certainly confronts us will also pose problems for the philosophical limitations that the mayor is saddled with.

So, Bloomberg may well have his hands full with NYC problems that will help to redefine his tenure-as well as how his legacy will be perceived. It is in this context that the observation of Mitchell Moss becomes particularly risible: "As N.Y.U. professor and former Bloomberg campaign adviser Mitchell Moss puts it, the mayor is an "icon of political autonomy."

In our view, this is the kind of statement that borders on incoherence. The mayor's putative freedom to do things that other pols dare not do has not manifested itself in any successful initiative that challenges liberal orthodoxy. And, in some of the initiatives he has undertaken-like the congestion tax effort-he has failed spectacularly.

But, who knows? Maybe Mike Bloomberg will reinvent himself-now that's a refreshing thought! Perhaps he will take a long sober look at the city's unwieldy municipal Leviathan and undertake the Herculean task of revamping the way government operates to the detriment of the city's tax payers, homeowners, and small businesses. Such an effort-one that would look to cut the size of government, eliminate wasteful programs, and reduce taxes so that local business can grow-would indeed be prelude to real iconic status.

So, as regards to the Kornacki analysis, the real Bloomberg cautionary tale devolves more from the conditions that he will face for the next four years-ones that he himself has done so much to bring about. The mayor and his minions-and Moss is far from singing solo in this Bloomberg production-have haughtily proclaimed that these parlous times demand someone of Mike's unique talents. Have all these mighty mouths been issuing promissory notes that even a Mike Bloomberg can't cover?

No Mr. Buttinsky

The NY Post's editorial today on Governor Paterson's fecklessness when it comes to enforcing the law against Indian cigarette tax avoidance, captures the essence of this profile in cowardice: "Looks like Gov. Paterson was just blowing smoke when he asked the feds to assess the risk of violence from attempts to collect cigarette taxes from state Indian reservations. At a state Senate hearing last Tuesday, Paterson's chief counsel, Peter Kiernan, made clear that his boss would not pursue the taxes, because the gov -- like his predecessors, George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer -- just doesn't think enforcing the tax law is worth the hassle. Even though his recent request for a federal "threat assessment" suggested that he was preparing to go after the taxes. And even though the courts say the state has every right to collect taxes from cigarette sales to non-Indians."

Can anyone show the man the door quick enough? And the explanation offered is so lame-as well as a bow to the power of violent resistance to the rule of law: "Paterson, it seems, is just too nervous about the prospect of tribal violence to claim what Albany is legally owed. What a dangerous message to send. Among the "costs" of enforcement (i.e., excuses for non-action), Kiernan noted "the psychic harm of forgone opportunity to live in peace with those who are entitled to sovereignty and their interpretation of what that means." Say what? He's talking about tribes that rioted, threw burning tires on the Thruway and fought state troopers, sending many to the hospital, when authorities tried to collect the tax in 1992 and 1997."

And the cost of this pusillanimity continue to rise-along with the taxes and fees that the legislature passed, and the governor signed into law: "Meanwhile, the state and city lose an estimated $1 billion a year in uncollected tax revenues -- even as both face multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls."

We'll give the Post the last word here-and it provides a fitting epitaph to an accidental leader so clearly out of his depth: "Paterson's message? We won't collect taxes from you if you threaten violence. Clearly, he has no right to gripe when critics attack his lack of mettle."

A Tale of Two Studies:"Where's the Beef?"

Well don't act real shocked, but the city has issued its own calorie posting study, and guess what? It contradicts the independent analysis, and offers a less gloomy picture of the impact of this inane regulation. As the NY Times reports: "Just a few weeks ago, independent researchers reported that New York City’s ground-breaking calorie labeling law had had absolutely no effect on the caloric content of meals bought at chain restaurants in poor neighborhoods. Last week, city health officials delivered a more upbeat assessment, saying New Yorkers ordered fewer calories at four chains — Au Bon Pain, KFC, McDonald’s and Starbucks — after the law went into effect last year."

But at least some of the discrepancy is a result of methodology: "Although the findings of the two reports appear to contradict one another, researchers said differences in focus and size might explain the discrepancies. The first study, published in the journal Health Affairs last month, assessed the effect of calorie labeling only in low-income, minority neighborhoods, while the larger health department study assessed the effect citywide."

So, the NYU folks, responding logically to the assertion of DOH that its cockamamie calorie concept was directed at the obese among the city's low income residents, studied the measures impact in those neighborhoods while DOH-hoping, you think, for a better outcome?-did a city wide study. But even so, the results weren't-Carly Simon like-earth moving under our feet.

As the Times tells us: "The changes reported by the city health department’s preliminary data were modest, indicating little change either way in the number of calories bought at 8 of 13 chains surveyed, and a significant increase in calories ordered at Subway, which researchers attributed to a continuing $5 promotional special on footlong sandwiches that has tripled demand for them."

All of this time, effort, and misinformation for this? As the NYU researcher informs us, proceeding with just a bit more integrity than the city: "We looked at a population that’s much more price sensitive, so calorie information could have taken a backseat to pricing in our group,” said Brian Elbel, author of the earlier study and an assistant professor of medicine and health policy at New York University School of Medicine. Since obesity rates tend to be higher in these neighborhoods, Dr. Elbel added, “this is where we would have liked to see an impact most.”

Ah, price sensitivity, otherwise known as being poorer, plays a role. Who would have thunk it? Well, we did poke any number of holes in this social experiment that had no basis in social science or public health research-and the issue of cost was one of those variables that we mentioned. And cost to the franchisees was another inconvenient truth ignored when the health bureaucrats began to unleash this Nanny attack on New Yorkers.

But here's the stark reality that should-but won't-give the Nannies pause before they embark on their next crusade: "In fact, only about 56 percent of chain restaurant customers said they noticed the posted calorie information, and even fewer, about 15 percent, said they took the calorie information into account when making their choices. Those 15 percent bought 106 fewer calories, on average, than consumers who said they had not seen or used the information, the study found."

The good news? The Starbucks customers-higher incomes and skinnier than the Big Mac aficionados-apparently did make changes: "While the health department study found little change in the number of calories bought at most chain restaurants, researchers said the number of calories ordered over all at coffee shops declined by almost 10 percent, to an average of 237 in 2009 from an average of 260 in 2007, even though many people said they did not really notice or use the information."

But as far as making even a small dent on the city's rampant obesity problem in low income communities, this experiment was a total failure-all the rats got fatter it seems. But the DOH is gratefully patient about this setback, as the always nice Dr. Lynn Silver explains: "Dietary changes come slowly,” said Dr. Lynn Silver, an assistant commissioner in the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene who presented the data from the study at a meeting of the Obesity Society in Washington. “We were not expecting to see miracles.”

Nice to not have to live up to those kind of expectations. But even some minor changes would have been nice, no?

Dishonest to the End

It is finally election day, which means one thing to us-when game six starts tomorrow, we will not have to reach for the remote whenever another insufferable Bloomberg attack on Bill Thompson pollutes the airwaves. But in the final day of campaigning yesterday, Bloomberg added real insult to injury by doing a city wide sweep of small businesses in a final demonstration that he simply has no sense of shame. In fact, both candidates finally took a look at the city's economy-what should be the most pressing campaign issue; after all, it was the single justification for changing the term limits law in the first place.

As the NY Times reports: "On the eve of Tuesday’s election, the top two mayoral candidates put aside their bitter arguments over term limits, campaign spending and the city’s schools to try to reassure voters about a more pressing worry: the economy. The Thompson theme reminded us of what coulda-shoulda been: "With the unemployment rate at a 16-year high, tens of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and the city’s budget deficit topping $5 billion, Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered strikingly different messages to an unsettled electorate. Mr. Thompson, the Democrat, described two New Yorks. One, he said, was for people like Mr. Bloomberg: the superrich Manhattanites and Wall Street titans. The other was for hardworking wage-earners and small business owners who, he said, were being endlessly taxed and driven out of the city."

Now there's a theme that has resonance; and its late appearance is sad-but not as sad as the Bloomberg magical mystery tour: "Mr. Bloomberg, during a tour of the five boroughs, dropped in on small businesses and greeted commuters, stressing his financial acumen and background as a businessman. He acknowledged the troubled economy — “it has big problems” — but did not seem eager to dwell on it, instead emphasizing the stories of small businesses that have thrived: “We’re trying to help small businesses that need loans, give them advice on how to structure a loan application, or how to deal with city government, trying to reduce taxes.”

There he goes again! How to structure a loan application is right up there among the most compelling solutions for the economic difficulties being faced by New York small businesses-and notice how, "reduce taxes," is used as a throwaway line-delivered almost sotto voce. It allows Bloomberg to once again avoid his own record and culpability. Loan applications indeed!

In fact, as the Times reminds us, the emphasis on economic turmoil should have been central in this campaign from the McDuck vault, but never was, as Bloomberg successfully changed the subject-never so much as with his disgraceful last two month effort to demonize Thompson, in spite of the fact that he had a double digit lead and had out spent the challenger 16-1: " With a return to the economic theme, Mr. Bloomberg seemed to quietly remind New Yorkers of his reason for seeking a third term: that his financial expertise was required to guide the city through an extraordinary time. It is an argument that he offered with less and less frequency as the campaign wore on, in part to distance himself from his unpopular flip-flop on term limits."

There is the smoking gun of Bloomberg disingenuousness. With enough money to sell ice to Eskimos, the mayor couldn't bring himself to level with the folks and campaign on why he was The Man in these troubled economic times. His whole campaign was a concerted effort to change the subject, and the gap between his supporters and those of the comptroller underscores just how self aggrandizing and basically pusillanimous Bloomberg really is: "Despite the mayor’s healthy lead in the polls, the surveys show a big divide among voters along income lines. A Marist poll released on Friday showed that among registered voters, wealthier respondents overwhelmingly support Mr. Bloomberg, while the race is essentially tied among those who make less...In some neighborhoods, resentment over Mr. Bloomberg’s spending on the race has intensified the sense of economic imbalance. The mayor is on track to spend more than $100 million to be re-elected, and some residents say his nonstop advertisements and mailings serve as reminders of how distant he is from their lives."

So we head into today's election with only one real uncertainty-will Bloomberg's record spending give him a double digit margin or not? Make that two questions, because we also simply have no clue how the mayor, who spent and taxed us into this hole, will respond to the serious crisis ahead. The campaign didn't offer us even a small clue. Perhaps, as circumstances worsen we can all look forward to getting one of those Bloomberg loan applications.

Pay to Publish

There's this tidbit in this morning's MY Daily News about tomorrow's election that put a smile on our face (via Liz): "Bloomberg is the one with endorsements from 61 papers - not just the three major dailies, but also dozens of tiny neighborhood weeklies that thrived on Bloomberg advertising dollars." A representative of Mayor Bloomberg called me, and he made it very clear to me that I know how it's done. And I had to join the program, and the earlier I endorsed him, the more money I'd get," said Jerry Lippman, publisher of the Manhattan Jewish Sentinel and the Long Island Jewish World. His papers endorsed Thompson, all 30,000 weekly copies of them.

Howie Wolfson, a man of unquestionable probity and integrity, had this response-one that couldn't pass the smell test in the bronchitis ward full of congested pleurisy sufferers: "Bloomberg spokesman Howard Wolfson denied the allegation: "We have advertised in dozens of papers that have not endorsed the mayor. We try not to advertise in publications that don't have significant readership in the five boroughs, like this one."

So, let's get this straight. Every one of the 61 prescient publications that have endorsed our philosopher king had a larger circulation than the Jewish Sentinel? And the Riverdale Review as well? Oh please! This is all part of the grand spending spree that is euphemistically being called a campaign. And Lupica is right-he better win big for this kind of serious coin drop.

Baited and Switched

In this morning's NY Daily News, Mike Lupica makes the point that we have been making-ad nauseum-for the entire length of this political campaign-the one brought to you, and paid for, by Advertiser Bloomberg: "This is what Michael Bloomberg said in October 2008 at City Hall, one of the great purchases Bloomberg ever made.This is what he said in the Blue Room before he began to spend like the Yankees for a third term as mayor of New York, before he ran so many television and radio commercials that people of the city started to feel as if Bloomberg had moved in with them: "Today, our nation and our city face unprecedented challenges. As a businessman with expertise on Wall Street and finance, and as a mayor who has balanced budgets and delivered services, I can tell you the enormity of the challenges ahead ..."

And during the campaign itself? You heard bupkas about all of this indispensability during the doom and gloom ahead: "Bloomberg's message couldn't have been clearer at the time, as he began to explain why he - and his tame City Council - had to make the city's laws on term limits go away. The message was that only he, Michael Bloomberg, could save New York City from impending economic doom. Only that's not the campaign Bloomberg has run, the campaign that really started in the Blue Room in October '08, where a potential "meltdown" was his slick transition into talking about term limits. If that's been the real message of his campaign - sometimes you get the idea that the $85 million he's spent to get himself reelected produced 85 million hours of commercials - you tell me where."

The paucity of honesty from a potential three term incumbent who rigged new rules for himself is simply jaw dropping-and not one of the three editorial toadies who conspired with him in this leveraged buy-out had the decency to even call him out on the blatant sleight-of-hand. Of course they didn't, because doing so would have necessitated a looking in the mirror mea culpa of their own.

Now, after having spent more than any other human being to rent New Yorkers for a third time, he faces the task of demonstrating why it was that he was so irreplaceable. Our bet is that Bloomberg will try to re-write history on that point; and will flounder to tell us just what the hell he is doing as the city's economic fortunes decline.

This is what happens when you base a campaign like this on purely false premises-and pay tens of millions of dollars to generate a collective amnesia about the dishonest power grab. Lupica has the essence of this: "It just all started with a completely phony premise, that he had to do this for the good of all New Yorkers. Bloomberg got the city's economy moving, all right. Just with his own campaign. So it was all about money in the end. Just his, not yours."

Billy Who?

All of the normal kibitzing about the relative merits of a campaign challenger's efforts seems to us-at least when we examine the current Thompson challenge-to take on the characteristics of theater of the absurd. The Bloomberg spend-a-thon takes the mayoral contest to a different dimension-so much so that his apparent victory should, in our view, be treated very much like the Mark McGuire home run record; and be given a steroid induced asterisk.

Some of this is brought home by a NY Daily News story in yesterday's edition of the paper that found that a great many New Yorkers simply don't know who Thompson is: "Who is this guy?
Just days before Election Day, few New Yorkers can identify a photo of Democratic challenger William Thompson, an unscientific Daily News survey showed. "I know he's running for mayor, but I don't know his name," said Rashel Craig, 34, a stay-at-home mom from East New York, Brooklyn."

The fact that Thompson is campaigning in what appears to be almost total anonymity, gets to the root of the manner in which the Bloomberg fortune-and Mike's willingness to spend it-has made this election a charade of true democratic practice. So when consultants start to critique Thompson's efforts-focusing on his failure to do this or that-they are demonstrating what C. Wright Mills, in a different context, labeled, "crackpot rationality."

This form of rationality is an example of instrumental reason unhinged from any ethical or moral context. So, in the case of the current mayoral campaign, this takes the form of examining the intricacies of the challenger's "failures," while eschewing the larger context of how Bloomberg will likely win the pot by the simple act of buying the entire casino.

This is all about the complete mockery that Bloomberg has made of a process where real choice presupposes certain things being relatively equal. When this basic factor is totally obliterated with tens of millions of dollars of self aggrandizement, it becomes the only factor worth analyzing-all else is, as they day, merely footnoting.

Politics You Can Vouch For

The inanity of the Bloomberg campaign slogan-"Progress, Not Politics"-is being brought home constantly by the mayor's actions. Which only underscores the wisdom of the old saying of watching what people do, but not what they say. The latest example can be seen in a column by Dave Seifman in yesterday's NY Post.

Seifman examines the Bloomberg about face in the matter of a certain voucher program that effects Orthodox Jewish schoolchildren: "Two weeks before the election, Mayor Bloomberg told Orthodox Jewish leaders in a private meeting that he planned to restore $8 million in day-care vouchers that the administration had pulled just months earlier as the city braced to cope with the collapsing economy. "They are a huge help to many families, especially in the Orthodox community," the mayor said at the Oct. 22 session in Borough Park, Brooklyn, which wasn't listed on his campaign schedules. That was a 180-degree flip from what Bloomberg had said before."

Now, do we think that this is a major scandal? Of course not-but it dramatically reveals the hypocrisy behind Bloomberg's sloganeering; and demonstrates, in our view, the basic dishonesty that underlies the Myth of Mike that has been propagated, not just by Bloomberg himself, but by his retainers in the editorial rooms of the city's tabloids.

The reality is the Bloomberg has been a consummate politician-and has aggrandized this political skillfulness with the use of a private fortune that has been, until now, unheard of in NYC politics. In fact, as the election draws near, this city has never seen the ingathering of so many pigs at the trough as we are seeing now; from black ministers to Orthodox rabbis, no one has been as skillful as Mike Bloomberg at bringing disparate groups together. Let's praise the cash nexus, pass the collection plate and, all together now, say: "Hallelujah!"

Misplaced Sympathy

Our good friend Albor Ruiz covered a vendor protest last week, and we believe that his sympathies are misplaced: "New Yorkers are a famously contentious bunch. But there is one issue everybody agrees on: Unemployment in the city is far too high. So, it is difficult to understand why, in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the city decided to go after street vendors with a vengeance. But vendors are not taking what they consider unfair treatment by the Police Department sitting down."

Now this may be a case where two disadvantaged groups are being unfairly pitted against each other; but our primary sympathies lie with the store owners-something that Ruiz knows a great deal about. As he pointed out earlier this year: "Small, friendly and convenient, bodegas are more than businesses - they are veritable neighborhood institutions. Yet they are disappearing faster than you can say "stimulus package." Ramón Murphy, president of the Bodega Association of the United States, and a bodega owner, is sounding the alarm about the state of the business to which he has dedicated 24 years of his life - and that has allowed him to raise four
children."Bodegas are family businesses, and every time one closes, two or three families suffer," he said at his Red Apple Grocery, at 134 Hamilton Place in Manhattan. "Last year, 137 of them went down only along Broadway from 230th St. to 197th St.," Murphy added. "Hundreds of bodegueros [bodega owners] are throwing in the towel. Every day, two or three bodegas close in New York."

So the stores are hurting badly-and it's not just the little guys, although they have the hardest time. As the NY Daily News reported in January: "Now is the worst," said Ramon Murphy, a bodega owner for 24 years and president of the Bodega Association of the United States.
The recession added another burden to stores already facing rising rents, Murphy said, causing a surge of bodega closings across the city last year - including 137 bodegas along Broadway in Manhattan."

So while we sympathize with the plight of vendors, it is important to stabilize the city's small business base-and in many areas vendors setting up shop in front of stores are bleeding the revenues away from retailers that depend on these lost sales to survive. That is why we oppose the measure to increase the number of street vendors that Ruiz touts in his column.

As Ruiz tells us: "With unemployment at 10.3% in the city, higher than the national rate of 9.7% according to the state Labor Department, some City Council members like Melissa Mark-Viverito (D-Manhattan) and Charles Barron (D-East New York) believe that instead of punishing vendors, the cap on street vending permits should be raised. Barron recently introduced a bill that would do exactly that...The vendors' demands are reasonable: End the disproportionate fines, open more streets to vendors and increase the number of permits."

Until there is a coherent regulatory and enforcement mechanism to control existing street vending, we believe that any increase would be a disaster, not only for the small businesses that are forced to compete with these low overhead peddlers, but also for many local communities whose quality of life is being eroded by vendor proliferation.

Who Will Educate the Educators?

There's a great line from Karl Marx's Theses on Feuerbach III that comments on Plato's concept of the philosopher king: "Who will educate the educator?" And nothing so much underscores this world view than the actions of our educrats over the use of school testing. To paraphrase Marx: "Who will test the testers?"

All that we have said about the faulty test regime of the city's Department of Education is starting to come into a sharper focus-with the NY Post ironically taking an unexpected lead role this morning: "The numbers don't add up. New York and most other states set their benchmarks for student proficiency in math and reading well below those of a gold-standard national test, according to a new analysis. The report by the National Center for Education Statistics, which compared state testing standards between 2005 and 2007, provides additional ammunition to critics who charge that New York has set the passing bar too low on annual math and reading tests -- which students have been acing with increased frequency in recent years."

Now we don't want to appear to be really snide here, but isn't this the same newspaper-along with the Daily News-that played the amen choir to the Bloomberg effort to retain mayoral control of the city schools-with the riding test scores being used as rationale #1? It is, and we have apparently reached the classic Gilda Radner-Emly Latella "Never Mind!" moment.

Is it too early to demand a recount? And where can we go for redress from the mendacity that has been exhibited over the ginned up test results? And, equally as apparent in this dishonest campaign, is the fact that one person's proficiency is another's basic skills: "Overall, the study found that what many states called a "proficient" skill level, the National Assessment of Educational Progress considered one skill level below that, known as "basic."

So, basically we've been had-and it's our own new secretary of education who nails the testing sleight-of-hand for what it is: ""Today's study confirms what we've known for a long time: States are setting the bar too low," said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "We're lying to our children when we tell them they're proficient but they're not achieving at a level that will prepare them for success once they graduate."

And we have a mayor-riding a wave of unprecedented campaign spending-using these lies to justify a third term. We could chalk this up to politics as usual-but it sure isn't progress for our school children, their teachers and administrators, and of course their parents. Bloomberg promised better; but his failure in regards to this issue-one that is shared by his media toadies-is truly monumental.

Bully For You!

Steve Kornacki has an interesting piece in the Observer about how the mayor, running against a hopelessly outmatched challenger-at least as far as resources are concerned-has still felt the need to pile on. He calls it, beating a dead horse: "...Mr. Bloomberg has dumped more than $85 million into his campaign. He’s gobbled up big-name consultants, saturated the television and radio airwaves for months, secured endorsements from countless Democrats and media outlets and squeezed every drop of benefit imaginable from his incumbency. (Did you see him awkwardly standing in Fox’s shot as the ALCS trophy was handed to the Yankees on Sunday night?)Meanwhile, his opponent has raised virtually no money, relied on a sub–big-time campaign operation, been snubbed by influential members of his own party and been reduced to pretending that the president of the United States is strongly in his corner, when he plainly isn’t."

But this tactic comes with a cost-and, in our view, it has sucked all of the democratic air out of the room in making a mockery of the electoral process; a point Kornacki also makes as follows: "More notable was the simple fact the Mr. Bloomberg chose to lay out his vision of a 2013 New York in a speech on a weekday afternoon. Almost no voters saw it in its entirety, and only a few probably bothered to read the brief news accounts that made it into the next day’s papers. This wouldn’t be the case if Mr. Bloomberg had devoted his October media budget to sharing his 2013 dream with New Yorkers--instead of using his cash to savage Mr. Thompson."

So the campaign to literally save New York-so dire are our economic circumstances-is transmuted into a typical challenger savaging; typical in style but not in the substance since few have as much money to do as thorough a job as Mike does. In the process, however, Bloomberg has lost something-and it's reflected in the polls, as well as in the lethargy that is the one thing really scaring the Bloombergistas: "Which brings us to the polling, and Mr. Bloomberg’s stubborn inability all year—despite his many, many advantages—to climb much higher than 50 percent in head-to-head matchups against Mr. Thompson. This failure is remarkable when considered in context. Last November, just after he forced a term-limits extension through the City Council, Mr. Bloomberg was running just 15 points ahead of Mr. Thompson, 49 to 34 percent. No one was too surprised: The mayor had just endured some of the worst press of his tenure. Of course he’d be underperforming. Give it some time, and a ton of money, and his number will improve, the thinking went. But it really hasn’t."

What do we see $85 million and counting later? "All of this has added up to a net gain of just a few points over the past 11 months in Mr. Bloomberg’s head-to-head standing with Mr. Thompson. Fifty-three to thirty-five percent is his lead in the latest poll from Quinnipiac University, the same outfit that gave him a 49 to 34 edge last November."

And the reason why this has happened is a direct result of Mike Bloomberg's lack of any real political vision-a trait shared by the expensive team he put together to help run his campaign juggernaut. This was reflected in his rambling and lackluster NYU speech-as well as in his confusion at the Crain's breakfast when queried about his third term.

What this boils down to, is that this campaign is all about-and only about-the mayor's money; and his willingness to use and abuse it for the one thing that really matters to him-his own self interest: "We could have seen a more inspiring, meaningful campaign on the mayor’s part—one that would have allowed him to ignore his hapless opponent (instead of sullying him) and focus his efforts on laying down markers for a third term. It could have been the kind of campaign some dared to imagine back in June. Instead, the Bloomberg campaign has opted for politics as usual."

Imagination and real honesty simply isn't in Bloomberg's basic character. And when the media is acting as co-conspiritors, we get the lifeless-and relentless-barrage of mendacity clogging the airwaves. Trust us, the third term will be Bloomberg simply winging it in the face of some real difficulty. And how he responds to the difficulty may just shock us all-because there is certainly nothing in the current campaign that has even given us a tiny peek at what lies ahead for the city. But, don't be too harsh on Mike Bloomberg, he doesn't really know himself and hasn't given the problem all that much thought.

Media Milquetoasts

Tom Robbins lays out the bill of particulars against the political quiescence of the local papers: "One reason for the remarkably charmed life of Mike Bloomberg's administration as he sails toward re-election has been the waning of the city's news business. This is an odd blessing for a man who made his fortune as a media mogul. But just ask Rudy Giuliani, or David Dinkins, or Ed Koch, and they'll painfully explain."

And Robbins goes on to highlight a number of stories that, perhaps, in another more robust time, would have become fodder for tabloid competition-and a challenge to the Teflon image of the mayor. And the 911 scandal heads the list: "It's not that there's no investigative spadework being done. What's missing is critical mass. Last week, the Daily News's Juan González delivered some excellent fodder for a full-scale media assault in City Hall's Blue Room. He reported that the mayor's billion-dollar plan to relocate the city's emergency 911 call system has become a fiasco. Not only has Bloomberg's team blown its budget and deadlines, but it has also ignored the findings of its own consultant, which found the project was mired in mismanagement. Rather than dump its lead contractor, as the consultant recommended, Bloomberg's top aides insisted that the plan go ahead as is—defects be damned."

The deserved furor, however, never occurred. But we're placing the blame less on the state of newspaper lassitude, and more on the incandescence of Mayor Mike. How else can we explain why the 911 scandal, one that exposes the expertise myth of the mayor, never caught hold? As Robbins observes: "This type of project is supposed to be smack in the mayor's sweet spot since it involves computers and communications, the business that made him the city's richest man. It should also be one of those instances where he runs rings around old-school politicians because of his keen business acumen. Instead, here he is, tripped up by the same cost overruns and bureaucrats that plague ordinary humans. Another mayor in another time might have suffered many tough questions the day after such information surfaced. Instead, only the News chased its own story."

And then there are the schools: "Bloomberg's biggest claim to mayoral fame as he grabs for the third term that he used to insist he would never seek is his success at the business of education. This is a debate worth having. But Bloomberg consistently wins by default because the other side never fully shows up. As the legislature was considering the renewal of Bloomberg's mayoral control law this year, Brooklyn Assemblyman Jim Brennan issued six lengthy reports on the law's impact on the schools. They were detailed and thoughtful critiques on student achievement, school organization, and contracting. Asked recently how much press he received about them, Brennan paused. "I'm not sure there was any," he said."

But the education media miasma is, in our view, a sole consequence of the mayor's MC Hammer, "Can't Touch This," routine. As Crain's Insider pointed out yesterday: "But in attacking the mayor on education, Thompson has gained no traction. Various advocacy groups and elected officials have likewise failed. Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, says class sizes are going up, contrary to claims in the Mayor's Management Report. She recently testified that the Department of Education is “committing fraud” by ignoring a state mandate to reduce class size, which last year grew by the largest amount in a decade. Neither the department nor Haimson can explain the discrepancies in the numbers...Teachers frequently complain about tedious drilling to inflate test scores, but their union has been silent on this topic during the campaign—which, given the contract it got from the mayor, was no surprise to insiders. The three major dailies' endorsements of the mayor ignored the context of the scores."

So the pattern is clearly established. What would normally prompt editorial outrage and an accompanying media feeding frenzy for the sins of mortals, is ignored when it pertains to the actions of Mayor Mike. And this Robbins observation underscores our point: "At the mayor's annual Gracie Mansion Christmas party for the press last year, those in attendance report that Bloomberg took the stage to offer his idea of a joke. "I see that my three best friends in the media—Mort, Rupert, and Arthur—aren't here," he quipped. Then he walked out, right past the grunts who cover him all year."

So the fix is in-and we see it every day. In this morning's NY Post editorial on the collapsing state of the NY economy, the paper lashes out against Governor Paterson, who's only been around for a short stint, and fails to even mention Big Spender Mike. The lesson here is that the press owners finally have one of their own at the helm.

So, when misdeeds that would normally earn someone the Post's disdain, or garner a, "Knucklehead Award," from the News, are committed by the mayor they may be reported, but not with anything like the vitriol that is reserved for the lower class miscreants. In the end, the silence of the press lambs is all about the weight and influence of New York's richest and most powerful man.

Bridge to Nowhere?

Our friends at Queens Crapper have sent us the following missive about the continued political activities of one Claire Shulman-it seems that she's trying to emulate former the Alaskan politicians who got funds for a bridge to nowhere: "Flushing and Corona leaders continue to make incremental progress on the plans for the revitalization of the Flushing River waterfront to accompany the redevelopment of Willets Point.The board of the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. met last Thursday with other leaders, including Maura McCarthy, Queens borough commissioner of the city Department of Transportation, to discuss options for the long-neglected area.Possible plans discussed at the meeting include one which is not well-known among nearby residents but could have a significant impact on the area’s character: the construction of a pedestrian bridge connecting Flushing’s business district to Willets Point."

Claire, for her part seems to continue to spit in the face of the ongoing AG investigation into the questionable political activities of her so-called not-for-profit local development corporation-and he signed federal waiver to refrain from lobbying: "Former Borough President Claire Shulman, who now heads the development group, said she and the group’s board plan to secure funding, maybe even from the federal government, for the bridge and that they “intend to do everything we can to make sure it happens.”

So, let's get this straight. Claire's going to go and lobby the federal government-the same one that she pledged to refrain from lobbying in order to be granted her not for profit status-in order to get money for a project that is on land that the city doesn't even own yet.

And, as the NY Times reported yesterday, she might have to move fast: "Redevelopment can look easy on paper, but there are always neighborhood concerns, even in a place like Willets Point, a 62-acre industrial shanty town of body shops and scrap yards near the Mets’ stadium in Queens. The administration viewed it as an area ripe for economic development if the 225 existing businesses could be cleared....Mr. Doctoroff was determined to do better, through a local business group, the Flushing-Willets Point Local Development Corporation, which received half its money from the city. But about half the group’s money was spent doing something not allowed under state law: lobbying city officials. The group’s lobbying, has led to an investigation by the attorney general’s office."

In fact, as we have already pointed out, Shulman is a whirlwind of political activity-obtaining a so-called brownfields grant as a result of her clearly effective political activity. If the AG doesn't hurry here, he might find that his house-no matter where it's located-has been condemned to make way for some other aspect of the Willets Point development.

This Willets Point deal is rapidly becoming another example of a great NYC boondoggle. Money's being spent-or being asked to be spent-on a myriad of expensive projects at a time when the city treasury is supposedly tapped out. When the dust clears, will it be a sad case of "money for nothing?" It's time for the city to do a preliminary cost accounting for this development. Bloomberg may be immune to any form of sticker shock-but we're betting that the tax payers aren't.

Pay for Pray

You know the old line, that whenever they say it isn't about the money, it's always about the money. And so it goes, it seems, with a great swath of our esteemed clergy who have lined up behind that old time religion-the almighty dollar-and endorsed Mike Bloomberg. And Abyssinian's Calvin Butts is right there in front of the line singing that famous NYC gospel hymn: "Not for Nothing."

So it really doesn't matter that challenger Bill Thompson and Butts have longstanding personal ties; this isn't personal-it's business. As the NY Times reports: "A few weeks ago, the Rev. Calvin O. Butts III, the influential pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, came to a difficult decision, one he had wrestled with all summer. He would not endorse William C. Thompson Jr., the city comptroller and a longtime friend and ally, for mayor, as he had promised Mr. Thompson last spring. Instead, he would endorse Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg."

And the check certainly wasn't in the mail: "Mr. Thompson was furious at the betrayal. But what he did not know was that Mr. Bloomberg gave a $1 million donation to the church’s development corporation — roughly 10 percent of its annual budget — with the implicit promise of more to come. “What could I say to a man who was mayor, and was supportive of a lot of programs that are important to me?” Mr. Butts said in an interview before he endorsed Mr. Bloomberg."

There is, we guess, something to be said for honesty-but what's the difference here between what Bloomberg is doing and the "street money" that John Corzine was excoriated for giving out to members of the Black clergy when he first ran for public office? This is literally a pay for pray scheme that dramatizes the extent to which Mike Bloomberg's money corrupts the democratic political process.

But Butts isn't alone: "In his quest for a third term, Mr. Bloomberg has deprived Mr. Thompson of what many once regarded as his political birthright: the blessings of the city’s most powerful black ministers, who together preach to tens of thousands of congregants each week. And to win them over, he has deployed an unusual combination of city money, private philanthropy, political appointments and personal attention, creating a web of ties to black clergy members that is virtually unheard of for a white elected official in New York City."

All of which gets to the core of our argument-one that Thompson finally began to pick up in the last debate-that the mayor has reversed the normal flow of special interest money, and has done so in the the interest of the most special of interests-his own: "Looming over it all is Mr. Bloomberg’s dazzling wealth, whether already bestowed — as in the case of Mr. Butts — or hoped for down the line. “We have to come to his foundation sooner or later,” said the Rev. Timothy Birkett, pastor of the Church Alive Community Church in the Bronx, who is backing the mayor this year. “We hope that he will be receptive.”

And the final accounting may never be understood-and the clergy here may be unfairly singled out-because when you're the city's richest man and are giving away $235 million a year-almost three times the amount that you gave out before you came into office-it isn't only the ministers feeding at the Bloomberg trough. And when we look at the congestion pricing battle of a few years ago, and the term limits fight of last year, we can better understand the "outpouring of public support" as simply a concomitant of the outpouring of Bloombucks-a further Astroturf example of the subornation of an open democratic process.

We do have one thing to be grateful for. According to the Butts, the new Bloomberg family retainer, he wouldn't have taken the money and given the endorsement if the mayor had been Rudy Giulliani: "Since Mr. Bloomberg was sworn in, the church and its affiliated nonprofit groups have received at least $7 million in city contracts. None of that, Mr. Butts said, made it any easier to tell Mr. Thompson that he had changed his mind about the endorsement. But he denied that the mayor’s philanthropy played a role in his decision. “If Giuliani had the money Bloomberg had, and spread it around, he still wouldn’t get support,” Mr. Butts said. “This is not about Bloomberg’s money.”

Boy, are we confused. Go back and read the opening quote for Cool Cal: "What could I say to a man who was mayor, and was supportive of a lot of programs that are important to me?” But this isn't about the money? And using Rudy as a prop to his conscience here does little credit to the avaricious Mr. Butts-it's really a low bar considering that Giuliani is right up there next to Satan with the members of the Black clergy.

But even that fact didn't get the normal high dudgeon going when Rudy, being Rudy, made his inflammatory comments about crime a few weeks ago: "That contrast was on display last week when Mr. Bloomberg appeared at a campaign event with Mr. Giuliani, who suggested to a mostly white, Jewish audience in Brooklyn that “the wrong political leadership” could return New Yorkers to the days of “fear of going out at night and walking the streets.” Several black elected officials immediately denounced the comments as race-baiting. But no prominent black pastors demanded that the mayor disavow the comments."

So sorry Calvin, as we remarked in the beginning, when they say it isn't about the money, it is always about the money. And the behavior of these paid sycophants is a reminder that democracy in NYC is officially off life supports; and is only waiting for the final coroner's report on Tuesday to pronounce its death. Can we get a church chorus of-"Michael Bloomberg, mm...mm...mm?"

Loan Them Back Their Own Money?

Politicians, when faced with a faltering economy and the collapse of the small business sector in particular, love to devise loan programs to trumpet their concern for the economy's most vulnerable. We have commented on the effort of Mike Bloomberg in this regard, and have pointed out just how it avoids the central issue of high taxes and over regulation.

Why can't these leaders simply lower the cost of doing business? They can if they eschew a big government, high tax agenda. Which brings us to President Obama's-and sidekick Pelosi's-replication of the Bloomberg game plan. As the Foundry points out: "Obama promised that the stimulus would “create or save” 3.5 million jobs, and significantly tempter the rising unemployment rate. Now that it is clear that his plan has failed to save or create jobs, and unemployment is still rising, Democrats are reaching out to small business. “Small business is the engine of job creation and capital creation in our country,” Nancy Pelosi said yesterday. Their plan? Use more taxpayer money to increase Federal loans to small businesses—those that qualify according to government guidelines, of course."

But the Heritage Foundation website agrees with our position, and says that the effort is misguided: "Why first burden small businesses with taxes and regulation, and then turn around and use that tax money to give them loans? Why not instead first lower the tax rate, simplify and let go of some of the red tape, and then—if they are still struggling—consider using tax money to make special loans? Wouldn’t that make more sense?"

It would, but it is an approach discordant with the world view that sees the aggrandizement of government as the solution to the country's ills-and not the essential cause of them; at least from the economic side of the ledger. We'll give Foundry the last word: "Indeed, does it not make sense to first reduce existing tax and regulatory burden before jumping to subsidize?"