Governor David Paterson wants to reduce the obesity epidemic, and believes that his 18% soda tax will do the trick: "If we are to succeed in reducing childhood obesity, we must reduce consumption of sugared beverages. That is the purpose of our proposed tax. We estimate that an 18 percent tax will reduce consumption by five percent. Our tax would apply only to sugared drinks -- including fruit drinks that are less than 70 percent juice -- that are nondiet. The $404 million this tax would raise next year will go toward funding public health programs, including obesity prevention programs, across New York state."
"We estimate..," but by what measure? Whose study does this rely on, and where was it peer reviewed? But the governor, unencumbered by any data, plows ahead undeterred-falsely comparing soda consumption with tobacco: "In recent decades, anti-smoking campaigns have raised awareness. Smoking bans have been enacted and enforced. And, perhaps most importantly, we have raised the price of cigarettes. In June, New York state raised the state cigarette tax an additional $1.25. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this increase alone will prevent more than 243,000 kids from smoking, save more than 37,000 lives and produce more than $5 billion in health care savings."
Let's have some straight talk: cigarettes are killers; Coca Cola may cause tooth decay and, if you drink too much, you might get fat; that is, if you don't exercise and eat a balanced diet. So there really isn't any fair comparison-and the governor, by doing so, is ultimately both self serving and invidious. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't look to educate people about eating healthier foods; but where does this slippery slope end?
This doesn't stop Paterson from saying the following: "These taxes may be unpopular, but their benefits are undeniable. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, for the first time in generations, fewer than 20 percent of Americans smoked. Lung cancer rates have finally begun to decline. As a result, we are all healthier."
But the tax on tobacco is, unlike this soda levy, confiscatory-with a huge percentage of the price of a pack of cigarettes going to various layers of government. If you want to smoke, you are forced to cough up hundreds of taxed dollars to the government. How much you need to tax soda-or Twinkies for that matter-in order to reduce consumption is simply not known; and the 5% figure is just picked out of the governor's...fertile imagination.
So, what all this means, is that some of the lowest income New Yorkers who enjoy a Pepsi will be forced to divert a portion of their hard earned income to the government because of Governor Nanny. Now we happen to be diet soda aficionados, but we spent the better part of our childhood with the regular variety-remaining skinny as a rail for the duration.
This supposed well meaning government imposition is the start of a never ending invasion of our privacy, as well as our liberty. And health becomes a pretext for standard government taking: "But to make serious progress in this effort, we need to reduce the consumption of high-calorie drinks like nondiet soda among children and adults. I understand that New Yorkers may not like paying a surcharge for their favorite drinks. But surely it's a small price to pay for our children's health."
Taking a close look at many of our elected officials, however, one thing is crystal clear: we definitely shouldn't be taking health advice from politicians; especially those who are just using health to reduce our net assets. Soda syrup makes a slippery slope indeed.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Taxing Arguments
With both the state and the city poised to sock it to the tax payers, it's an opportune time to examine the dueling arguments. On e one side are the folks from the WFP and the DMI who believe that more taxes are good, as long as the "rich" are doing the paying; which is what the Working Families head Dan Canto has been promoting his millionaire's tax.
On the other hand, there are those, and we put ourselves in this category, who believe that New Yorkers at all levels are overtaxed-and it's government costs that need to be controlled. EJ McMahon frames this argument: "SHORTLY before Gov. Paterson unveiled his 2009-10 Executive Budget, one of his aides reportedly warned of "aggressive . . . cuts" that would leave "blood in the streets." However - despite what he calls "staggering" deficits this year and next - the governor is not eviscerating Albany's bloated budget. In fact, state spending would grow slightly under his proposal."
And with the governor sallying forth with a plethora of new taxes, it would seem that all New Yorkers would say, enough! And the NY Post finds that sentiment aplenty in the city streets: "New Yorkers blasted Gov. Paterson yesterday for trying to sock them with a slew of new fees and taxes that could cost them an extra $100 a month...Meghan Mackay, 37, a school consultant who lives on the Upper West Side with her husband and four sons, will have to cough up an additional $118.75 a month for everyday expenses under the tax-hike plan. Paterson's budget proposal adds $6.70 to her monthly cable bill, $10.05 to her gym membership and $16.75 to her cab fares. "I feel like it's a sneaky way to get people to pay taxes," Mackay told The Post."
But the counter side sees it somewhat differently: "But many state Democrats yesterday vowed to replace many of the Paterson budget's more than 130 tax-and-fee proposals with a sweeping new tax on the rich. Assemblyman Jonathan Bing (D-Manhattan) and others said the fees were unfair - setting the stage for a bruising conflict with the freshman governor. "A lot of them are regressive and will put the burden of difficult economic times on those least able to handle it," he said. "It doesn't make sense to tax a guy who buys a Pepsi with his lunch, but not tax the Pepsi executive who makes $13 million a year."
This, of course, reflects the Working Families position; but why is it being made into a class oriented zero-sum game? Why isn't Bing focusing in on the size of government and its grandiose spending? As the Post points out in its editorial: "By now, of course, everyone knows the private sector is hurting. And job losses are expected to get worse - much worse - over the next two years statewide. Yet, get this: State government employees are largely exempt from layoffs - even as private-sector job losses are driving Albany's biggest cash shortfall ever. Talk about a disconnect. Gov. Paterson wants to pink-slip, at most, a mere 520 staffers - a meaningless target, given Albany's 240,000- employee headcount. But by his own admission, this "would still represent . . . an increase of 8,927 compared to 2003-04." Fact is, the state headcount has been growing at a hefty clip: At 239,830, it's up 3.4 percent in just the past two years - and at the highest level since 1991."
It is unfair to tax the construction worker's can of Pepsi; but it's counterproductive to the economic growth that the construction worker depends on, to tax wealthy New Yorkers who are economic stimulators. When we talk about fair share, we tend to forget just how high taxed an environment New York is.
The problem is that the special interests that rule Albany are not alone-many New Yorkers are addicted to government; as long as someone else is seen as paying the bill; as Irene Liu points out: "But it isn't just the special interests who want tax increases instead of cuts to health care and education. According to a Siena Research Institute poll released Wednesday, 61 percent of voters support a tax increase on those making more than $250,000 (31 percent oppose it). Even more voters (78 percent) support a personal income tax increase on those making more than $1 million. Without broad-based taxes hikes, a majority of voters oppose cuts in education (68 percent against) and health care (65 percent)."
So we're going to need an elected official to come along who is strong enough to explain the economic facts of life to the voters-without, in the process, committing political suicide. If that person doesn't come forward, it might take economic collapse like we saw in the 1970s to force feed change on a tax addicted state.
On the other hand, there are those, and we put ourselves in this category, who believe that New Yorkers at all levels are overtaxed-and it's government costs that need to be controlled. EJ McMahon frames this argument: "SHORTLY before Gov. Paterson unveiled his 2009-10 Executive Budget, one of his aides reportedly warned of "aggressive . . . cuts" that would leave "blood in the streets." However - despite what he calls "staggering" deficits this year and next - the governor is not eviscerating Albany's bloated budget. In fact, state spending would grow slightly under his proposal."
And with the governor sallying forth with a plethora of new taxes, it would seem that all New Yorkers would say, enough! And the NY Post finds that sentiment aplenty in the city streets: "New Yorkers blasted Gov. Paterson yesterday for trying to sock them with a slew of new fees and taxes that could cost them an extra $100 a month...Meghan Mackay, 37, a school consultant who lives on the Upper West Side with her husband and four sons, will have to cough up an additional $118.75 a month for everyday expenses under the tax-hike plan. Paterson's budget proposal adds $6.70 to her monthly cable bill, $10.05 to her gym membership and $16.75 to her cab fares. "I feel like it's a sneaky way to get people to pay taxes," Mackay told The Post."
But the counter side sees it somewhat differently: "But many state Democrats yesterday vowed to replace many of the Paterson budget's more than 130 tax-and-fee proposals with a sweeping new tax on the rich. Assemblyman Jonathan Bing (D-Manhattan) and others said the fees were unfair - setting the stage for a bruising conflict with the freshman governor. "A lot of them are regressive and will put the burden of difficult economic times on those least able to handle it," he said. "It doesn't make sense to tax a guy who buys a Pepsi with his lunch, but not tax the Pepsi executive who makes $13 million a year."
This, of course, reflects the Working Families position; but why is it being made into a class oriented zero-sum game? Why isn't Bing focusing in on the size of government and its grandiose spending? As the Post points out in its editorial: "By now, of course, everyone knows the private sector is hurting. And job losses are expected to get worse - much worse - over the next two years statewide. Yet, get this: State government employees are largely exempt from layoffs - even as private-sector job losses are driving Albany's biggest cash shortfall ever. Talk about a disconnect. Gov. Paterson wants to pink-slip, at most, a mere 520 staffers - a meaningless target, given Albany's 240,000- employee headcount. But by his own admission, this "would still represent . . . an increase of 8,927 compared to 2003-04." Fact is, the state headcount has been growing at a hefty clip: At 239,830, it's up 3.4 percent in just the past two years - and at the highest level since 1991."
It is unfair to tax the construction worker's can of Pepsi; but it's counterproductive to the economic growth that the construction worker depends on, to tax wealthy New Yorkers who are economic stimulators. When we talk about fair share, we tend to forget just how high taxed an environment New York is.
The problem is that the special interests that rule Albany are not alone-many New Yorkers are addicted to government; as long as someone else is seen as paying the bill; as Irene Liu points out: "But it isn't just the special interests who want tax increases instead of cuts to health care and education. According to a Siena Research Institute poll released Wednesday, 61 percent of voters support a tax increase on those making more than $250,000 (31 percent oppose it). Even more voters (78 percent) support a personal income tax increase on those making more than $1 million. Without broad-based taxes hikes, a majority of voters oppose cuts in education (68 percent against) and health care (65 percent)."
So we're going to need an elected official to come along who is strong enough to explain the economic facts of life to the voters-without, in the process, committing political suicide. If that person doesn't come forward, it might take economic collapse like we saw in the 1970s to force feed change on a tax addicted state.
Affordable Food and Affordable Food Markets
According to City Room. more and more people are looking to avail themselves of food aid in this collapsing economy: "Almost half of New Yorkers had difficulties affording food for themselves or their families in 2008, up sharply from 38 percent figure reported earlier this year, according to a survey released by the Food Bank for New York City this week...During that period, demand for food aid has risen more than 40 percent in areas with the weakest economies and has risen 20 percent in areas of the country with the healthiest economies, leaders of nonprofit food-distribution organizations say."
With the rise in food prices, and declining supplies, the average New York family is struggling to afford feeding itself: "The portion of Americans on food stamps will soon exceed 9 percent, up sharply from its level in recent years. As recently as 2001, only about 6 percent of Americans received food stamps." So, we should be doing everything within our power to make food more affordable; and reducing costs for New York supermarkets-along with ways to incentivize new supermarkets in low income areas-needs to be front and center in this effort.
It is within this context, that the budget measures recommended by Governor Paterson-expanding the bottle bill, and taxing soda-need to be understood; both, in their own ways, increase the cost of groceries to the state's consumers. The bottle bill is an added regulatory burden that raises expenses while simultaneously reducing selling space; and the soda tax diverts disposable income from hard pressed consumers.
In this regard, we stand with Conservative Party head Mike Long, who told Daily Politics: "Spending must be cut, every bit of waste must be eliminated, every program that can be consolidated should be, every available option to reduce the tax burden must be made before any tax is raised.”
We certainly don't think that Paterson has gone far enough in this more sensible direction; and Speaker Silver is right in this matter: "Most of all, we will work to ensure that the burden of addressing this crisis – both in terms of cuts and increases in taxes and fees – does not fall disproportionately onto the backs of New York’s working families."
With the rise in food prices, and declining supplies, the average New York family is struggling to afford feeding itself: "The portion of Americans on food stamps will soon exceed 9 percent, up sharply from its level in recent years. As recently as 2001, only about 6 percent of Americans received food stamps." So, we should be doing everything within our power to make food more affordable; and reducing costs for New York supermarkets-along with ways to incentivize new supermarkets in low income areas-needs to be front and center in this effort.
It is within this context, that the budget measures recommended by Governor Paterson-expanding the bottle bill, and taxing soda-need to be understood; both, in their own ways, increase the cost of groceries to the state's consumers. The bottle bill is an added regulatory burden that raises expenses while simultaneously reducing selling space; and the soda tax diverts disposable income from hard pressed consumers.
In this regard, we stand with Conservative Party head Mike Long, who told Daily Politics: "Spending must be cut, every bit of waste must be eliminated, every program that can be consolidated should be, every available option to reduce the tax burden must be made before any tax is raised.”
We certainly don't think that Paterson has gone far enough in this more sensible direction; and Speaker Silver is right in this matter: "Most of all, we will work to ensure that the burden of addressing this crisis – both in terms of cuts and increases in taxes and fees – does not fall disproportionately onto the backs of New York’s working families."
Divine Rights
Both the state and the city are suffering from the past failures of both governments to simply rein in the costs, and relieve the tax payers of unnecessary burdens. But in the city, we are governed by what in essence is the worst of both worlds: a billionaire with both a sense of privilege; and also imbued with the belief that government should be there to take care of the folks-even to the extent of insuring that they eat their veggies.
So now, after having ignored the size and scope of city government in his zeal to help, Mike Bloomberg acts as he must; given his limitations, both personal and philosophical. As the NY Times reports the mayor, after posturing and threatening, is about to suborn the city council to raise property taxes: "The City Council is prepared to approve on Thursday Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to raise property taxes by 7 percent, and to increase a tax on hotel rooms, to help plug an estimated $4 billion budget shortfall over the next 18 months, according to people briefed on the negotiations...The move would put an early end to a property tax cut that had been set to expire in June.
For this we need Bloomberg and the old council gang for a third term? Where are the city Cuomos and Suozzi's with ideas about how to save money by reducing the government expanse? There certainly no where to be found among the Bloombergistas, a gaggle of inside the boxers whose last creative thought was during the Koch administration. Oh wait, that's where so many of them actually did cut their political teeth, and about the time when they apparently stopped any new thoughts from aborning.
But it's even worse than that. Because the sense of privilege that overlays this moribund philosophy creates a devastating one-two punch-something that is evinced in two blatant ways, The first example is the effort over Yankee Stadium's reincarnation; where the mayor's minions simply cooked the real estate assessment books to slice the ball club's tax obligations-in sharp contrast to how these folks see the city's suckers-its tax payers.
Here's how Juan Gonzales describes the rip-off: "Mayor Bloomberg's aides secretly pressured city tax assessors to inflate the value of land under the new Yankee Stadium so the team could qualify for nearly $1 billion in tax-free bonds, city e-mails show. In March 2006, the city's chief tax assessor put the market value for the stadium site at $27 million, far lower than the Yankees wanted. A Finance Department official ordered him to redo the report. Within hours, he jacked up it up to $204 million."
The privileged always have two sets of laws-but now, apparently because of Mike Bloomberg(and Bernie Maydoff) they are keeping two sets of books; with the tax payers as the victims, It seems, that when an actual assessment came in too low, city officials simply cooked a new one up: "After a series of frantic phone calls and e-mails on March 21 and 22 between a half-dozen city officials and the Yankees, Ottley-Brown ordered Kellman to produce a new report. "Here is the writeup with the changes you requested earlier today," Kellman wrote on the 22nd, pumping the assessment up to $204 million. Kellman would not comment."
If you or I tried this sleight of hand, those hands would be cuffed and we'd be perp walked; and this from a mayor who claims that his great wealth not only serves the city well for another term, but at the same time insulates him from those nasty special interests. If your house is as well insulated be prepared to freeze this winter,
And then we come to the stealth campaign to get Caroline Kennedy the New York Senate seat. It appears that Bloomberg is right behind this coronation, believing no doubt, that the state would be best served by a privileged socialite from the mayor's own neighborhood. The Times highlights this classy effort: "When a powerful labor leader picked up the phone this week, he was surprised to hear the voice of a top aide to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York. The aide, Kevin Sheekey, a deputy mayor, made it clear: Caroline Kennedy is going to be the next senator from New York, “so get on board now,” according to a person with direct knowledge of the call. As Ms. Kennedy’s unusual campaign for the seat takes shape, the mayor’s top political strategist is pushing hard behind the scenes for her, with Mr. Bloomberg’s blessing."
If there's anything that argues more forcefully against the Kennedy ascension than the fact that the effort is propped up by our own fraudulent ruler, we can't imagine what that would be. In fact, the both of them-Kennedy and Bloomberg-are bereft of any rationale to govern; it's just that Caroline's resume is even thinner than the mayor's was in 2001. And at least Bloomberg ran for his office.
One privileged out of touch leader is one too much. And for this parvenu to try to elevate his classmate is simply abhorrent, and is something that the governor should avoid. We are now going to suffer in this city for electing a novice seven years ago, We should not make the same mistake again by turning the US Senate into a novitiate.
So now, after having ignored the size and scope of city government in his zeal to help, Mike Bloomberg acts as he must; given his limitations, both personal and philosophical. As the NY Times reports the mayor, after posturing and threatening, is about to suborn the city council to raise property taxes: "The City Council is prepared to approve on Thursday Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to raise property taxes by 7 percent, and to increase a tax on hotel rooms, to help plug an estimated $4 billion budget shortfall over the next 18 months, according to people briefed on the negotiations...The move would put an early end to a property tax cut that had been set to expire in June.
For this we need Bloomberg and the old council gang for a third term? Where are the city Cuomos and Suozzi's with ideas about how to save money by reducing the government expanse? There certainly no where to be found among the Bloombergistas, a gaggle of inside the boxers whose last creative thought was during the Koch administration. Oh wait, that's where so many of them actually did cut their political teeth, and about the time when they apparently stopped any new thoughts from aborning.
But it's even worse than that. Because the sense of privilege that overlays this moribund philosophy creates a devastating one-two punch-something that is evinced in two blatant ways, The first example is the effort over Yankee Stadium's reincarnation; where the mayor's minions simply cooked the real estate assessment books to slice the ball club's tax obligations-in sharp contrast to how these folks see the city's suckers-its tax payers.
Here's how Juan Gonzales describes the rip-off: "Mayor Bloomberg's aides secretly pressured city tax assessors to inflate the value of land under the new Yankee Stadium so the team could qualify for nearly $1 billion in tax-free bonds, city e-mails show. In March 2006, the city's chief tax assessor put the market value for the stadium site at $27 million, far lower than the Yankees wanted. A Finance Department official ordered him to redo the report. Within hours, he jacked up it up to $204 million."
The privileged always have two sets of laws-but now, apparently because of Mike Bloomberg(and Bernie Maydoff) they are keeping two sets of books; with the tax payers as the victims, It seems, that when an actual assessment came in too low, city officials simply cooked a new one up: "After a series of frantic phone calls and e-mails on March 21 and 22 between a half-dozen city officials and the Yankees, Ottley-Brown ordered Kellman to produce a new report. "Here is the writeup with the changes you requested earlier today," Kellman wrote on the 22nd, pumping the assessment up to $204 million. Kellman would not comment."
If you or I tried this sleight of hand, those hands would be cuffed and we'd be perp walked; and this from a mayor who claims that his great wealth not only serves the city well for another term, but at the same time insulates him from those nasty special interests. If your house is as well insulated be prepared to freeze this winter,
And then we come to the stealth campaign to get Caroline Kennedy the New York Senate seat. It appears that Bloomberg is right behind this coronation, believing no doubt, that the state would be best served by a privileged socialite from the mayor's own neighborhood. The Times highlights this classy effort: "When a powerful labor leader picked up the phone this week, he was surprised to hear the voice of a top aide to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York. The aide, Kevin Sheekey, a deputy mayor, made it clear: Caroline Kennedy is going to be the next senator from New York, “so get on board now,” according to a person with direct knowledge of the call. As Ms. Kennedy’s unusual campaign for the seat takes shape, the mayor’s top political strategist is pushing hard behind the scenes for her, with Mr. Bloomberg’s blessing."
If there's anything that argues more forcefully against the Kennedy ascension than the fact that the effort is propped up by our own fraudulent ruler, we can't imagine what that would be. In fact, the both of them-Kennedy and Bloomberg-are bereft of any rationale to govern; it's just that Caroline's resume is even thinner than the mayor's was in 2001. And at least Bloomberg ran for his office.
One privileged out of touch leader is one too much. And for this parvenu to try to elevate his classmate is simply abhorrent, and is something that the governor should avoid. We are now going to suffer in this city for electing a novice seven years ago, We should not make the same mistake again by turning the US Senate into a novitiate.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Soda Tax Lacks Fizz
The proposal by Governor Paterson to tax regular soft drinks-and leave the diet sodas alone-is a direct tax on those New Yorkers that can least afford it; and, of course, it is all done in the name of health-forcing the folks to be healthy whether they like it or not. Here's the point-counterpoint from health experts in the take from the NY Times this morning: "Nutrition experts expressed mixed views on the proposal. “It’s an interesting experiment and one that’s worth trying,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “The theory behind this approach is that it worked for cigarettes, and that soft drinks are demonstrably related to obesity in children.” Connie B. Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis and a past president of the American Dietetic Association, was skeptical. “Generally, taxing food doesn’t change long-term behaviors with respect to appropriate food choices,” she said. Combating obesity requires a broader approach, with lifestyle changes and better education, she said."
The reactions from the folks themselves is more direct and to the point: "“There’s plenty of ways to raise money without hurting people who drink soda,” said Nelson Cross, 31, who emerged from Papa’s Fried Chicken in East New York, Brooklyn, with a box of takeout and a bottle of Pepsi." And the class nature of the tax wasn't lost on some: "But Javier Fuertes, 43, general manager of the Fine Fare supermarket, said the soda tax would have a strong impact, “especially in this neighborhood,” because of its low incomes. “It’s a very poor neighborhood,” he said. “Maybe in the rich neighborhoods, it doesn’t affect them as much."
These kinds of taxes are designed to obfuscate just how much the governor is looking to extract from all of us-and how little he's doing to restructure how government does its expensive governing. As Jacob Gershman writes in the NY Post: "PATERSON PUNTS BUDGET DODGES TOUGH DECISIONS." And, as he goes on to say: "Anticipating a tough Republican challenge in 2010, he's trying to position himself as a fiscally responsible Democrat in the mold of Hugh Carey. Thus, he yesterday called his spending plan a bold model of "disciplined and cost-effective state government." Yet Paterson's $121 billion budget reminds Albany veterans of the ones favored by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo amid the early '90s recession: an even-handed spreading of pain, an astonishing array of taxes - and an absence of large-scale change."
We're gonna need for boldness and creativity in Albany-half measures are pretty lame. Paterson is talking like Clint Eastwood, and governing more like Pee Wee Herman, he needs to be even more forceful in reducing the state's tax burden-while simultaneously reducing the size of state government.
The reactions from the folks themselves is more direct and to the point: "“There’s plenty of ways to raise money without hurting people who drink soda,” said Nelson Cross, 31, who emerged from Papa’s Fried Chicken in East New York, Brooklyn, with a box of takeout and a bottle of Pepsi." And the class nature of the tax wasn't lost on some: "But Javier Fuertes, 43, general manager of the Fine Fare supermarket, said the soda tax would have a strong impact, “especially in this neighborhood,” because of its low incomes. “It’s a very poor neighborhood,” he said. “Maybe in the rich neighborhoods, it doesn’t affect them as much."
These kinds of taxes are designed to obfuscate just how much the governor is looking to extract from all of us-and how little he's doing to restructure how government does its expensive governing. As Jacob Gershman writes in the NY Post: "PATERSON PUNTS BUDGET DODGES TOUGH DECISIONS." And, as he goes on to say: "Anticipating a tough Republican challenge in 2010, he's trying to position himself as a fiscally responsible Democrat in the mold of Hugh Carey. Thus, he yesterday called his spending plan a bold model of "disciplined and cost-effective state government." Yet Paterson's $121 billion budget reminds Albany veterans of the ones favored by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo amid the early '90s recession: an even-handed spreading of pain, an astonishing array of taxes - and an absence of large-scale change."
We're gonna need for boldness and creativity in Albany-half measures are pretty lame. Paterson is talking like Clint Eastwood, and governing more like Pee Wee Herman, he needs to be even more forceful in reducing the state's tax burden-while simultaneously reducing the size of state government.
Talking the Talk
When it comes to taking drastic action, Governor Paterson talks a good game. Unfortunately, while his initial budget proposal lays off of raising the personal income tax, it raises practically every other possible levy that the governor could find. As the NY Post points out: "Gov. Paterson yesterday socked New Yorkers with a mind-boggling 137 proposed new and hiked taxes on everything from beer to cab rides to iTunes downloads and movie tickets. The doomsday, $121.1 billion plan represents the biggest tax hike in state history and slashes services across the board - while still increasing spending by $1.4 billion."
Where's the fiscal hawk that was drawing so much praise from the voters? Paterson has managed to peeve both the left and the right with his tax proposals: "His plan immediately came under fire from both the left and the right. "The pain in this budget seems to be strictly for the middle class," said Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn). "You name it, [Paterson] taxes it. If anybody's contemplating leaving the state of New York, this should push them over the top."
And of course the WFP, and its allies on the left, has assailed things like the soda tax because it unfairly burdens the lower strata and fails to spread the pain around in an equitable manner. As the NY Daily News tells us: "We will be fighting this tooth and nail. We think it is irresponsible to make this level of cuts and not ask the wealthiest New Yorkers to help ease the pain," said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education.
This perspective is something that the Post finds resonating in working class precincts: "Working stiffs are getting stiffed. That was the angry reaction of New Yorkers last night to Gov. Paterson's plan to impose new or additional taxes on everyday purchases like nondiet soda, taxis and cable-TV service. "That's messed up. Everything is higher but my salary. The beer and the cab rides are going to leave me broke," said Harlem resident Ivan Quinones, 37, a grocery stock clerk and father of three."
The NY Times, for its part, focuses on one of its pet projects-public health; and analyzes the soda tax from that perspective: "The Paterson administration’s proposal for an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks — an effort that state officials said would reduce obesity while raising more than $400 million a year for health programs — has already touched off a vigorous debate among New Yorkers, nutrition experts and officials from the beverage industry, which vowed to fight the proposal."
In our view, the soda fat tax fits well within the rubric of those critics who see that the record number of levies are disproportionately burdensome to those with fewer resources. And for the most part the Times sees the same thing: "Asked about the proposed tax, New York City residents, workers and store owners offered a variety of views, but most said they did not support the idea. “There’s plenty of ways to raise money without hurting people who drink soda,” said Nelson Cross, 31, who emerged from Papa’s Fried Chicken in East New York, Brooklyn, with a box of takeout and a bottle of Pepsi. (He said he was concerned that the tax would diminish soda sales at a bar that his father owns.)"
Conservative Party boss Mike Long echoes our concerns about the rise in all of the taxes-and isn't it nice to see WFP's Bill Cantor and Long singing the same song on this?-and lashes out in the News: "State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long warned that reinstating the sales tax on clothing and shoes will drive people to New Jersey, where they will also gas up their cars and pick up their wine, spirits and soda because the prices are less due to lower taxes. "You're sending notice to the people of New York that we really don't want you here," Long said. "The governor proposed flat spending, but why not actually cut the budget before raising taxes and fees?"
But where is the doom in this doomsday budget? For all of Governor Paterson's rhetoric, there's little real innovation or even any deep and drastic reduction in state spending. The NY Post's editorial captures this: "Yes, the budget calls for relatively modest cuts in big-ticket items. But it "restructures" virtually nothing. It actually increases spending, by some $1.3 billion. And it seeks to impose tax and fee hikes in excess of $4 billion - larger than any New York governor has ever sought before. Can you say "business as usual"?...
And the Post goes on to detail what the governor failed to do: "Paterson had a chance to start bringing the cost of state government to something New Yorkers can afford. He could have called for real spending reductions. He could have demanded that underused hospitals be merged or shut - as the Berger Commission urged years ago. He could have said no to new taxes and fees." Fred Dicker underscores this failure of will: "The lack of creativity in Paterson's proposal - no significant work-force downsizing, no real lifting of regulatory burdens - took longtime government insiders by surprise since it was virtually identical to the earlier Pataki and Cuomo expedients that set the state on its current course of runaway spending. The governor, who insisted for months that New York would end its profligate ways, couldn't even bring himself to propose a budget that kept state spending flat. Despite his claim that the state faced the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Paterson's budget increases spending by $1.4 billion."
So, where do we go from here? We have a series of business and consumer dampening levies unprecedented in the state's history, but no plan to get us out from under a budget deficit that is slated to balloon by over an additional $10 billion plus in 2010; and a governor who appears loath to tackle the problem any time soon. Does any one think that the legislature will step up to fill the leadership vacuum? This doesn't bode well for New York State.
Where's the fiscal hawk that was drawing so much praise from the voters? Paterson has managed to peeve both the left and the right with his tax proposals: "His plan immediately came under fire from both the left and the right. "The pain in this budget seems to be strictly for the middle class," said Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn). "You name it, [Paterson] taxes it. If anybody's contemplating leaving the state of New York, this should push them over the top."
And of course the WFP, and its allies on the left, has assailed things like the soda tax because it unfairly burdens the lower strata and fails to spread the pain around in an equitable manner. As the NY Daily News tells us: "We will be fighting this tooth and nail. We think it is irresponsible to make this level of cuts and not ask the wealthiest New Yorkers to help ease the pain," said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education.
This perspective is something that the Post finds resonating in working class precincts: "Working stiffs are getting stiffed. That was the angry reaction of New Yorkers last night to Gov. Paterson's plan to impose new or additional taxes on everyday purchases like nondiet soda, taxis and cable-TV service. "That's messed up. Everything is higher but my salary. The beer and the cab rides are going to leave me broke," said Harlem resident Ivan Quinones, 37, a grocery stock clerk and father of three."
The NY Times, for its part, focuses on one of its pet projects-public health; and analyzes the soda tax from that perspective: "The Paterson administration’s proposal for an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks — an effort that state officials said would reduce obesity while raising more than $400 million a year for health programs — has already touched off a vigorous debate among New Yorkers, nutrition experts and officials from the beverage industry, which vowed to fight the proposal."
In our view, the soda fat tax fits well within the rubric of those critics who see that the record number of levies are disproportionately burdensome to those with fewer resources. And for the most part the Times sees the same thing: "Asked about the proposed tax, New York City residents, workers and store owners offered a variety of views, but most said they did not support the idea. “There’s plenty of ways to raise money without hurting people who drink soda,” said Nelson Cross, 31, who emerged from Papa’s Fried Chicken in East New York, Brooklyn, with a box of takeout and a bottle of Pepsi. (He said he was concerned that the tax would diminish soda sales at a bar that his father owns.)"
Conservative Party boss Mike Long echoes our concerns about the rise in all of the taxes-and isn't it nice to see WFP's Bill Cantor and Long singing the same song on this?-and lashes out in the News: "State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long warned that reinstating the sales tax on clothing and shoes will drive people to New Jersey, where they will also gas up their cars and pick up their wine, spirits and soda because the prices are less due to lower taxes. "You're sending notice to the people of New York that we really don't want you here," Long said. "The governor proposed flat spending, but why not actually cut the budget before raising taxes and fees?"
But where is the doom in this doomsday budget? For all of Governor Paterson's rhetoric, there's little real innovation or even any deep and drastic reduction in state spending. The NY Post's editorial captures this: "Yes, the budget calls for relatively modest cuts in big-ticket items. But it "restructures" virtually nothing. It actually increases spending, by some $1.3 billion. And it seeks to impose tax and fee hikes in excess of $4 billion - larger than any New York governor has ever sought before. Can you say "business as usual"?...
And the Post goes on to detail what the governor failed to do: "Paterson had a chance to start bringing the cost of state government to something New Yorkers can afford. He could have called for real spending reductions. He could have demanded that underused hospitals be merged or shut - as the Berger Commission urged years ago. He could have said no to new taxes and fees." Fred Dicker underscores this failure of will: "The lack of creativity in Paterson's proposal - no significant work-force downsizing, no real lifting of regulatory burdens - took longtime government insiders by surprise since it was virtually identical to the earlier Pataki and Cuomo expedients that set the state on its current course of runaway spending. The governor, who insisted for months that New York would end its profligate ways, couldn't even bring himself to propose a budget that kept state spending flat. Despite his claim that the state faced the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Paterson's budget increases spending by $1.4 billion."
So, where do we go from here? We have a series of business and consumer dampening levies unprecedented in the state's history, but no plan to get us out from under a budget deficit that is slated to balloon by over an additional $10 billion plus in 2010; and a governor who appears loath to tackle the problem any time soon. Does any one think that the legislature will step up to fill the leadership vacuum? This doesn't bode well for New York State.
Tail Wagging the Dog?
According to Capitol Confidential, a coalition of advocates close to the Democratic Party are uniting in the effort to get the Gang of Three to support Malcolm Smith: "The groups that worked hard to help the Senate Dems win the majority in November are back at it again, this time to help Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith secure the leadership vote in January. A coalition of the Working Families Party, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Unite-HERE/ New York Hotel Trades Council, SEIU 32BJ, NARAL Pro-Choice, the Empire State Pride Agenda, the Communications Workers of America, and the Tenants PAC are banding together to organize came together on their own and are now organizing their constituents and partner community groups to rally behind Smith. They have or will be in contact with members of the so-called “Gang of Three” to push them to support Smith."
We're not sure how effective this will be-and whether all of the groups listed are actually engaged in the effort-but we do know that a coalition that includes NARAL and Empire State Pride, is unlikely to move Senator Diaz; although some of the other labor people could actually be effective. The question here is still; What kind of deal will it take to bring the outcasts in?
And isn't it interesting that the advocates aren't engaging Senator Kruger? As the 32BJ spokesman told CC: "“For our part, we are engaging our members with two State Senators from the Bronx that are key to bringing this all together – Espada and Diaz. We are mailing and calling our members in both districts where we have some 8k members all told. Calls hit Thursday, mail by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest,” wrote Nerzig in an email."
You still will need 32 votes, however, to make the new leader, and the pressure could also backfire if it's too heavy-handed. And the Democratic tail here can be seen as too powerful-particularly since many in the group are resistant to budget austerity: "This from Smith spokesman Austin Shafran: “This broad coalition of advocates shows the unified support for Malcolm Smith and a Democratic majority and a recognition of Sen. Smith an the democratic conference’s commitment to meeting the needs of working families.”
But what about the state's homeowners, small businesses and tax payers? The danger is in too close an identification of the party with interest groups that thrive from government largess. Still, it is good that all are engaged here to help resolve the leadership process; but we're still no closer to a resolution than we were when the Smith deal fell apart.
We're not sure how effective this will be-and whether all of the groups listed are actually engaged in the effort-but we do know that a coalition that includes NARAL and Empire State Pride, is unlikely to move Senator Diaz; although some of the other labor people could actually be effective. The question here is still; What kind of deal will it take to bring the outcasts in?
And isn't it interesting that the advocates aren't engaging Senator Kruger? As the 32BJ spokesman told CC: "“For our part, we are engaging our members with two State Senators from the Bronx that are key to bringing this all together – Espada and Diaz. We are mailing and calling our members in both districts where we have some 8k members all told. Calls hit Thursday, mail by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest,” wrote Nerzig in an email."
You still will need 32 votes, however, to make the new leader, and the pressure could also backfire if it's too heavy-handed. And the Democratic tail here can be seen as too powerful-particularly since many in the group are resistant to budget austerity: "This from Smith spokesman Austin Shafran: “This broad coalition of advocates shows the unified support for Malcolm Smith and a Democratic majority and a recognition of Sen. Smith an the democratic conference’s commitment to meeting the needs of working families.”
But what about the state's homeowners, small businesses and tax payers? The danger is in too close an identification of the party with interest groups that thrive from government largess. Still, it is good that all are engaged here to help resolve the leadership process; but we're still no closer to a resolution than we were when the Smith deal fell apart.
Leadership on the Budget
We now may be seeing just why Governor Paterson has been so clever in his nudging around who should become the leader of the state senate. A Liz reported yesterday, he may be using the uncertainty as a lever: "Gov. David Paterson suggested earlier today that the response by the warring factions in the state Senate leadership battle to the fiscal crisis should perhaps play a role in determining who would ultimately be the best person to control the chamber. "The principals of both parties talk about crisis intervention," the governor said. "…They can feud over who is going to be a leader, but really the 62 members I need to vote on this budget. So individually we will talk to them and perhaps their response to a crisis will be a better indication of who should be the leader.“
Or, in other words, I just might throw my support to....well, the guy who promises to be my best budget dance partner. So it's no wonder that Paterson was in no hurry to resolve the leadership issue; and the greater the chaos, the greater the governor's leverage.
But to us, it seems that Paterson's biggest concern is if the senate tilt too far to the left-and the weaker the leadership, the greater the chance that this won't happen; especially with the WFP breathing down Malcolm Smith's neck. As Liz tells us: "It should come as no surprise that the labor-backed Working Families Party, champion of the biggest potential revenue generator NOT in Gov. David Paterson's budget proposal - the so-called millionaire's tax - is not a fan of the $4.1 billion tax-and-fees package...The WFP is hoping, of course, that its big investments in the Senate Democrats and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver during this past election season pays off now."
Paterson appears to be strongly opposed to an across the board personal income tax hike. As the Politicker points out: "When David Paterson was asked about why he chose to focus on 88 new and increased sales taxes and fees as opposed to a broader income tax increase, he said it was because he was afraid more people would leave New York. "If you're going to tax, you've got to tax at a time when your economy is coming back," Paterson said, indisputably. "The broad-based income tax at this time would only exacerbate the problem."
Of course, we also have opposed some of the governor's new taxes-but not in the same class warfare kind of way: "Paterson's proposals have attracted some criticism from fiscal liberals. "Some of these fees are, in fact, regressive," said Ron Deutsch, head of the labor-backed group New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. "The reality is he's nickel-and-dimming the average New Yorker and not asking the wealthiest New Yorkers to pay their fair share."
But not everyone sees Paterson as a fiscal hawk. Here's EJ McMahon's take on the governor's budget, and he sees way to much continued government growth: "An anonymous Paterson Administration official is quoted in today’s Albany Times Union as predicting that the governor’s budget proposal would include an “aggressive set of cuts” that will leave “blood in the streets.” Maybe he meant ketchup – for despite what the governor calls a “staggering deficit,” Paterson’s 2009-10 Executive Budget would not reduce overall spending. In fact, if enacted as proposed, the budget would grow slightly."
So Paterson is doing more talking, perhaps, than actual walking on fiscal responsibility. The reality to us is that higher taxes, wherever they rear their ugly head, is destructive to economic growth-and harmful to all classes of people. And we're eager to see just how creative the governor and the legislature can be in implementing the governmental reform ideas put forward by the AG, the Comptroller, and the Nassau County Executive.
Or, in other words, I just might throw my support to....well, the guy who promises to be my best budget dance partner. So it's no wonder that Paterson was in no hurry to resolve the leadership issue; and the greater the chaos, the greater the governor's leverage.
But to us, it seems that Paterson's biggest concern is if the senate tilt too far to the left-and the weaker the leadership, the greater the chance that this won't happen; especially with the WFP breathing down Malcolm Smith's neck. As Liz tells us: "It should come as no surprise that the labor-backed Working Families Party, champion of the biggest potential revenue generator NOT in Gov. David Paterson's budget proposal - the so-called millionaire's tax - is not a fan of the $4.1 billion tax-and-fees package...The WFP is hoping, of course, that its big investments in the Senate Democrats and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver during this past election season pays off now."
Paterson appears to be strongly opposed to an across the board personal income tax hike. As the Politicker points out: "When David Paterson was asked about why he chose to focus on 88 new and increased sales taxes and fees as opposed to a broader income tax increase, he said it was because he was afraid more people would leave New York. "If you're going to tax, you've got to tax at a time when your economy is coming back," Paterson said, indisputably. "The broad-based income tax at this time would only exacerbate the problem."
Of course, we also have opposed some of the governor's new taxes-but not in the same class warfare kind of way: "Paterson's proposals have attracted some criticism from fiscal liberals. "Some of these fees are, in fact, regressive," said Ron Deutsch, head of the labor-backed group New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. "The reality is he's nickel-and-dimming the average New Yorker and not asking the wealthiest New Yorkers to pay their fair share."
But not everyone sees Paterson as a fiscal hawk. Here's EJ McMahon's take on the governor's budget, and he sees way to much continued government growth: "An anonymous Paterson Administration official is quoted in today’s Albany Times Union as predicting that the governor’s budget proposal would include an “aggressive set of cuts” that will leave “blood in the streets.” Maybe he meant ketchup – for despite what the governor calls a “staggering deficit,” Paterson’s 2009-10 Executive Budget would not reduce overall spending. In fact, if enacted as proposed, the budget would grow slightly."
So Paterson is doing more talking, perhaps, than actual walking on fiscal responsibility. The reality to us is that higher taxes, wherever they rear their ugly head, is destructive to economic growth-and harmful to all classes of people. And we're eager to see just how creative the governor and the legislature can be in implementing the governmental reform ideas put forward by the AG, the Comptroller, and the Nassau County Executive.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Expanding the Bottle Bill
Governor Paterson has unveiled his new budget and, no surprise, he's calling for the expansion of the bottle bill in the belief that-through the escheating of the unredeemed deposits-he can garner $118 million for his beleaguered state. What he hasn't done, is figure out what this expansion would mean to the state's supermarket industry-particularly in NYC where food markets are as beleaguered as the state's budget is.
Local markets-and we'll include bodegas and green grocers in this equation, since these smaller operators are also mandated to redeem deposit containers-are suffering from an array of regulatory and tax burdens that make additional redemption burdens extremely problematic; and, of course, the situation is exacerbated by the space constraints of the inner city food retailers.
Along with these burdens, city store owners have been suffering because escalating rents have, combined with the other overhead challenges, forced hundreds of mid-sized and smaller food stores right out of business. And the fact that adding sweet juice beverages will increase the sanitation issues for these stores, only adds to the rationality of the retail opposition.
If we're looking to increase the number of supermarkets-particularly in low income areas-we need to reduce overhead, and not add to the cost of doing business, something that an expanded bottle bill absolutely will do. The food retail business, at all levels, has been an incubator for minority business growth; over half the supermarkets in the city are minority-owned. But because of escalating costs, the NY Times has shown that many of these operators are being driven out of the city-and are opening stores in lower taxed and less challenged regulatory environments.
And then there's the fact that the escheats clause will simply result in the consumer paying more for her beverages-since the unredeemed deposits retained by beer and soda companies are used to defray the expense of container collection. In a recession, where folks are being laid off and more and more people are utilizing food stamps, adding to the cost of beverages is simply a bad idea-one that will impact low income shoppers more than other consumers.
Interestingly enough, bottle bill expansion has generated opposition within the environmental community because it appears that the governor plans to utilize a shell game to substitute the escheats money that has yet to be collected-the expansion of the bottle bill hasn't been, and may never be, passed-for actual dollars sitting in the Environmental Protection Fund.
As the Legislative Gazette points out: "Recently the governors proposed cuts have provided for us a frightening omen and we are concerned that the Environmental Protection Fund is not a priority for this administration,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment...Paterson includes in his midyear budget plan the expansion of New York’s bottle deposit law to include (A.8044a/S.5850a) expanding nickel deposits for all noncarbonated drink containers such as water bottles and juice containers, placing the unclaimed funds into the EPF.The governor’s proposal however would have transferred these unclaimed bottle deposits — an estimated $118 million per year — into the EPF, and then divert existing revenues from the EPF into the General Fund for the state, according to Esposito."
Of course, the environmentalists are but fleeting allies here; and if the governor sent the escheats into the general fund they wouldn't object at all: "The group suggested that instead of the governor cutting money from the EPF for the General Fund, he instead could transfer the revenue from bottle bill into the General Fund." For the time being, however, these groups stand opposed and can offer some short term help to the grocery industry.
So we should be prepared for a major budget battle-on this, and so many other contentious items. The full weight of the food retail community will have to be brought to bear if the expansion effort is to be defeated in this fiscal climate. With the assembly having staked out a pro-expansion position in the past, it may be up to the leaderless state senate to put the kibosh on a bad idea-one that will hurt consumers and business alike.
Local markets-and we'll include bodegas and green grocers in this equation, since these smaller operators are also mandated to redeem deposit containers-are suffering from an array of regulatory and tax burdens that make additional redemption burdens extremely problematic; and, of course, the situation is exacerbated by the space constraints of the inner city food retailers.
Along with these burdens, city store owners have been suffering because escalating rents have, combined with the other overhead challenges, forced hundreds of mid-sized and smaller food stores right out of business. And the fact that adding sweet juice beverages will increase the sanitation issues for these stores, only adds to the rationality of the retail opposition.
If we're looking to increase the number of supermarkets-particularly in low income areas-we need to reduce overhead, and not add to the cost of doing business, something that an expanded bottle bill absolutely will do. The food retail business, at all levels, has been an incubator for minority business growth; over half the supermarkets in the city are minority-owned. But because of escalating costs, the NY Times has shown that many of these operators are being driven out of the city-and are opening stores in lower taxed and less challenged regulatory environments.
And then there's the fact that the escheats clause will simply result in the consumer paying more for her beverages-since the unredeemed deposits retained by beer and soda companies are used to defray the expense of container collection. In a recession, where folks are being laid off and more and more people are utilizing food stamps, adding to the cost of beverages is simply a bad idea-one that will impact low income shoppers more than other consumers.
Interestingly enough, bottle bill expansion has generated opposition within the environmental community because it appears that the governor plans to utilize a shell game to substitute the escheats money that has yet to be collected-the expansion of the bottle bill hasn't been, and may never be, passed-for actual dollars sitting in the Environmental Protection Fund.
As the Legislative Gazette points out: "Recently the governors proposed cuts have provided for us a frightening omen and we are concerned that the Environmental Protection Fund is not a priority for this administration,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment...Paterson includes in his midyear budget plan the expansion of New York’s bottle deposit law to include (A.8044a/S.5850a) expanding nickel deposits for all noncarbonated drink containers such as water bottles and juice containers, placing the unclaimed funds into the EPF.The governor’s proposal however would have transferred these unclaimed bottle deposits — an estimated $118 million per year — into the EPF, and then divert existing revenues from the EPF into the General Fund for the state, according to Esposito."
Of course, the environmentalists are but fleeting allies here; and if the governor sent the escheats into the general fund they wouldn't object at all: "The group suggested that instead of the governor cutting money from the EPF for the General Fund, he instead could transfer the revenue from bottle bill into the General Fund." For the time being, however, these groups stand opposed and can offer some short term help to the grocery industry.
So we should be prepared for a major budget battle-on this, and so many other contentious items. The full weight of the food retail community will have to be brought to bear if the expansion effort is to be defeated in this fiscal climate. With the assembly having staked out a pro-expansion position in the past, it may be up to the leaderless state senate to put the kibosh on a bad idea-one that will hurt consumers and business alike.
Real Straight Talk Express on Government Reform
In this morning's NY Daily News, Bill Hammond lauds four Democratic leaders in the state who are talking straight about the need for reforming state government in order to address our budget meltdown; it's a stance that the legislature needs to follow: "A remarkable thing is happening to New York's Democratic Party in this economic crisis: Its leaders are acting like grownups. Some of the highest-ranking, most popular Dems in the state - up to and including Gov. Paterson - are banging the drum for lower spending and smaller government while raising taxes only as a last resort. Which is hardly what you'd expect from Moscow-on-the-Hudson liberals."
This is refreshing indeed-although the governor sounded a but squishy on new taxes yesterday; not to mention his silly fat fee on soda. That being said, reform is in the air: "But the party's top leaders - including Paterson, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and state Controller Tom DiNapoli - have shed their big-spending tendencies and transformed themselves into responsible custodians of state dollars. Which offers at least some comfort for New York's beleaguered taxpayers. Tuesday, Paterson will pick a fight with his party's most powerful interest groups - public employee unions - when he rolls out his 2009-10 budget. Instead of going along with the massive income tax hike that the unions want, he will instead make deep cuts in school aid and Medicaid - programs dear to the hearts (and campaign accounts) of party regulars."
All of which is to the good if we can find allies for this new deal in the legislature-something that is in real doubt with the Working Families Party screaming for more taxes. The four leaders, however, have read the economic tea leaves: "They understand that Wall Street's golden goose is done laying eggs for the near future. They know that pushing the highest taxes in the nation even higher will only drive more jobs and families away - and seal New York's rep as the Vampire State. They sense the frustration of voters. They recognize that bloated business as usual has to stop. They're leading their party and the state in the right direction. Here's hoping they get somewhere."
And Governor Paterson even did something we thought he never would-sign an enforcement bill on taxing Indian cigarette retailers. Now, as the NY Post opines, he must find the will and the methodology to enforce the law: "But the governor's signature doesn't necessarily mean that the state will see one extra dollar. After all, New Yorkers have seen this before. In 2006, then-Gov. George Pataki signed a law that was supposed to tax Indian smokes. But, fearing Indian violence, he did nothing to enforce it - and his two successors were more than happy to follow his example."
The jury's out on this because the enforcement methodology on the bill is too complex; and as the Post rightfully points out: "Better still would have been for Paterson to use the authority he already has - and require all cigarettes sold on reservations to have their taxes paid in advance."
All in all, however, we're beginning to hear the right things from our leaders-although in the city all of this talk of governmental reform appears to have gone over the mayor's head as if the talk was all gibberish. Where was Mike Bloomberg for the last seven years? And how come we haven't heard an encouraging reform word from him? He remains clueless-and only seems to want to threaten the city council with fire and police service cuts-a sure sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
The state and city are at a political crossroads where, as Nicole Gelinas points out this morning, opportunity exists to make the right economic choices so that the future can be secured. The state leaders have stepped up-and the senate with a new leader will hopefully as well-so we await the mayor and the city council to follow suit; after all, another term has to be for a reason; no?
This is refreshing indeed-although the governor sounded a but squishy on new taxes yesterday; not to mention his silly fat fee on soda. That being said, reform is in the air: "But the party's top leaders - including Paterson, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and state Controller Tom DiNapoli - have shed their big-spending tendencies and transformed themselves into responsible custodians of state dollars. Which offers at least some comfort for New York's beleaguered taxpayers. Tuesday, Paterson will pick a fight with his party's most powerful interest groups - public employee unions - when he rolls out his 2009-10 budget. Instead of going along with the massive income tax hike that the unions want, he will instead make deep cuts in school aid and Medicaid - programs dear to the hearts (and campaign accounts) of party regulars."
All of which is to the good if we can find allies for this new deal in the legislature-something that is in real doubt with the Working Families Party screaming for more taxes. The four leaders, however, have read the economic tea leaves: "They understand that Wall Street's golden goose is done laying eggs for the near future. They know that pushing the highest taxes in the nation even higher will only drive more jobs and families away - and seal New York's rep as the Vampire State. They sense the frustration of voters. They recognize that bloated business as usual has to stop. They're leading their party and the state in the right direction. Here's hoping they get somewhere."
And Governor Paterson even did something we thought he never would-sign an enforcement bill on taxing Indian cigarette retailers. Now, as the NY Post opines, he must find the will and the methodology to enforce the law: "But the governor's signature doesn't necessarily mean that the state will see one extra dollar. After all, New Yorkers have seen this before. In 2006, then-Gov. George Pataki signed a law that was supposed to tax Indian smokes. But, fearing Indian violence, he did nothing to enforce it - and his two successors were more than happy to follow his example."
The jury's out on this because the enforcement methodology on the bill is too complex; and as the Post rightfully points out: "Better still would have been for Paterson to use the authority he already has - and require all cigarettes sold on reservations to have their taxes paid in advance."
All in all, however, we're beginning to hear the right things from our leaders-although in the city all of this talk of governmental reform appears to have gone over the mayor's head as if the talk was all gibberish. Where was Mike Bloomberg for the last seven years? And how come we haven't heard an encouraging reform word from him? He remains clueless-and only seems to want to threaten the city council with fire and police service cuts-a sure sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
The state and city are at a political crossroads where, as Nicole Gelinas points out this morning, opportunity exists to make the right economic choices so that the future can be secured. The state leaders have stepped up-and the senate with a new leader will hopefully as well-so we await the mayor and the city council to follow suit; after all, another term has to be for a reason; no?
Senate Leadership Stasis
The legislature went back to Albany yesterday-and the state senate appears no closer to resolving its leadership stalemate; but our sources say that the resolution still could go either way. The ongoing question is whether Malcolm Smith has the requisite moxie to make the deal-or will Skelos sneak in.
For his part, Smith keeps getting whacked for his role in the failed deal of the other week. In Spin Cycle, John Riley ridicules Smith for his hiring of a new spokesperson: "We notice that Malcolm Smith, right, who went from making a deal with his most disloyal members to get control of the Senate to reneging on the deal, denouncing it and pretending he never made it last week and now faces rumblings in his own conference and harsh criticism in the press, has found an answer to his problems: Hire a new spokesman."
The opprobrium here follows on the heels of the blistering attack launched against Malcolm by the Daily News' Bill Hammond: "IT'S LOOKING more and more like Malcolm Smith simply doesn't have what it takes to lead the New York State Senate. An effective Senate majority leader must command the loyalty of his members and the respect of his enemies. He must exercise sharp political judgment tempered by a sense of honor. He must be able to explain his actions clearly, persuasively and honestly. He must drive hard bargains, but negotiate in good faith. Above all, he must never break a promise. In the weeks since Election Day - when his Democrats won their first Senate majority in 43 years - Smith has done none of the above."
Which doesn't mean that Smith couldn't become more of a work in progress-and with some help, put a deal together. But the clock is ticking, and in the shark tank of Albany, the swimming is extremely risky. And Smith has a dug himself a deep hole: "How badly did Smith shred his own credibility? Let us count the ways: In one fell swoop, he broke his word, negotiated in bad faith, got snookered at the bargaining table, showed poor ethical and political judgment, burned his loyal allies and lost the respect of his enemies. How can he possibly command respect as a leader after that?"
He does, however, have one thing going for him: the lack of any viable candidate to step up and effectively challenge his leadership. So in the absence of a Republican surge, he just might be, warts and all, the only option open.
For his part, Smith keeps getting whacked for his role in the failed deal of the other week. In Spin Cycle, John Riley ridicules Smith for his hiring of a new spokesperson: "We notice that Malcolm Smith, right, who went from making a deal with his most disloyal members to get control of the Senate to reneging on the deal, denouncing it and pretending he never made it last week and now faces rumblings in his own conference and harsh criticism in the press, has found an answer to his problems: Hire a new spokesman."
The opprobrium here follows on the heels of the blistering attack launched against Malcolm by the Daily News' Bill Hammond: "IT'S LOOKING more and more like Malcolm Smith simply doesn't have what it takes to lead the New York State Senate. An effective Senate majority leader must command the loyalty of his members and the respect of his enemies. He must exercise sharp political judgment tempered by a sense of honor. He must be able to explain his actions clearly, persuasively and honestly. He must drive hard bargains, but negotiate in good faith. Above all, he must never break a promise. In the weeks since Election Day - when his Democrats won their first Senate majority in 43 years - Smith has done none of the above."
Which doesn't mean that Smith couldn't become more of a work in progress-and with some help, put a deal together. But the clock is ticking, and in the shark tank of Albany, the swimming is extremely risky. And Smith has a dug himself a deep hole: "How badly did Smith shred his own credibility? Let us count the ways: In one fell swoop, he broke his word, negotiated in bad faith, got snookered at the bargaining table, showed poor ethical and political judgment, burned his loyal allies and lost the respect of his enemies. How can he possibly command respect as a leader after that?"
He does, however, have one thing going for him: the lack of any viable candidate to step up and effectively challenge his leadership. So in the absence of a Republican surge, he just might be, warts and all, the only option open.
Ideological Budget Battle
It looks as if there will be a real battle shaping up over the resolution of NY State's budget shortfall. As Liz B reports, the Working Families Party is gearing up to try to get the state to enact it's millionaire tax: "WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor said today he's "perplexed" by the information released to date about Gov. David Paterson's 2009-2010 budget, which includes $4 billion worth of tax and fee increases but not the so-called millionaire's tax long championed by the labor-backed party (among others)."
Of course, the so-called millionaire's tax has an extremely expansive definition-in essence a slippery slope that ensnares thousands of tax payers who aren't in the very wealth category. Here's EJ McMahon's view: "Supporters of an income tax increase in New York State were, until recently, pushing what they called a “millionaire tax.” But now that the number of millionaires is rapidly shrinking, Albany’s most vocal tax-hike proponents have lowered their taxation target to households with incomes over $200,000, judging from a poll reportedly released by the union-dominated Working Families Party (WFP) last week..."
And, as McMahon points out, if the decision was done by referendum, the result would be predictable-after all, as long as it's the other guy, folks don't mind a tax hike: "So if the Legislature and Governor Paterson are guided by public opinion in closing a $15 billion two-year budget hole, they will reduce government spending a little and raise income taxes a lot on New York’s most productive and mobile households. And then, presumably, they’ll join everyone else in a race for the exits as the state economy sinks even further."
But long term consequences to the economy is not something that bothers the WFP; and the party has a skewed vision on who's actually shouldering the tax burden: "Cantor noted that a number of Paterson's proposals, such doing away with the exemption of sales tax on clothing up to $115 and a new "obesity tax" on non-diet soda would likely hit people of modest-to-little means particularly hard, while not really having much of effect on the rich. "There's a lot of people being taxes, just not the wealthy," Cantor said. "It's not reasonable to only ask the middle class and poor people to contribute. Real shared sacrifice has not yet become part of the governor's proposal."
Maybe, Cantor should examine the overall tax burden that all New Yorkers suffer from; and just where the State of New York ranks in this category. The WFP's core belief, however, is that your money belongs to the state: "It's contradictory for the governor. You know, he's got some good things in there. The Empire Zone restructuring seems entirely sensible, and the expansion of the social safety net is a good idea. But the unwillingness to ask the top three or four percent to pay a bit more in taxes since they gained so much more in tax cuts during the Pataki and Bush years...I don't think that's a winning approach."
The framing of this-"...since they gained so much..."-is all telling; it portrays the return of peoples' hard earned money as if it were a deliverable-a bennie-from the government. And Cantor plows forward, blithely disregarding the meltdown of the state's financial sector, with an anti-growth tax increase that will make it even more difficult for that sector-or others as well-to recover and prosper.
All of which leads to the question of where the state senate will stand on all of these issues-and whether the WFP's role in the Democratic ascendancy will drive its policy positions. As the Politicker points out: "As the details leak about what David Paterson will propose Tuesday in his budget for 2009 - a budget which will have to bridge a $15 billion deficit - State Senator Malcolm Smith's words to a coalition of progressive supporters who met at New York University Friday were improbably upbeat. "For the first time in forty years we have the opportunity to create an agenda in the people's interest, and we are committed to do it," Smith said. "Creating and protecting jobs, promoting economic development, expanding access to an improving health care and reforming health care are things that Democrats and the Center for Working Families hopes to accomplish."
But a budget this bad always creates a nasty zero-sum game. Where the senate stands-and where the state's small businesses and homeowners stand-is the subtext to the ongoing senate leadership fight. We'll give John Riley the prescient last word: "With Senate Republicans non-players if the Dems can get their act together, and Paterson going wobbly before negotiations even start, it seems pretty clear that New York will revert to form: It's a state run by politicians that don't want to cross big unions, who know how to manipulate public opinion and identify their sinecures with the public interest. So, it's always easier to raise taxes, ignore effects on the economy, make taxpayers who are already paying the most in the nation pay even more for their mediocre schools and mediocre health care system, and pretend that the protectors of the status quo are "progressives" defending "working families."
Of course, the so-called millionaire's tax has an extremely expansive definition-in essence a slippery slope that ensnares thousands of tax payers who aren't in the very wealth category. Here's EJ McMahon's view: "Supporters of an income tax increase in New York State were, until recently, pushing what they called a “millionaire tax.” But now that the number of millionaires is rapidly shrinking, Albany’s most vocal tax-hike proponents have lowered their taxation target to households with incomes over $200,000, judging from a poll reportedly released by the union-dominated Working Families Party (WFP) last week..."
And, as McMahon points out, if the decision was done by referendum, the result would be predictable-after all, as long as it's the other guy, folks don't mind a tax hike: "So if the Legislature and Governor Paterson are guided by public opinion in closing a $15 billion two-year budget hole, they will reduce government spending a little and raise income taxes a lot on New York’s most productive and mobile households. And then, presumably, they’ll join everyone else in a race for the exits as the state economy sinks even further."
But long term consequences to the economy is not something that bothers the WFP; and the party has a skewed vision on who's actually shouldering the tax burden: "Cantor noted that a number of Paterson's proposals, such doing away with the exemption of sales tax on clothing up to $115 and a new "obesity tax" on non-diet soda would likely hit people of modest-to-little means particularly hard, while not really having much of effect on the rich. "There's a lot of people being taxes, just not the wealthy," Cantor said. "It's not reasonable to only ask the middle class and poor people to contribute. Real shared sacrifice has not yet become part of the governor's proposal."
Maybe, Cantor should examine the overall tax burden that all New Yorkers suffer from; and just where the State of New York ranks in this category. The WFP's core belief, however, is that your money belongs to the state: "It's contradictory for the governor. You know, he's got some good things in there. The Empire Zone restructuring seems entirely sensible, and the expansion of the social safety net is a good idea. But the unwillingness to ask the top three or four percent to pay a bit more in taxes since they gained so much more in tax cuts during the Pataki and Bush years...I don't think that's a winning approach."
The framing of this-"...since they gained so much..."-is all telling; it portrays the return of peoples' hard earned money as if it were a deliverable-a bennie-from the government. And Cantor plows forward, blithely disregarding the meltdown of the state's financial sector, with an anti-growth tax increase that will make it even more difficult for that sector-or others as well-to recover and prosper.
All of which leads to the question of where the state senate will stand on all of these issues-and whether the WFP's role in the Democratic ascendancy will drive its policy positions. As the Politicker points out: "As the details leak about what David Paterson will propose Tuesday in his budget for 2009 - a budget which will have to bridge a $15 billion deficit - State Senator Malcolm Smith's words to a coalition of progressive supporters who met at New York University Friday were improbably upbeat. "For the first time in forty years we have the opportunity to create an agenda in the people's interest, and we are committed to do it," Smith said. "Creating and protecting jobs, promoting economic development, expanding access to an improving health care and reforming health care are things that Democrats and the Center for Working Families hopes to accomplish."
But a budget this bad always creates a nasty zero-sum game. Where the senate stands-and where the state's small businesses and homeowners stand-is the subtext to the ongoing senate leadership fight. We'll give John Riley the prescient last word: "With Senate Republicans non-players if the Dems can get their act together, and Paterson going wobbly before negotiations even start, it seems pretty clear that New York will revert to form: It's a state run by politicians that don't want to cross big unions, who know how to manipulate public opinion and identify their sinecures with the public interest. So, it's always easier to raise taxes, ignore effects on the economy, make taxpayers who are already paying the most in the nation pay even more for their mediocre schools and mediocre health care system, and pretend that the protectors of the status quo are "progressives" defending "working families."
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Bloomberg Party
In yesterday's NY Daily News, Adam Lisberg writes about the dilemma facing Mike Bloomberg-deciding what party line he could run on: "Politics is a grubby business. And as Mayor Bloomberg tries to figure out which - if any - party banner to run under for reelection, he's going to have to shake some grubby hands. He was a lifelong Democrat, remember, until it served him well to run for mayor twice as a Republican. He threw his support - and his money - behind the GOP, even locking up Democratic New Yorkers to keep the streets safe for out-of-town Republicans during the 2004 convention here."
Quite the quandary for someone who is prepared to spend up to $100 million to convince New Yorkers about just why Mike Bloomberg is Mr. Indispensability for the hard times we face. And we too share Lisberg's concerns about the possibility of Bloomberg sullying himself in the dirt of politics-after spending the last seven years operating as a self-described Mr. Clean: "Bloomberg's third-term appeal was that in times like these, New York needs to keep an independent mayor with singular experience in the financial world. But getting there involves politics. And the more hands you shake, the harder it is to keep yours clean."
The trouble with Lisberg's analysis, is that Bloomberg has been a skillful practitioner of the black arts of politics-so skillful that he's been able to posture as someone with clean hands and a pure heart, when the opposite is more clearly the truth; and he has done so by using his unaccountable private wealth to his political advantage. In fact, in a bow to greater candor, he should simply run on the Bloomberg Party.
In fact, were Mike Bloomberg to become more overtly political, it would actually lead to his cleansing-by forcing him to acknowledge the interests of others as legitimate; and by requiring that he search for ways to address these interests a part of crafting an overall policy that has the greatest benefit for the greatest number of New Yorkers.
Quite the quandary for someone who is prepared to spend up to $100 million to convince New Yorkers about just why Mike Bloomberg is Mr. Indispensability for the hard times we face. And we too share Lisberg's concerns about the possibility of Bloomberg sullying himself in the dirt of politics-after spending the last seven years operating as a self-described Mr. Clean: "Bloomberg's third-term appeal was that in times like these, New York needs to keep an independent mayor with singular experience in the financial world. But getting there involves politics. And the more hands you shake, the harder it is to keep yours clean."
The trouble with Lisberg's analysis, is that Bloomberg has been a skillful practitioner of the black arts of politics-so skillful that he's been able to posture as someone with clean hands and a pure heart, when the opposite is more clearly the truth; and he has done so by using his unaccountable private wealth to his political advantage. In fact, in a bow to greater candor, he should simply run on the Bloomberg Party.
In fact, were Mike Bloomberg to become more overtly political, it would actually lead to his cleansing-by forcing him to acknowledge the interests of others as legitimate; and by requiring that he search for ways to address these interests a part of crafting an overall policy that has the greatest benefit for the greatest number of New Yorkers.
Taxing Congestion Credulity
The NY Times has a fascinating story in yesterday's edition on the diminishing traffic headed into midtown over the past few years: "As the city’s economy soared and its population grew from 2003 through 2007, something unusual was happening on the streets and in the subway tunnels. All those tens of thousands of new jobs and residents meant that more people were moving around the city, going to work, going shopping, visiting friends. And yet, according to a new city study, the volume of traffic on the streets and highways remained largely unchanged, in fact declining slightly."
So, let's get this straight. Mike Bloomberg plays Chicken Little for a year in a failed attempt to get his congestion tax passed, and now we find out that: "Instead, virtually the entire increase in New Yorkers’ means of transportation during those robust years occurred in mass transit, with a surge in subway, bus and commuter rail riders. “What you see is that for the first time since at least World War II, all of the growth in travel in the city has been absorbed by non-auto modes, primarily by mass transit,” said Bruce Schaller, New York’s deputy transportation commissioner for planning and sustainability, who wrote the study, which is to be released on Monday."
So New Yorkers were moving to mass transit in what amounts to an organic process, unaided by any particular city policy, and the mayor decides to tax us to drive more folks to-well, mass transit; in a system that was becoming overcrowded and in need of expansion and repair. Yet, these trends fail to convince the tax plotters of the need to first do the improvements before increasing the tax burden on New Yorkers.
As the Times points out: "The city’s sprawling public transportation system was able to handle such a surge because of vast improvements in service in recent years, Mr. Schaller said, as well as the advent of the MetroCard, which made using the system more efficient. A steep drop in crime made people more willing to use the system, and the construction of housing in areas well served by subways also brought in many more riders."
What the mayor should have been doing in his first two terms, was advocating for the mass transit system first-not promoting a tax that set the city up into two antagonistic camps; realizing at the same time that many of us drive because of the unavailability of convenient mass transit alternatives.
And remember the arguments about traffic in the CBD-a cause for such environmental concern? "Mr. Schaller said that vehicle trips citywide peaked in 1999 and then leveled off, with a dip in 2001 as a result of the terror attack on the World Trade Center. The overall trend has been largely stable traffic volumes across the city from 1999 through 2007. In contrast, during the years when the economy was most buoyant, from 2003 to 2007, transit ridership soared, increasing about 9 percent during those years, according to the city study. The difference is even greater when the focus is on the core commercial district of Manhattan, south of 60th Street. From 2003 to 2007, the study found, traffic entering that area fell by 3 percent. During the same period, transit ridership into the same zone rose 12 percent."
In our mind, this crucial study should have been part of a proper due diligence before any congestion tax scheme was proposed. As the Times tells us: "The flattening of overall traffic volumes, with an actual decline in Manhattan’s main business district, raises questions about the need for congestion pricing, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s failed plan to charge drivers to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan."
All of this underscores the extent to which Mike Bloomberg shoots from the hip-advocating policies that advance his own political agenda but that fail the smell test of data-driven credibility. And now he also wants to add more bike lanes, further congesting local streets. Its time to change our leadership, and get a mayor who's more accountable to the people.
So, let's get this straight. Mike Bloomberg plays Chicken Little for a year in a failed attempt to get his congestion tax passed, and now we find out that: "Instead, virtually the entire increase in New Yorkers’ means of transportation during those robust years occurred in mass transit, with a surge in subway, bus and commuter rail riders. “What you see is that for the first time since at least World War II, all of the growth in travel in the city has been absorbed by non-auto modes, primarily by mass transit,” said Bruce Schaller, New York’s deputy transportation commissioner for planning and sustainability, who wrote the study, which is to be released on Monday."
So New Yorkers were moving to mass transit in what amounts to an organic process, unaided by any particular city policy, and the mayor decides to tax us to drive more folks to-well, mass transit; in a system that was becoming overcrowded and in need of expansion and repair. Yet, these trends fail to convince the tax plotters of the need to first do the improvements before increasing the tax burden on New Yorkers.
As the Times points out: "The city’s sprawling public transportation system was able to handle such a surge because of vast improvements in service in recent years, Mr. Schaller said, as well as the advent of the MetroCard, which made using the system more efficient. A steep drop in crime made people more willing to use the system, and the construction of housing in areas well served by subways also brought in many more riders."
What the mayor should have been doing in his first two terms, was advocating for the mass transit system first-not promoting a tax that set the city up into two antagonistic camps; realizing at the same time that many of us drive because of the unavailability of convenient mass transit alternatives.
And remember the arguments about traffic in the CBD-a cause for such environmental concern? "Mr. Schaller said that vehicle trips citywide peaked in 1999 and then leveled off, with a dip in 2001 as a result of the terror attack on the World Trade Center. The overall trend has been largely stable traffic volumes across the city from 1999 through 2007. In contrast, during the years when the economy was most buoyant, from 2003 to 2007, transit ridership soared, increasing about 9 percent during those years, according to the city study. The difference is even greater when the focus is on the core commercial district of Manhattan, south of 60th Street. From 2003 to 2007, the study found, traffic entering that area fell by 3 percent. During the same period, transit ridership into the same zone rose 12 percent."
In our mind, this crucial study should have been part of a proper due diligence before any congestion tax scheme was proposed. As the Times tells us: "The flattening of overall traffic volumes, with an actual decline in Manhattan’s main business district, raises questions about the need for congestion pricing, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s failed plan to charge drivers to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan."
All of this underscores the extent to which Mike Bloomberg shoots from the hip-advocating policies that advance his own political agenda but that fail the smell test of data-driven credibility. And now he also wants to add more bike lanes, further congesting local streets. Its time to change our leadership, and get a mayor who's more accountable to the people.
Fat Attax
So, in an effort to reduce the weight of New Yorkers, as well as the state's huge budget deficit, Governor Paterson's proposed a fat tax: "The Democrat also reportedly plans to increase taxes on insurance policies, on non-diet sodas under an "obesity tax," reviving the state sales tax on clothing, and changes in funding of hospitals and health care providers that could shift more health costs on individuals and employers."
It looks as if Mayor Bloomberg has a competitor in the nanny department: "Errol Cockfield, spokesman for Gov. David Paterson who is scheduled to release his budget proposal Tuesday to the Legislature, wouldn't deny the tax proposals first reported in the Albany Times Union Sunday. He said details of the budget will be released Tuesday. The obesity tax would raise $404 million, according to the report."
What's next? When will the state realize that taxing shouldn't be a methodology used for behavior modification-and as with all of these sin taxes, it is low income New Yorkers, who can least afford it, who bear the biggest burden. But the fat tax is just the tip of the iceberg. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Gov. David A. Paterson will propose a $4 billion package of taxes and fees on a range of items, from sugary soft drinks made by Coca-Cola and Pepsi to luxury items like furs and boats, when he unveils his plan to close a deficit that has ballooned to $15 billion, people with knowledge of the plan said on Sunday."
Everyone and every one's interests will be gored in this budget-so be prepared for an Albany Armageddon this session-especially for health care: "Hospitals, nursing homes and other health care centers, already pinched by the first round of budget cuts earlier this year, are bracing for a fight. “I expect it to be an unmitigated disaster for health care institutions in New York,” Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said in an interview on Friday. “I expect we will see a significant downsizing of the health care delivery system, and it’s at a time when people can least afford the cutbacks.”
All of which is exacerbated by the absence of any senate leadership: "One of the biggest obstacles Mr. Paterson will have to overcome is a Senate narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans that has yet to settle on a leader for next year, amid continued wrangling among Democrats."
This is all shaping up to be a bloodbath-with interest groups and political careers likely to become victims of the battle. In this climate, why anyone would want the mantle of leadership is the question.
It looks as if Mayor Bloomberg has a competitor in the nanny department: "Errol Cockfield, spokesman for Gov. David Paterson who is scheduled to release his budget proposal Tuesday to the Legislature, wouldn't deny the tax proposals first reported in the Albany Times Union Sunday. He said details of the budget will be released Tuesday. The obesity tax would raise $404 million, according to the report."
What's next? When will the state realize that taxing shouldn't be a methodology used for behavior modification-and as with all of these sin taxes, it is low income New Yorkers, who can least afford it, who bear the biggest burden. But the fat tax is just the tip of the iceberg. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Gov. David A. Paterson will propose a $4 billion package of taxes and fees on a range of items, from sugary soft drinks made by Coca-Cola and Pepsi to luxury items like furs and boats, when he unveils his plan to close a deficit that has ballooned to $15 billion, people with knowledge of the plan said on Sunday."
Everyone and every one's interests will be gored in this budget-so be prepared for an Albany Armageddon this session-especially for health care: "Hospitals, nursing homes and other health care centers, already pinched by the first round of budget cuts earlier this year, are bracing for a fight. “I expect it to be an unmitigated disaster for health care institutions in New York,” Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said in an interview on Friday. “I expect we will see a significant downsizing of the health care delivery system, and it’s at a time when people can least afford the cutbacks.”
All of which is exacerbated by the absence of any senate leadership: "One of the biggest obstacles Mr. Paterson will have to overcome is a Senate narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans that has yet to settle on a leader for next year, amid continued wrangling among Democrats."
This is all shaping up to be a bloodbath-with interest groups and political careers likely to become victims of the battle. In this climate, why anyone would want the mantle of leadership is the question.
Dickering Dummy
With Malcolm Smith floundering for a leadership foothold, the NY Post's Fred Dicker throws him a Paterson lifeline-but it looks as if there's an anchor attached to it. Dicker avers that the governor believes that Smith can rise to the top spot in the senate through what amounts to immaculate conception: "GOV. PATERSON has shifted gears and now believes that the bitter battle for state Senate control can end with an agreement excluding the renegade Democrats known as the "Gang of Three," the Post has learned."
Dicker goes further to argue that all of a sudden Paterson believes that the deal itself maybe illegal: "He's even told associates that he fears that Gang of Three members have made demands bordering on the illegal - especially in light of the Illinois scandal involving Gov. Rod Blagojevich."
OK, so how does this new deal get done-and what's the price? "Paterson, who helped negotiate an initial agreement with Gang members earlier this month only to see it fall apart last week, told associates he's hoping current Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Nassau) will negotiate a final deal with Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) making Smith the new majority leader in January, at which point Democrats will hold a 32-30 majority."
Dean Skelos, who the governor has expressed an open distaste for, is now going to do a deal to elevate the hapless Smith (and what happened to the Bill Hammond column in yesterday's NY Daily News that excoriated Smith but was never posted on the website?) to the head of the senate? What's in it for Skelos?
But, according to Dicker, the reason in the shift lies with the fact that the three dissidents simply can't be trusted: "The main reason for Paterson's strategy shift is that he, Smith, and other Democratic and Republican senators have concluded that none of the Gang members - Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn and Sen. Ruben Diaz and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada, both of The Bronx - can be trusted."
What a load of crap! The interesting rub here is, if the governor's aides are spinning this tale, than what does it mean that the governor is burning the phone lines to the distrusted ones? In fact, it is Malcolm in the Middle who cannot be trusted to negotiate a deal that can be lived up to; and if the governor is seen to midwife a deal that bypasses a leadership post for Hispanics, where will that put him in 2010 with a community that sees itself as shortchanged?
Of course, who knows where-or from what-Dicker's getting his source material from. As Liz Benjamin tells us in her column this morning-contradicting the Dickerings: "The Gang of Three saga continues. Now that the Senate leadership stalemate is back in high gear after the death of the rebels' deal with Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens), a Republican lawmaker says the GOP is the last best hope for the renegades. "It's likely they will end up with nothing," Sen. George Winner of Elmira said of the gang. "Their only ability to save themselves really from complete back-bench material is to vote with the Republicans."
Kruger, for his part, believes that the governor's budget crisis will necessitate a quick resolution to the leadership fight-and Smith is denying any talks with Republicans: "Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat and the Gang of Three ringleader, called Winner "a voice in the wilderness," and insisted "negotiations are ongoing" between himself and fellow detractors Sen.-elect Pedro Espada Jr. and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. Kruger also said the "urgency" of the state's ever-worsening budget crisis will likely bring the leadership fight to a "quick conclusion." Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said he could not confirm any talks between Smith and the Gang of Three. He also insisted Smith has not reached out to any GOP senators seeking the three votes he needs to become leader."
This thing may actually finish up soon-because if it doesn't the fiscal mess will worsen, as stalemate prevents curative political action. It should be fascinating in Albany this week.
Dicker goes further to argue that all of a sudden Paterson believes that the deal itself maybe illegal: "He's even told associates that he fears that Gang of Three members have made demands bordering on the illegal - especially in light of the Illinois scandal involving Gov. Rod Blagojevich."
OK, so how does this new deal get done-and what's the price? "Paterson, who helped negotiate an initial agreement with Gang members earlier this month only to see it fall apart last week, told associates he's hoping current Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Nassau) will negotiate a final deal with Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) making Smith the new majority leader in January, at which point Democrats will hold a 32-30 majority."
Dean Skelos, who the governor has expressed an open distaste for, is now going to do a deal to elevate the hapless Smith (and what happened to the Bill Hammond column in yesterday's NY Daily News that excoriated Smith but was never posted on the website?) to the head of the senate? What's in it for Skelos?
But, according to Dicker, the reason in the shift lies with the fact that the three dissidents simply can't be trusted: "The main reason for Paterson's strategy shift is that he, Smith, and other Democratic and Republican senators have concluded that none of the Gang members - Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn and Sen. Ruben Diaz and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada, both of The Bronx - can be trusted."
What a load of crap! The interesting rub here is, if the governor's aides are spinning this tale, than what does it mean that the governor is burning the phone lines to the distrusted ones? In fact, it is Malcolm in the Middle who cannot be trusted to negotiate a deal that can be lived up to; and if the governor is seen to midwife a deal that bypasses a leadership post for Hispanics, where will that put him in 2010 with a community that sees itself as shortchanged?
Of course, who knows where-or from what-Dicker's getting his source material from. As Liz Benjamin tells us in her column this morning-contradicting the Dickerings: "The Gang of Three saga continues. Now that the Senate leadership stalemate is back in high gear after the death of the rebels' deal with Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens), a Republican lawmaker says the GOP is the last best hope for the renegades. "It's likely they will end up with nothing," Sen. George Winner of Elmira said of the gang. "Their only ability to save themselves really from complete back-bench material is to vote with the Republicans."
Kruger, for his part, believes that the governor's budget crisis will necessitate a quick resolution to the leadership fight-and Smith is denying any talks with Republicans: "Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat and the Gang of Three ringleader, called Winner "a voice in the wilderness," and insisted "negotiations are ongoing" between himself and fellow detractors Sen.-elect Pedro Espada Jr. and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. Kruger also said the "urgency" of the state's ever-worsening budget crisis will likely bring the leadership fight to a "quick conclusion." Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said he could not confirm any talks between Smith and the Gang of Three. He also insisted Smith has not reached out to any GOP senators seeking the three votes he needs to become leader."
This thing may actually finish up soon-because if it doesn't the fiscal mess will worsen, as stalemate prevents curative political action. It should be fascinating in Albany this week.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Smith's Slippery Slope
After walking away from a deal that he personally negotiated-and obfuscating the reasons why; along with aspersions against the folks he shook hands with-Malcolm Smith appears to be playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship. As the NY Daily News reports: "Embattled Democratic leader Malcolm Smith Friday dismissed talk of a plot to oust him, saying he expects to become state Senate majority leader next month...For that to happen, Democrats must coax enough Republicans to switch sides because three dissident Dems still remain staunchly opposed to Smith."
So after negotiating in bad faith Smith may try to pass the dissidents by, speeding, as it were, around a steep curve on a winding mountainside road. The chances of him crashing and burning have just increased exponentially: ""He currently has the support of 29 Democrats from the conference and expects he'll have the support of 32 members of the state Senate by the Jan. 7 leadership vote," said one Smith aide. Smith aides said two Republicans have discussed possibly switching to the Democratic side, though lame-duck Republican Majority Leader Dean Skelos insists he has the support of his entire conference."
Looks like a game of chicken to us; and as the NY Post tells us: "State Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith emerged yesterday from another closed-door meeting with his conference promising a Democratic majority in the Senate in January, possibly by enlisting Republican allies to counter resistance from three dissident Democrats."
Smith apparently is throwing down the gauntlet in a chesty manner: "Smith, of Queens, said he would have 32 supporters in January, enough to elect him majority leader. He wouldn't say how many would be Democrats and how many would be Republicans." What does all of this say to the three hold outs?
To us, it seems to be a clear message: either come on board riding coach, or the train will leave without you-first class is no longer an option. Which is a long way from last week-and the level of distrust has been ratcheted up. As the News reminds us: "Smith's guarantee of the Democrats taking control of the Senate is a far cry from earlier this week. At that time, he said his members were ready to remain in the minority rather than cave in to the demands of the renegade Democrats, dubbed the Gang of Three. Smith struck a deal at the start of the week, when he promised the dissidents leadership positions and various other enticements. He aborted the deal Wednesday after backlash from his members."
The governor has his work cut out for him-at least if he really wants to have Democratic control of the senate. And, contrary to what Capitol Confidential opines, he may be running out of time: " As for the “Gang of Three” - letting them sit out in the wilderness for a few weeks may be useful in terms of leverage - they’ve played their hand with both the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats. Watching them negotiate their way with the various sides will give the governor better information about the price of their support. As the old Irving Berlin song goes, “Anything you can do, I can do better” - the governor and Senate Dems can pretty much match and beat anything the Senate Republicans offer."
We'll see. But given the Smith posture, we think the governor doesn't have the luxury to simply take a wait and see attitude. As Spin Cycle cogently points out: "We don't necessarily agree. If the Republicans, for example, offer the same deal that the Democrats just agreed to and then walked away from, the Democrats can hardly do yet another 180 and agree to it again."
So after negotiating in bad faith Smith may try to pass the dissidents by, speeding, as it were, around a steep curve on a winding mountainside road. The chances of him crashing and burning have just increased exponentially: ""He currently has the support of 29 Democrats from the conference and expects he'll have the support of 32 members of the state Senate by the Jan. 7 leadership vote," said one Smith aide. Smith aides said two Republicans have discussed possibly switching to the Democratic side, though lame-duck Republican Majority Leader Dean Skelos insists he has the support of his entire conference."
Looks like a game of chicken to us; and as the NY Post tells us: "State Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith emerged yesterday from another closed-door meeting with his conference promising a Democratic majority in the Senate in January, possibly by enlisting Republican allies to counter resistance from three dissident Democrats."
Smith apparently is throwing down the gauntlet in a chesty manner: "Smith, of Queens, said he would have 32 supporters in January, enough to elect him majority leader. He wouldn't say how many would be Democrats and how many would be Republicans." What does all of this say to the three hold outs?
To us, it seems to be a clear message: either come on board riding coach, or the train will leave without you-first class is no longer an option. Which is a long way from last week-and the level of distrust has been ratcheted up. As the News reminds us: "Smith's guarantee of the Democrats taking control of the Senate is a far cry from earlier this week. At that time, he said his members were ready to remain in the minority rather than cave in to the demands of the renegade Democrats, dubbed the Gang of Three. Smith struck a deal at the start of the week, when he promised the dissidents leadership positions and various other enticements. He aborted the deal Wednesday after backlash from his members."
The governor has his work cut out for him-at least if he really wants to have Democratic control of the senate. And, contrary to what Capitol Confidential opines, he may be running out of time: " As for the “Gang of Three” - letting them sit out in the wilderness for a few weeks may be useful in terms of leverage - they’ve played their hand with both the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats. Watching them negotiate their way with the various sides will give the governor better information about the price of their support. As the old Irving Berlin song goes, “Anything you can do, I can do better” - the governor and Senate Dems can pretty much match and beat anything the Senate Republicans offer."
We'll see. But given the Smith posture, we think the governor doesn't have the luxury to simply take a wait and see attitude. As Spin Cycle cogently points out: "We don't necessarily agree. If the Republicans, for example, offer the same deal that the Democrats just agreed to and then walked away from, the Democrats can hardly do yet another 180 and agree to it again."
Friday, December 12, 2008
Budget Defict and the Indians
As Newsday is reporting, the Indian cigarette bill is before the governor: "A bill to collect state sales tax on cigarettes sold by Indian retailers to non-Indian customers is now on Gov. David Paterson's desk, awaiting his signature or veto. The Assembly delivered the legislation to the governor Thursday, beginning a 10-day clock that gives him until Dec. 23 to make a decision that, either way, is certain to provoke anger. Supporters believe collecting the tax would bring the state $400 million in revenues at a time when Paterson is telling New Yorkers that budget deficits will likely have them paying more to renew drivers licenses and enroll in public colleges."
If the governor vetoes the measure-something that past behavior indicates is likely ("Similar bills have been passed but not enforced by previous administrations.")-than the issue will be thrown into the upcoming budget battle, where the state must find a way to address a $1.2 billion shortfall-one that will mushroom as high as $14 billion next year.
The collection methodology is relatively simple: "The current legislation would shift the collection from reservations to the manufacturing and wholesale level, a tactic that worked in other states." Now all that is missing is the political will; but a determined legislature could insist on this a a quid pro quo of any budget deal. Stay tuned.
If the governor vetoes the measure-something that past behavior indicates is likely ("Similar bills have been passed but not enforced by previous administrations.")-than the issue will be thrown into the upcoming budget battle, where the state must find a way to address a $1.2 billion shortfall-one that will mushroom as high as $14 billion next year.
The collection methodology is relatively simple: "The current legislation would shift the collection from reservations to the manufacturing and wholesale level, a tactic that worked in other states." Now all that is missing is the political will; but a determined legislature could insist on this a a quid pro quo of any budget deal. Stay tuned.
Smith Stands Tall
The revolution appears to have petered out, at least according to what Liz B has posted on the meeting today of the senate Democratic conference: "Following a roughly two-hour meeting in which about two dozen of the 32 Senate Democrats participated, Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith emerged from 250 Broadway and confidently declared to reporters: "I want to be real clear about the fact that despite the rumors, the members (are) very united, and we're going to move forward with the majority come January. We will have 32 come January."
This, of course, leaves aside the nettlesome question of how Smith is gonna get from point A to point B, something that Senator Dilan answers: "Sen. Martin Malave Dilan, whose name was mentioned in the memo of agreement drawn up by the Gang of Three, said Smith perhaps "got a bit zealous in trying to get us to the majority," but then realized the error of his ways.
Now, according to Dilan, Smith has assured his members that if decides to renegotiate a deal with the renegade trio, the most that will be offered will be committee chairmanships. "They're not going to walk into leadership," Dilan said."
Well., we guess that clears this all up-but what appears to be a solid bet after all of the posturing-is that the numbers aren't there; for either a coup, or for Smith's ascension into leadership. Klein, for his part, appeared to be conciliatory: "Sen. Jeff Klein, who is most often mentioned as a potential challenger to Smith, participated in today's meeting by phone from Florida, where he is visiting his mother. "There is no coup," Klein told me, emphatically. "I support Malcolm. I think the most important thing we need to do is move forward as 32 Democrats, usher in a new Albany and deal with the problems that are so important to the residents of New York State."
So it seems that what the senate really needs is more math majors. As Liz wrote earlier: "Another reason why Smith is safe for now: Gov. David Paterson. Both sides, the conference and the Gang of Three, are waiting for word from the governor as to how he wants this whole thing to be resolved, and Paterson appears to want to keep his distance for the time being. The issue of racial politics is hard to overlook here. Since Paterson became the first African American to hold a legislative leadership post in 2002, the caucus has been loathe to give up the seat, and given their dominance of the conference, there is no way a coup attempt could succeed without their votes. Of the people who lost out to Smith in the 2006 minority leader battle, only one, Sen. Martin Malave Dilan, is a minority. The others - Klein, Sen. Eric Schneiderman and Sen. Neil Breslin - are all white."
So we're back at the drawing board, and as we pointed out before, simply awaiting divine intervention. It seems that discomfort will have to be a persistent problem until the successful intervention is effected.
This, of course, leaves aside the nettlesome question of how Smith is gonna get from point A to point B, something that Senator Dilan answers: "Sen. Martin Malave Dilan, whose name was mentioned in the memo of agreement drawn up by the Gang of Three, said Smith perhaps "got a bit zealous in trying to get us to the majority," but then realized the error of his ways.
Now, according to Dilan, Smith has assured his members that if decides to renegotiate a deal with the renegade trio, the most that will be offered will be committee chairmanships. "They're not going to walk into leadership," Dilan said."
Well., we guess that clears this all up-but what appears to be a solid bet after all of the posturing-is that the numbers aren't there; for either a coup, or for Smith's ascension into leadership. Klein, for his part, appeared to be conciliatory: "Sen. Jeff Klein, who is most often mentioned as a potential challenger to Smith, participated in today's meeting by phone from Florida, where he is visiting his mother. "There is no coup," Klein told me, emphatically. "I support Malcolm. I think the most important thing we need to do is move forward as 32 Democrats, usher in a new Albany and deal with the problems that are so important to the residents of New York State."
So it seems that what the senate really needs is more math majors. As Liz wrote earlier: "Another reason why Smith is safe for now: Gov. David Paterson. Both sides, the conference and the Gang of Three, are waiting for word from the governor as to how he wants this whole thing to be resolved, and Paterson appears to want to keep his distance for the time being. The issue of racial politics is hard to overlook here. Since Paterson became the first African American to hold a legislative leadership post in 2002, the caucus has been loathe to give up the seat, and given their dominance of the conference, there is no way a coup attempt could succeed without their votes. Of the people who lost out to Smith in the 2006 minority leader battle, only one, Sen. Martin Malave Dilan, is a minority. The others - Klein, Sen. Eric Schneiderman and Sen. Neil Breslin - are all white."
So we're back at the drawing board, and as we pointed out before, simply awaiting divine intervention. It seems that discomfort will have to be a persistent problem until the successful intervention is effected.
Deceitful Dealing
A legal memo that purports to outline the proposed senate leadership deal has surfaced at the City Room blog-and the only logical source for the document is the Smith team; in an attempt, we feel, to further tarnish the dissidents: "But a memorandum obtained by The Times gives a more detailed glimpse of what was discussed by the men last week. The document, which was circulated at the meeting, spells out in extraordinary detail the dissidents’ requests — requests that the three men have insisted Mr. Smith agreed to oblige, with only a few exceptions."
But, on analysis, there are some rich reform proposals in the memo. To wit: enhanced power to committee chairs and bipartisan ability to introduce and move legislation. As the memo stated: "The chair shall control the flow of all legislation assigned to the Committee and be authorized to discharge any bill from a committee for a full floor vote..."
And so on-but the Smith focus is elsewhere; designed to misdirect us away from his walk back from the deal he pledged his fealty to. Nothing could be more disingenuous than the following: "An aide to Mr. Smith, who was granted anonymity to discuss the confidential deliberations at the meeting, described the document as no more than a “wish list” presented by the three men.
“There was no final or formalized document from the meeting,” the aide said. The three men have previously said that at Mr. Smith’s insistence, they agreed to a handshake deal, sanctified by a prayer uttered by Mr. Diaz, who is a Pentacostal minister."
The purpose of the memo, drafted with the aid of counsel, was to avoid any misconceptions about what was agreed to-and Smith made some amendments that underscore his active participation in the process. But now, lacking the support of his conference, he flounders around, and leaks a document to deflect from his own responsibility in the failure of a deal that a whole slew of prominent Democrats (and an independent billionaire) saw consummated before their very eyes.
And all of this hasn't been lost on his colleagues-who appear ready perhaps to attempt their own coup in the wake of the deal's collapse. As the NY Daily News reports: "State Senate Democrats plan to meet privately Friday amid talk of a possible coup attempt against leader Malcolm Smith. Sources said Bronx Sen. Jeff Klein, Smith's deputy, has been working the phone in hopes of winning support to become Senate majority leader next month."
Ah, the wages of sin, and all that; but the coupsters aren't sitting pretty here, because the numbers are a challenge to any attempt to replace Smith: "One senator loyal to Smith said he was aware Klein was making calls, but downplayed the chances of success. "I think Malcolm will do what he has to do to make sure his position is secure," the senator said. "People are mistaking frustration in the conference with a desire for change."
In any case, the effort to designate a leader will have to go through the three dissidents who, at least according to Pedro Espada on "Inside City Hall" last night, are united in their common reform goals. A further split in the Democratic conference, will more than likely elevate the chances that Republicans will regain the leadership. Expect more chaos before this is resolved.
But, on analysis, there are some rich reform proposals in the memo. To wit: enhanced power to committee chairs and bipartisan ability to introduce and move legislation. As the memo stated: "The chair shall control the flow of all legislation assigned to the Committee and be authorized to discharge any bill from a committee for a full floor vote..."
And so on-but the Smith focus is elsewhere; designed to misdirect us away from his walk back from the deal he pledged his fealty to. Nothing could be more disingenuous than the following: "An aide to Mr. Smith, who was granted anonymity to discuss the confidential deliberations at the meeting, described the document as no more than a “wish list” presented by the three men.
“There was no final or formalized document from the meeting,” the aide said. The three men have previously said that at Mr. Smith’s insistence, they agreed to a handshake deal, sanctified by a prayer uttered by Mr. Diaz, who is a Pentacostal minister."
The purpose of the memo, drafted with the aid of counsel, was to avoid any misconceptions about what was agreed to-and Smith made some amendments that underscore his active participation in the process. But now, lacking the support of his conference, he flounders around, and leaks a document to deflect from his own responsibility in the failure of a deal that a whole slew of prominent Democrats (and an independent billionaire) saw consummated before their very eyes.
And all of this hasn't been lost on his colleagues-who appear ready perhaps to attempt their own coup in the wake of the deal's collapse. As the NY Daily News reports: "State Senate Democrats plan to meet privately Friday amid talk of a possible coup attempt against leader Malcolm Smith. Sources said Bronx Sen. Jeff Klein, Smith's deputy, has been working the phone in hopes of winning support to become Senate majority leader next month."
Ah, the wages of sin, and all that; but the coupsters aren't sitting pretty here, because the numbers are a challenge to any attempt to replace Smith: "One senator loyal to Smith said he was aware Klein was making calls, but downplayed the chances of success. "I think Malcolm will do what he has to do to make sure his position is secure," the senator said. "People are mistaking frustration in the conference with a desire for change."
In any case, the effort to designate a leader will have to go through the three dissidents who, at least according to Pedro Espada on "Inside City Hall" last night, are united in their common reform goals. A further split in the Democratic conference, will more than likely elevate the chances that Republicans will regain the leadership. Expect more chaos before this is resolved.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)