One of the truly mystifying votes on term limits last week was the one cast in favor of the bill by David Yassky of Park Slope-one that has outraged that liberal, reform minded constituency, and does little to advance the councilman's city wide ambitions. So, why did he do it? For the life of us we can't really say. Neither does City Room: "In Park Slope, there was speculation as to why a politician once opposed to the legislation would then shift from being undecided to, ultimately, a supporter. Was Mr. Yassky seeking support for his plan to run for city comptroller one day? Were there promises made by the mayor or the City Council speaker?
On the one hand, it complicates any re-election bid, guaranteeing as it does that he will have a strong challenger with a grass roots wind at his/her sails. On the other, when seen in conjunction with his aborted attempt at amending the Bloomberg bill, he comes across as an ineffectual quasi-reformer; not the best position to be in when you're looking to run city wide: "In his district, reaction to Mr. Yassky’s support of the mayor’s plan has been immediate and vehement. After the vote, on Thursday night Mr. Yassky attended meetings of two Democratic clubs in the district, where he was met by dozens of voters with sentiment ranging from disappointment to fury."
All of which left David in the awkward position of being a Bloomberg defender:
"When asked if he planned to support the mayor next year, he said, “I have always voted for and supported Democrats and I would expect to do that in 2009.” He added, stating the obvious, “I don’t know who the Democratic candidate will be.” Is it possible that Mr. Bloomberg might seek to run on the Democratic line? “That’s something that has crossed my mind; I think that much of his governance has been consistent with Democratic principles,” Mr. Yassky said. “If you consider the decision to raise revenue rather than slash services, his environmental and affordable housing policies, they are consistent with Democratic
principles.”
Yikes, this is the guy, the chair of the Small Business Committee, who has excoriated the mayor for imperiously legislating through regulation at the expense of neighborhood retailers. We see some very rocky terrain ahead for David; but it's a road that he has decided to travel so we assume he's prepared for the dangers ahead. Given the initial shock in his district, howerver, we're not really sure he is: "Nonetheless, Mr. Yassky’s vote seemed to have sent shock waves in his district, which stretches from Park Slope through Brooklyn Heights and Greenpoint. It is a district widely viewed as the epicenter of reform politics in Brooklyn, and a district where the notion of an extension of term limits without a vote of the public was highly unpopular."
Just one of many for whom last week's vote will reverberate for weeks, months and years to come. A fascinating laboratory for all of us observers of local NYC politics.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Al "Slim Shady" Sharpton
Al Sharpton, aptly labeled "Slim Shady" by Curtis Sliwa, has finally surfaced after a long hiatus-and, of course, he's back in his old victimology with a perp who claims that he was assaulted by the police. As the NY Times reports: "As a 24-year-old man who has accused the police of sodomizing him at a subway station in Brooklyn spent another day in the hospital on Saturday, a law enforcement official provided a fuller picture of the injuries the man sustained during the altercation. The man, Michael Mineo, is attached to a tube draining fluid from his abdomen, one of his lawyers said. He was visited at the hospital by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who had spoken about Mr. Mineo’s allegations on his radio program earlier Saturday."
Now we don't know what happened to Mr. Mineo-and the fact that he has a long arrest record should give us some caution here-but we do know that Slim Shady has been incognito for the past four weeks while the city has been roiled in the term limits controversy. And we do know that the voters of this city have been gang violated by a billionaire mayor and some of his political lackeys while apparently Big Al has been on some kind of religious retreat.
Someone should be investigating all of the communications between the Bloomberg gang and the NAN. So it looks as if Rev. Al can stand up for this Mineo character, but not the citizens of New York. Isn't this just the kind of thing that Sharpton would salivate for in the past? And with an African American mayoral candidate waiting in the wings. Imagine if Rudy was still mayor and tried to grab a third term in this way.
And why is it that the NY Times, with its team of reporters, couldn't uncover the last despicable act that Mineo was charged with? The NY Post certainly did: "But the mother of two teens - victims of an April gang assault in which Mineo is charged - said he got what he deserved.
"If the cops snapped off that radio antenna up his ass, I wouldn't give a f- - - about that," said Laura Boston. Her sons Gerald, 16, and Elijah, 14, were allegedly beaten by Mineo and four others in the Downtown Brooklyn tattoo parlor where he works. "My son has dentures because of that man." "Five guys beat up my sons, so it's right that it took five cops to beat him up. I don't wish him any harm or anything, but God don't like ugly. You get what you give, you know."
The Times did find room for this from one of Mineo's attorneys: "Mr. Mineo’s lawyer, Mr. Mosley, said that too much attention was being paid to his client’s past, which includes at least five arrests. “These police officers didn’t have his rap sheet when they tackled him,” he said."
So as we return to the Sharpton three ring circus, remember this New Yorkism-"Not for Nothing." It's a great New York phrase; and Slim Shady, the master of the kickback, ain't working for free on behalf of Mineo. Just as he isn't, in the great tradition of the farm subsidy, not getting paid for refraining from plowing the term limits fields.
Now we don't know what happened to Mr. Mineo-and the fact that he has a long arrest record should give us some caution here-but we do know that Slim Shady has been incognito for the past four weeks while the city has been roiled in the term limits controversy. And we do know that the voters of this city have been gang violated by a billionaire mayor and some of his political lackeys while apparently Big Al has been on some kind of religious retreat.
Someone should be investigating all of the communications between the Bloomberg gang and the NAN. So it looks as if Rev. Al can stand up for this Mineo character, but not the citizens of New York. Isn't this just the kind of thing that Sharpton would salivate for in the past? And with an African American mayoral candidate waiting in the wings. Imagine if Rudy was still mayor and tried to grab a third term in this way.
And why is it that the NY Times, with its team of reporters, couldn't uncover the last despicable act that Mineo was charged with? The NY Post certainly did: "But the mother of two teens - victims of an April gang assault in which Mineo is charged - said he got what he deserved.
"If the cops snapped off that radio antenna up his ass, I wouldn't give a f- - - about that," said Laura Boston. Her sons Gerald, 16, and Elijah, 14, were allegedly beaten by Mineo and four others in the Downtown Brooklyn tattoo parlor where he works. "My son has dentures because of that man." "Five guys beat up my sons, so it's right that it took five cops to beat him up. I don't wish him any harm or anything, but God don't like ugly. You get what you give, you know."
The Times did find room for this from one of Mineo's attorneys: "Mr. Mineo’s lawyer, Mr. Mosley, said that too much attention was being paid to his client’s past, which includes at least five arrests. “These police officers didn’t have his rap sheet when they tackled him,” he said."
So as we return to the Sharpton three ring circus, remember this New Yorkism-"Not for Nothing." It's a great New York phrase; and Slim Shady, the master of the kickback, ain't working for free on behalf of Mineo. Just as he isn't, in the great tradition of the farm subsidy, not getting paid for refraining from plowing the term limits fields.
Term Limits Nausea
On Saturday we learned from the NY Post that the term limits vote really was sickening: "Darlene Mealy - one of only two City Council members to switch sides in the tense term-limits vote - was under such intense pressure and threats that she vomited twice at City Hall before announcing her decision, sources said yesterday." Frankly, we're not surprised, since Mealy went against all of the labor folks who got her elected. And for what?
The Post details what it says is arm twisting from the mayor and the speaker: "She was very upset. She kept saying she has to deliver for her district, and she was tired of being on the losing side," said Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn), one of the bill's leading adversaries. Opponents said Mealy was told she would face trouble for trying to sponsor a $25,000 grant for a Brooklyn block association run by her sister in Fiscal Year 2007. Mealy attempted to allocate her council discretionary funds for her sister's group, the Fulton-Atlantic-Ralph-Rochester Community Association (FARR), but the request was mysteriously pulled."
On the other hand, extension proponent Lew Fidler, pushes the immoral equivalency argument: "Even while we were on the floor, Bill Lipton came over to her and tried to flip her back," said Councilman Lew Fidler (D-Brooklyn), a proponent of the bill. He said Mealy told him "people she considered to be political allies were threatening her."
But Big Lew, being pressured by the folks who brought you to the dance, the very people who you should owe some loyalty to, is a lot different from the heat coming from extension supporters-those who hold tightly to the budgetary purse strings.
And let's not forget that the predominately African-American district that Mealy represents is part of the largest cohort of New Yorkers opposed to the council's action. It doesn't take a whole lot of arm twisting to urge an elected to support the popular will, does it?
Here's Andrea Peyser's spot on take: "Still, a stench of inevitability clung to the council chamber like mildew. The mayor yesterday became the first man to profit handsomely from the city's financial mess, doing an end run around voters by threatening that he's the only guy who can lead them out of financial darkness. And, like sheep, the council members, one by one, fell into lock step. I'm no great fan of term limits, but they're the law of the land. And this was a blatant political power grab, executed by a crafty mayor."
The Post details what it says is arm twisting from the mayor and the speaker: "She was very upset. She kept saying she has to deliver for her district, and she was tired of being on the losing side," said Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn), one of the bill's leading adversaries. Opponents said Mealy was told she would face trouble for trying to sponsor a $25,000 grant for a Brooklyn block association run by her sister in Fiscal Year 2007. Mealy attempted to allocate her council discretionary funds for her sister's group, the Fulton-Atlantic-Ralph-Rochester Community Association (FARR), but the request was mysteriously pulled."
On the other hand, extension proponent Lew Fidler, pushes the immoral equivalency argument: "Even while we were on the floor, Bill Lipton came over to her and tried to flip her back," said Councilman Lew Fidler (D-Brooklyn), a proponent of the bill. He said Mealy told him "people she considered to be political allies were threatening her."
But Big Lew, being pressured by the folks who brought you to the dance, the very people who you should owe some loyalty to, is a lot different from the heat coming from extension supporters-those who hold tightly to the budgetary purse strings.
And let's not forget that the predominately African-American district that Mealy represents is part of the largest cohort of New Yorkers opposed to the council's action. It doesn't take a whole lot of arm twisting to urge an elected to support the popular will, does it?
Here's Andrea Peyser's spot on take: "Still, a stench of inevitability clung to the council chamber like mildew. The mayor yesterday became the first man to profit handsomely from the city's financial mess, doing an end run around voters by threatening that he's the only guy who can lead them out of financial darkness. And, like sheep, the council members, one by one, fell into lock step. I'm no great fan of term limits, but they're the law of the land. And this was a blatant political power grab, executed by a crafty mayor."
Bloomberg's Economic (Tunnel) Vision
By now every one's familiar with the Bloomberg Savior message. Given the country's fiscal crisis we need the shrewd business sense of the Wall Street mogul to navigate the tough sledding ahead. But, on further examination, does the argument hold up to any independent scrutiny?
Aside from the snide rhetorical flourishes about how it was all of the mayor's pals who got us into this mess in the first place, what is it about the first seven years of the reign of Bloomberg that should encourage us to drink the mayor's Kool Aide? But before we answer that question, let's get back for a second to the metier that we're really comfortable with-snide.
There is something substantive to the point that the mayor's expertise, and his relationships-not to mention his world view, is encapsulated in the Weltanschuung of Wall Street. Just how, one may ask, does that set of experiences make him uniquely qualifies to steer the city out of the difficult straits it will find itself in?
In our view, it creates for the mayor the kind of "trained incapacity" that is ill suited to the coming difficulties. It doesn't, for example, give him unique insights into stabilizing and growing the other aspects of the economy-small business and manufacturing, for instance-that he has neglected in his slavish aggrandizement of big real estate development; a development that has had a pernicious impact on other sectors of the city's economy.
And his dependence on tax hikes and standard liberal bromides concerning governance-hikes that were mitigated by the fact that the city was awash with Wall Street cash that is now sayonara-give us no confidence that he will be the ideal steward for the austerity ahead. Take a look at yesterday's NY Daily News story on falling home values. As the paper points out: "The housing crisis has arrived for middle class New York. The perception that New York largely dodged the housing bust bullet may be true in Manhattan, but in the working-class outer boroughs, house sales are falling faster than the Dow."
How do you think a property tax hike's gonna play in the boros? And, as the News also points out, third terms are often a minefield for even the most nimble of pols. Real creativity and compassion, two attributes that are in short supply in the mayor's personal portfolio, are going to be needed.
Which brings us to the upcoming battle over Willets Point-a fight that is symbolic of some of the issues stated above. Here at the Point we have what can be called a vibrant eyesore-an eyesore that is rich in jobs and productivity. The mayor, using the power of eminent domain, wants to clear this area of all of the less than Triple A uses; and there is a fragrant remembrance in this effort of the old urban renewal impulse that used to be infamously called, "Negro Removal."
It's the kind of slum clearance perspective that Jane Jacobs railed against precisely because it destroyed living, vibrant neighborhoods. But they look "so unsightly," went the old refrain. Perhaps so, but that didn't take away from the loss such so called slum clearance created.
In the case of Willets Point this form of slum clearance is not only the loss of vibrancy for a cleaner sterility, it is a questionable economic development strategy. Nicholas von Hoffman captures this in the Nation as he depicts the world of Willets:
"There were no tourists watching as the metal gates went up on the corrugated-tin auto body shops, muffler repair outfits, and scrap dealers in this part of Queens. Workers took up their posts on the street to spot customers driving by, asking them, "Hey, Papi, what you need?" Massive earth movers growled to life in the bay used by Tully's Construction, and diesel-fired dump trucks plowed through street-width puddles toward Evergreen Recycling. At Feinstein Iron Works, a guy positioned a machine to bore into the end of a steel beam, while over at Bono's, a man in a cloth mask stacked bags of sawdust as they came off a conveyer belt. A driver for United Steel Products tossed his lunch bag into the flatbed he'd steer to a work site.
At the same time the City is destroying the small industrial enterprise that creates employment, it is subsidizing Manhattan real estate. This year it is handing out a half a billion dollars in subsidies to organizations who do not need them, some of which are as frivolous as Major League Baseball. Gotham has bet big on the service economy, particularly the finance part of it, and as a result there could be a loss of 165,000 jobs in the next couple of years."
So, a process that began with the ethnic cleansing of the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market, threatens the 2,500 workers at the Iron Triangle. They are invisible to this mayor because the Bloomberg world view holds no place for them. As von Hoffman reminds us: "Before using his millions to get himself elected mayor, Bloomberg made billions supplying the banking and finance industries with information indispensable to their machinations by displaying them on his computer terminals, which he rented to stock brokers and hedge fund operators at a price the rest of us cannot afford."
All of which should give us pause before we ascribe to the lionization of Mike Bloomberg. It's time to tell the billionaire toadies who've gotten their toast buttered on both sides by Mayor Mike to butt out of the people's business.
Whatever happens with term limits, and the coming legal challenge-and we're always nervous when the circus ringmaster yells, "Send in the clowns," it past time to tell Mike to take his money, and the overstuffed ego that goes with it, and simply leave as soon as possible. Not only will the city survive, there's a better than decent chance it will do better with someone else at the helm.
Aside from the snide rhetorical flourishes about how it was all of the mayor's pals who got us into this mess in the first place, what is it about the first seven years of the reign of Bloomberg that should encourage us to drink the mayor's Kool Aide? But before we answer that question, let's get back for a second to the metier that we're really comfortable with-snide.
There is something substantive to the point that the mayor's expertise, and his relationships-not to mention his world view, is encapsulated in the Weltanschuung of Wall Street. Just how, one may ask, does that set of experiences make him uniquely qualifies to steer the city out of the difficult straits it will find itself in?
In our view, it creates for the mayor the kind of "trained incapacity" that is ill suited to the coming difficulties. It doesn't, for example, give him unique insights into stabilizing and growing the other aspects of the economy-small business and manufacturing, for instance-that he has neglected in his slavish aggrandizement of big real estate development; a development that has had a pernicious impact on other sectors of the city's economy.
And his dependence on tax hikes and standard liberal bromides concerning governance-hikes that were mitigated by the fact that the city was awash with Wall Street cash that is now sayonara-give us no confidence that he will be the ideal steward for the austerity ahead. Take a look at yesterday's NY Daily News story on falling home values. As the paper points out: "The housing crisis has arrived for middle class New York. The perception that New York largely dodged the housing bust bullet may be true in Manhattan, but in the working-class outer boroughs, house sales are falling faster than the Dow."
How do you think a property tax hike's gonna play in the boros? And, as the News also points out, third terms are often a minefield for even the most nimble of pols. Real creativity and compassion, two attributes that are in short supply in the mayor's personal portfolio, are going to be needed.
Which brings us to the upcoming battle over Willets Point-a fight that is symbolic of some of the issues stated above. Here at the Point we have what can be called a vibrant eyesore-an eyesore that is rich in jobs and productivity. The mayor, using the power of eminent domain, wants to clear this area of all of the less than Triple A uses; and there is a fragrant remembrance in this effort of the old urban renewal impulse that used to be infamously called, "Negro Removal."
It's the kind of slum clearance perspective that Jane Jacobs railed against precisely because it destroyed living, vibrant neighborhoods. But they look "so unsightly," went the old refrain. Perhaps so, but that didn't take away from the loss such so called slum clearance created.
In the case of Willets Point this form of slum clearance is not only the loss of vibrancy for a cleaner sterility, it is a questionable economic development strategy. Nicholas von Hoffman captures this in the Nation as he depicts the world of Willets:
"There were no tourists watching as the metal gates went up on the corrugated-tin auto body shops, muffler repair outfits, and scrap dealers in this part of Queens. Workers took up their posts on the street to spot customers driving by, asking them, "Hey, Papi, what you need?" Massive earth movers growled to life in the bay used by Tully's Construction, and diesel-fired dump trucks plowed through street-width puddles toward Evergreen Recycling. At Feinstein Iron Works, a guy positioned a machine to bore into the end of a steel beam, while over at Bono's, a man in a cloth mask stacked bags of sawdust as they came off a conveyer belt. A driver for United Steel Products tossed his lunch bag into the flatbed he'd steer to a work site.
At the same time the City is destroying the small industrial enterprise that creates employment, it is subsidizing Manhattan real estate. This year it is handing out a half a billion dollars in subsidies to organizations who do not need them, some of which are as frivolous as Major League Baseball. Gotham has bet big on the service economy, particularly the finance part of it, and as a result there could be a loss of 165,000 jobs in the next couple of years."
So, a process that began with the ethnic cleansing of the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market, threatens the 2,500 workers at the Iron Triangle. They are invisible to this mayor because the Bloomberg world view holds no place for them. As von Hoffman reminds us: "Before using his millions to get himself elected mayor, Bloomberg made billions supplying the banking and finance industries with information indispensable to their machinations by displaying them on his computer terminals, which he rented to stock brokers and hedge fund operators at a price the rest of us cannot afford."
All of which should give us pause before we ascribe to the lionization of Mike Bloomberg. It's time to tell the billionaire toadies who've gotten their toast buttered on both sides by Mayor Mike to butt out of the people's business.
Whatever happens with term limits, and the coming legal challenge-and we're always nervous when the circus ringmaster yells, "Send in the clowns," it past time to tell Mike to take his money, and the overstuffed ego that goes with it, and simply leave as soon as possible. Not only will the city survive, there's a better than decent chance it will do better with someone else at the helm.
Sense in the State Senate
As the battle to control the state senate winds down to next week's election, observers are beginning to envision the possibility of a statistical dead heat-a 31-31 tie that will throw the leadership fight into a real donnybrook. As Newsday reported yesterday:
"It's being called "the nightmare scenario": a State Senate unable to work because Democrats and Republicans win an equal number of seats in the Nov. 4 elections.Such a tie hasn't occurred before in modern New York history but is looking more likely because there are only a few close races out of 62. And if the legislature's upper chamber were evenly split, there's no lieutenant governor to cast the deciding vote in the leadership election in January.The prospect of a stalemated Senate worries officials here because of the financial crisis. Instead of closing this year's budget deficit of $2 billion, senators could be fighting for control. "It throws the whole Senate into real confusion," said Stanley B. Klein, a political scientist on the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University. "Without a leader, it's every man and woman for themselves and that would be absolute chaos."
Of course, this scenario depends on the absolute political fealty of all involved-particularly on the Democratic side where Minority Leader Smith appears to be on shaky grounds. From where we sit, at least four Dem senators are potential free agents-Carl Kruger, Pedro Espada, Hiram Monseratte and Ruben Diaz; let's call them Kruger and the three amigos.
Diaz is a particular wild card, given his strong feelings about gay rights and abortion-a situation that isn't improved by yesterday's NY Times story about money from gay rights groups pouring into state democratic coffers: "But many of the philanthropists who have bankrolled gay and lesbian causes throughout the country have poured tens of thousands of dollars in the past month into the State Senate campaign of Rick Dollinger, a Democrat and ally of the gay community. Mr. Dollinger is challenging a Republican incumbent, Joseph E. Robach, whose district includes Rochester."
And this from the only openly gay New York State senator isn't likely to warm Ruben Diaz' heart: “The institutional gay community is very, very invested in this,” said Tom Duane, a Democratic state senator from Manhattan who was one of the state’s first openly gay elected officials when he won his seat in 1998. “I think everyone believes this is the year for New York. This is it, and everyone is going all in.”
So the potential for a tie, then, gives Diaz and the others-in Kruger's case someone who has been aligned with the Republicans, and is someone viewed as a less than partisan figure-the potential to be that fabled Archimedean force that can rule the world. How they act in concert can be the deciding factor in any leadership fight. In effect, they have the potential to bring order to chaos.
And what about that chaos? Here's the governor's view: "It's a nightmare scenario if you are afraid of governance," he said. "But this is democracy, and the people of the state seem somewhat split on who should be running the Senate." And the experts weigh in: "There could be a stalemate ... but a short-term interruption in the operation of one legislative house generally does not cause the house of state to fall apart," said Robert Ward of SUNY's Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. "But if there were gridlock that went on for months, clearly that would be damaging to the state."
If that's the case, particularly in the kind of fiscal mess that the state faces, there will be an even greater urgency to resolve the deadlock-giving the four wild cards even more leverage; something that's also true if the vote turns out to be a one seat margin for either of the two parties: "That's what happened 43 years ago when Democrats won a clear majority of Senate seats but couldn't choose a leader. They were split between supporters of then-new U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and New York City Mayor Robert F. Wagner Jr. "We had four or five weeks of total deadlock," said Jerome L. Wilson, a state senator in 1963-66 and Wagner supporter. "The government was totally paralyzed" because the Assembly was bogged down in a leadership fight."
So, as we approach election day, more and more media and partisan attention will be focused on the four senators. If they act and stand together, they could be the most unlikely of power brokers. It's been that kind of wild and crazy year.
"It's being called "the nightmare scenario": a State Senate unable to work because Democrats and Republicans win an equal number of seats in the Nov. 4 elections.Such a tie hasn't occurred before in modern New York history but is looking more likely because there are only a few close races out of 62. And if the legislature's upper chamber were evenly split, there's no lieutenant governor to cast the deciding vote in the leadership election in January.The prospect of a stalemated Senate worries officials here because of the financial crisis. Instead of closing this year's budget deficit of $2 billion, senators could be fighting for control. "It throws the whole Senate into real confusion," said Stanley B. Klein, a political scientist on the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University. "Without a leader, it's every man and woman for themselves and that would be absolute chaos."
Of course, this scenario depends on the absolute political fealty of all involved-particularly on the Democratic side where Minority Leader Smith appears to be on shaky grounds. From where we sit, at least four Dem senators are potential free agents-Carl Kruger, Pedro Espada, Hiram Monseratte and Ruben Diaz; let's call them Kruger and the three amigos.
Diaz is a particular wild card, given his strong feelings about gay rights and abortion-a situation that isn't improved by yesterday's NY Times story about money from gay rights groups pouring into state democratic coffers: "But many of the philanthropists who have bankrolled gay and lesbian causes throughout the country have poured tens of thousands of dollars in the past month into the State Senate campaign of Rick Dollinger, a Democrat and ally of the gay community. Mr. Dollinger is challenging a Republican incumbent, Joseph E. Robach, whose district includes Rochester."
And this from the only openly gay New York State senator isn't likely to warm Ruben Diaz' heart: “The institutional gay community is very, very invested in this,” said Tom Duane, a Democratic state senator from Manhattan who was one of the state’s first openly gay elected officials when he won his seat in 1998. “I think everyone believes this is the year for New York. This is it, and everyone is going all in.”
So the potential for a tie, then, gives Diaz and the others-in Kruger's case someone who has been aligned with the Republicans, and is someone viewed as a less than partisan figure-the potential to be that fabled Archimedean force that can rule the world. How they act in concert can be the deciding factor in any leadership fight. In effect, they have the potential to bring order to chaos.
And what about that chaos? Here's the governor's view: "It's a nightmare scenario if you are afraid of governance," he said. "But this is democracy, and the people of the state seem somewhat split on who should be running the Senate." And the experts weigh in: "There could be a stalemate ... but a short-term interruption in the operation of one legislative house generally does not cause the house of state to fall apart," said Robert Ward of SUNY's Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. "But if there were gridlock that went on for months, clearly that would be damaging to the state."
If that's the case, particularly in the kind of fiscal mess that the state faces, there will be an even greater urgency to resolve the deadlock-giving the four wild cards even more leverage; something that's also true if the vote turns out to be a one seat margin for either of the two parties: "That's what happened 43 years ago when Democrats won a clear majority of Senate seats but couldn't choose a leader. They were split between supporters of then-new U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and New York City Mayor Robert F. Wagner Jr. "We had four or five weeks of total deadlock," said Jerome L. Wilson, a state senator in 1963-66 and Wagner supporter. "The government was totally paralyzed" because the Assembly was bogged down in a leadership fight."
So, as we approach election day, more and more media and partisan attention will be focused on the four senators. If they act and stand together, they could be the most unlikely of power brokers. It's been that kind of wild and crazy year.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Peacemaker?
Now we don't really believe that Liz B is being ironic when she titled her Bloomberg post; "Bloomberg the Peacemaker." But the title got us to thinking about the old George Clooney movie, The Peacemaker, which had about as much violence and terrorism as any one flic could possibly have. In our view the Clooney movie had the decency to be fully aware of its less than noble appeal to our basest instinct-an honest approach, however, eludes Iron Mike.
Bloomberg's battle plan is pure stealth. Unlike the more openly bellicose Giuliani, Bloomberg acts like a choir boy while in reality allowing his minions to play the kind of hard ball that the swells in this town excoriated our former mayor for. And make no mistake, Bloomberg's resources make his muscle-flexing exponentially more threatening to a democratic polity than the geshreis of Rudy.
It's totally the mailed fist in the velvet glove approach; and we're kinda wondering when the NY Times publisher/editorial board will get around to recognizing the danger. Perhaps their reticence here devolves from the paper's fiscal difficulties-being so close to Broadway encourages the hope, no doubt, that an angel like Mike could eventually come to their rescue. In any case, what it underscores is just how much the money plays a role in all of this-and at every level of the discussion.
We did get a kick out of the mayor's comments on direct democracy: "Oddly, Bloomberg took a bit of a shot at referenda-happy California, where he was just campaigning for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's nonpartisan redistricting proposal, Prop. 11, that's on the ballot this fall, saying that you can't run a government "by taking referendums on everything you see" and citing California as a place where referenda has led to having "two laws that can't exist at the same time."
If this keeps up, we're gonna have to send in Joe Biden as the mayor's spokesman-since clarity and consistency is so obviously not a job requirement. In any event, we should all be wary of the mayor's professed magnanimity; it's as genuine as his word.
Bloomberg's battle plan is pure stealth. Unlike the more openly bellicose Giuliani, Bloomberg acts like a choir boy while in reality allowing his minions to play the kind of hard ball that the swells in this town excoriated our former mayor for. And make no mistake, Bloomberg's resources make his muscle-flexing exponentially more threatening to a democratic polity than the geshreis of Rudy.
It's totally the mailed fist in the velvet glove approach; and we're kinda wondering when the NY Times publisher/editorial board will get around to recognizing the danger. Perhaps their reticence here devolves from the paper's fiscal difficulties-being so close to Broadway encourages the hope, no doubt, that an angel like Mike could eventually come to their rescue. In any case, what it underscores is just how much the money plays a role in all of this-and at every level of the discussion.
We did get a kick out of the mayor's comments on direct democracy: "Oddly, Bloomberg took a bit of a shot at referenda-happy California, where he was just campaigning for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's nonpartisan redistricting proposal, Prop. 11, that's on the ballot this fall, saying that you can't run a government "by taking referendums on everything you see" and citing California as a place where referenda has led to having "two laws that can't exist at the same time."
If this keeps up, we're gonna have to send in Joe Biden as the mayor's spokesman-since clarity and consistency is so obviously not a job requirement. In any event, we should all be wary of the mayor's professed magnanimity; it's as genuine as his word.
The End of the Beginning
We the expected council ratification of the mayor's third term completed, we now expect the most interesting phase of the attempted coronation to begin. As Daily Politics pointed out-let the heckling begin: "Not long after his term limits victory on the floor of the Council, Mayor Bloomberg exited City Hall en route to the Greater Jamaica Development Corp. gala at the Grand Hyatt in Midtown. To say that he was not well-received by some of the people who were standing outside would be an understatement. He was met with screams of "Sellout!," "Bloomberg hates New York!", "Liar" and even, "You Bastard; we hate you!" One man was heard to say: "Tell him to get the hell out of town."
We believe that this is just the start-and we expect resentment to build along with a contentious and very public legal battle; one that has already begun: "Here we go! Within minutes of the Council's passage of Mayor Bloomberg's term limits extension bill, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan challenging the move...The suit makes Laurence Laufer's Municipal Home Rule Law argument, which is basically that any local law is also subject to a mandatory referendum if it "abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elected officer," and also claims that the plaintiffs' civil rights would be violated if the bill becomes law."
Some of the latent anger that has erupted can be gleaned from the vitriolic nature of some of the comments on the City Room blog. One in particular, stood out for us, since it hits on the appearance versus reality gap that we've been harping on: "Did Bloomberg change while in office, or are we finally just seeing who he really is? One of his great strength’s when he was elected was that he wasn’t part of the political machine - beholden to know one. Now he wants to hijack the political machine? It’s wrong and it’s wrong to pressure charities to support his machinations. I thought that was philanthropy, not buying favor. I guess I’m still naive after all these years."
No, not naive, just bamboozled by a (much more than) two bit phony; and the final chapter of the mayor's ersatz philanthropy has yet to be written-and when it is we expect that the foreword will be dictated by Al Sharpton (writing as Ralph Elllison's Invisible Man). Here's a thought experiment: If Mike Bloomberg had an average bank account, would the city council have been voting today on this term limits bill?
As for the speaker's expression that there was wide support for the council's action-"wide" ain't got the dimension it used to have: "When Ms. Quinn said it was “ludicrous” for critics to suggest the bill was the product of a “back-room deal,” a chorus of boos and jeers erupted from the balcony. Ms. Quinn said the bill had been the subject of vigorous discussion, including “two, well-attended public hearings, 20 hours of public hearings and a vigorous debate.” “Support for this bill is broad and deep,” she said, citing union officials and former elected officials like Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and Mayor Edward I. Koch."
Gee, what is it about 89-7 that is difficult to understand? (now that's what we would call wide) But the picture of the speaker embracing Lew Fidler after the vote yesterday, an exquisite MasterCard moment if we've ever seen one, is almost worth the final council ratification of the mayor's imperial ambitions. And check out this picture of Councilman Recchia at the Wonkster; doesn't he look like the cat who swallowed the canary?
All the news, however, wasn't bad. Our council woman, Gale Brewer, stood up strongly for principle, and we were extremely proud of her statement since she is philosophically opposed to term limits, but respects the will of the people in her district: "Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan said she was in an “ethical bind” and said she felt she was open to “accusations of hypocrisy.” She decided to vote no on extending term limits." In addition, if she had voted the other way there's little doubt in our mind that she wouldn't be beaten.
But now we enter into the next phase, a period where our theory of the expected deconstruction of the Myth of Michael will be put to the test. The smart money's on the mayor; but look what happened to the smart money over at Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. P.T. Barnum's observation that, "You can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people," will be put to a severe test in the weeks and months ahead. We might not be characterized as smart money, but we see a real shot here for the underdog.
We believe that this is just the start-and we expect resentment to build along with a contentious and very public legal battle; one that has already begun: "Here we go! Within minutes of the Council's passage of Mayor Bloomberg's term limits extension bill, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan challenging the move...The suit makes Laurence Laufer's Municipal Home Rule Law argument, which is basically that any local law is also subject to a mandatory referendum if it "abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elected officer," and also claims that the plaintiffs' civil rights would be violated if the bill becomes law."
Some of the latent anger that has erupted can be gleaned from the vitriolic nature of some of the comments on the City Room blog. One in particular, stood out for us, since it hits on the appearance versus reality gap that we've been harping on: "Did Bloomberg change while in office, or are we finally just seeing who he really is? One of his great strength’s when he was elected was that he wasn’t part of the political machine - beholden to know one. Now he wants to hijack the political machine? It’s wrong and it’s wrong to pressure charities to support his machinations. I thought that was philanthropy, not buying favor. I guess I’m still naive after all these years."
No, not naive, just bamboozled by a (much more than) two bit phony; and the final chapter of the mayor's ersatz philanthropy has yet to be written-and when it is we expect that the foreword will be dictated by Al Sharpton (writing as Ralph Elllison's Invisible Man). Here's a thought experiment: If Mike Bloomberg had an average bank account, would the city council have been voting today on this term limits bill?
As for the speaker's expression that there was wide support for the council's action-"wide" ain't got the dimension it used to have: "When Ms. Quinn said it was “ludicrous” for critics to suggest the bill was the product of a “back-room deal,” a chorus of boos and jeers erupted from the balcony. Ms. Quinn said the bill had been the subject of vigorous discussion, including “two, well-attended public hearings, 20 hours of public hearings and a vigorous debate.” “Support for this bill is broad and deep,” she said, citing union officials and former elected officials like Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and Mayor Edward I. Koch."
Gee, what is it about 89-7 that is difficult to understand? (now that's what we would call wide) But the picture of the speaker embracing Lew Fidler after the vote yesterday, an exquisite MasterCard moment if we've ever seen one, is almost worth the final council ratification of the mayor's imperial ambitions. And check out this picture of Councilman Recchia at the Wonkster; doesn't he look like the cat who swallowed the canary?
All the news, however, wasn't bad. Our council woman, Gale Brewer, stood up strongly for principle, and we were extremely proud of her statement since she is philosophically opposed to term limits, but respects the will of the people in her district: "Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan said she was in an “ethical bind” and said she felt she was open to “accusations of hypocrisy.” She decided to vote no on extending term limits." In addition, if she had voted the other way there's little doubt in our mind that she wouldn't be beaten.
But now we enter into the next phase, a period where our theory of the expected deconstruction of the Myth of Michael will be put to the test. The smart money's on the mayor; but look what happened to the smart money over at Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. P.T. Barnum's observation that, "You can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people," will be put to a severe test in the weeks and months ahead. We might not be characterized as smart money, but we see a real shot here for the underdog.
A Blessing Incognito
As we march headlong...into court on the issue of term limits, we are watching closely the mood of the citizenry. Having awarded themselves a self-served helping of another term, a healthy percentage of the 51 council members should be prepared for a considerable backdraft. One in particular, the first termer Diane Mealy, appears to be dead woman walking. Another, our buddy Jimmy Vacca, made a last minute about face that has his friends wondering.
As the NY Post reports this morning: "As late as Wednesday, two members - Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn and James Vacca of The Bronx - were planning to vote "no," but both flipped at the last minute, prompting more speculation that the mayor and speaker put immense pressure on members. Mealy ran away from reporters inquiring about her vote, and Vacca said he was moved by the personal pleas the mayor made to him but was not offered anything in return for his vote."
The storm clouds are gathering, the weather's gonna get a lot rougher; as the legal fight gears up, with its attendant public furor ratcheting up what many feel is a betrayal of the voters. As usual, the NY Times' Clyde Haberman captures this mood and its inevitable focus on our royal pretender: "Having legislatively muscled his way into a possible third term as mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg now faces what may be a more onerous challenge: How to convince New Yorkers that they can believe a single thing he says."
This lack of integrity is going to get played out for months, and just how disingenuous the mayor-and the council leadership-has been will be dramatically underscored for all New Yorkers. The fiscal crisis will be transmuted into a crisis of credibility for the little big man:
"His argument is that times are hard, that continuity is extra important and that voters deserve a chance to keep him. As on other occasions, he seems to believe that because his overall approval ratings are high, New Yorkers will smile on whatever he does. That isn’t the case. The trouncing that he took on big issues like nonpartisan elections, the West Side stadium and congestion pricing makes that clear. What the mayor plays down in his emphasis on the financial crisis is that he was exploring ways to cling to office long before the stock market went into a kamikaze-like dive. But he hemmed and hawed for months. Had he not done that, another referendum on term limits could have easily been put on the Nov. 4 ballot to see if New Yorkers had changed their minds."
And as Haberman reminds us: "There can be no doubt how New Yorkers feel. In a survey issued this week by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, 89 percent said that a new referendum — not a City Council deal — was the way to go. A mere 7 percent preferred to go through the Council. Till now, had you ever known 89 percent of New Yorkers to agree on anything? “You just don’t get numbers like this,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the polling institute."
Of course, the speaker's credibility is also stretched thin: "That turns the spotlight on the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, who has been the mayor’s handmaiden on altering term limits and whose own credibility took severe hits. She, too, used to preach about the sanctity of the people’s voice. Ms. Quinn said on Thursday that her sole interest was the common weal. New Yorkers, she said, now have a chance to vote for “consistent leadership” during this crisis. When reminded at a news conference that she used to hold a diametrically opposite position on how to change term limits, she said that elected officials go off course if they “do not evolve” when circumstances change.In other words, she had to be inconsistent to provide consistency. We’ll let you parse that one."
So we may be witnessing our own Charge of the Light Brigade; and the battle may not even get to its potential bloodiest culmination if the lawyers for the opposition get their way. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Now that the City Council has approved changing term limits to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to run again, this much is certain: The battle will move to the courtroom. Two lawsuits challenging the move are already in the legal system and more are expected."
So its a roll of the dice for council members in particular who have eyes for higher office. If the courts over rule the legislative fiat, than those who voted for extension are going to be coming to the voters viewed by many of the 89% as damaged goods. And the mayor will limp home to the end of his current term with as tarnished a legacy as we could possibly imagine.
That outcome, however, is certainly not preordained, since the legal hurdles are significant: "One point discussed was whether a provision in the municipal home rule law stipulating that a referendum is needed to alter the term of an elected office might apply in this case, several of the participants said. Another suggested that the challenge should be based on the City Charter, which does not specify how term limits ought to be changed — if by law or, as opponents of the Council’s actions have contended, by referendum. Of the many approaches discussed at the meeting, the lawyers are exploring two main avenues, each of which may prove difficult, in part because there is limited legal precedent to guide their argument but also because the courts might simply refuse to interfere with the political process."
The first, a voting rights challenge appears to be a long shot to us; but the other more arcane rationale may have greater promise: "One point discussed was whether a provision in the municipal home rule law stipulating that a referendum is needed to alter the term of an elected office might apply in this case, several of the participants said...The second alternative being considered by the lawyers who met with Mr. Siegel is a lawsuit arguing that extending term limits ought to require a referendum, just as changing the number of years in one term does."
All of which didn't make yesterday's procedures an exercise in good government by any stretch. Haberman gets the last word: "The mayor’s hope is that voters will eventually see Thursday’s action as not a betrayal of democracy, but as a blessing in disguise.Those were the words used by Winston Churchill’s wife, Clementine, after British voters ousted him as prime minister in July 1945. “It may well be a blessing in disguise,” she told him. To which Churchill replied, as many New Yorkers may be saying today, “At the moment it seems quite effectively disguised.”
As the NY Post reports this morning: "As late as Wednesday, two members - Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn and James Vacca of The Bronx - were planning to vote "no," but both flipped at the last minute, prompting more speculation that the mayor and speaker put immense pressure on members. Mealy ran away from reporters inquiring about her vote, and Vacca said he was moved by the personal pleas the mayor made to him but was not offered anything in return for his vote."
The storm clouds are gathering, the weather's gonna get a lot rougher; as the legal fight gears up, with its attendant public furor ratcheting up what many feel is a betrayal of the voters. As usual, the NY Times' Clyde Haberman captures this mood and its inevitable focus on our royal pretender: "Having legislatively muscled his way into a possible third term as mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg now faces what may be a more onerous challenge: How to convince New Yorkers that they can believe a single thing he says."
This lack of integrity is going to get played out for months, and just how disingenuous the mayor-and the council leadership-has been will be dramatically underscored for all New Yorkers. The fiscal crisis will be transmuted into a crisis of credibility for the little big man:
"His argument is that times are hard, that continuity is extra important and that voters deserve a chance to keep him. As on other occasions, he seems to believe that because his overall approval ratings are high, New Yorkers will smile on whatever he does. That isn’t the case. The trouncing that he took on big issues like nonpartisan elections, the West Side stadium and congestion pricing makes that clear. What the mayor plays down in his emphasis on the financial crisis is that he was exploring ways to cling to office long before the stock market went into a kamikaze-like dive. But he hemmed and hawed for months. Had he not done that, another referendum on term limits could have easily been put on the Nov. 4 ballot to see if New Yorkers had changed their minds."
And as Haberman reminds us: "There can be no doubt how New Yorkers feel. In a survey issued this week by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, 89 percent said that a new referendum — not a City Council deal — was the way to go. A mere 7 percent preferred to go through the Council. Till now, had you ever known 89 percent of New Yorkers to agree on anything? “You just don’t get numbers like this,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the polling institute."
Of course, the speaker's credibility is also stretched thin: "That turns the spotlight on the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, who has been the mayor’s handmaiden on altering term limits and whose own credibility took severe hits. She, too, used to preach about the sanctity of the people’s voice. Ms. Quinn said on Thursday that her sole interest was the common weal. New Yorkers, she said, now have a chance to vote for “consistent leadership” during this crisis. When reminded at a news conference that she used to hold a diametrically opposite position on how to change term limits, she said that elected officials go off course if they “do not evolve” when circumstances change.In other words, she had to be inconsistent to provide consistency. We’ll let you parse that one."
So we may be witnessing our own Charge of the Light Brigade; and the battle may not even get to its potential bloodiest culmination if the lawyers for the opposition get their way. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Now that the City Council has approved changing term limits to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to run again, this much is certain: The battle will move to the courtroom. Two lawsuits challenging the move are already in the legal system and more are expected."
So its a roll of the dice for council members in particular who have eyes for higher office. If the courts over rule the legislative fiat, than those who voted for extension are going to be coming to the voters viewed by many of the 89% as damaged goods. And the mayor will limp home to the end of his current term with as tarnished a legacy as we could possibly imagine.
That outcome, however, is certainly not preordained, since the legal hurdles are significant: "One point discussed was whether a provision in the municipal home rule law stipulating that a referendum is needed to alter the term of an elected office might apply in this case, several of the participants said. Another suggested that the challenge should be based on the City Charter, which does not specify how term limits ought to be changed — if by law or, as opponents of the Council’s actions have contended, by referendum. Of the many approaches discussed at the meeting, the lawyers are exploring two main avenues, each of which may prove difficult, in part because there is limited legal precedent to guide their argument but also because the courts might simply refuse to interfere with the political process."
The first, a voting rights challenge appears to be a long shot to us; but the other more arcane rationale may have greater promise: "One point discussed was whether a provision in the municipal home rule law stipulating that a referendum is needed to alter the term of an elected office might apply in this case, several of the participants said...The second alternative being considered by the lawyers who met with Mr. Siegel is a lawsuit arguing that extending term limits ought to require a referendum, just as changing the number of years in one term does."
All of which didn't make yesterday's procedures an exercise in good government by any stretch. Haberman gets the last word: "The mayor’s hope is that voters will eventually see Thursday’s action as not a betrayal of democracy, but as a blessing in disguise.Those were the words used by Winston Churchill’s wife, Clementine, after British voters ousted him as prime minister in July 1945. “It may well be a blessing in disguise,” she told him. To which Churchill replied, as many New Yorkers may be saying today, “At the moment it seems quite effectively disguised.”
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Taxing Credulity
In this morning's NY Post there's an editorial about the governor's aide who failed to file his taxes for a number of years; the title is: "Taxing Credibility." The headline, however, would be more appropriately attached to the NY Daily News' lead editorial on term limits; an opinion that sees the overturning of a referendum as "empowering the voter." Orwell would be proud.
But it doesn't stop there, because the News feels that the mayor's acumen uniquely qualifies him during this fiscal crisis:
"It's about empowering New Yorkers to make the best choice, be that Michael Bloomberg or someone else. Two Democrats have declared they'll run: Controller Bill Thompson and Rep. Anthony Weiner. Each has selling points, but the matter must not rest there. Not when there's talk of raising the property tax. Not when there's talk of hiking the income tax. Not when the MTA is floating the possibility of fare hikes and service cuts worse than initially conceived.
Not when state government, in its own $10 billion trough, will be looking for its own new taxes and ways to cut aid to the city. Under these circumstances, the Council must let New Yorkers decide whom they trust to manage in crisis and to preserve their bank accounts."
Are these folks for real? Who was the guy who raised our taxes in the post 9/11 meltdown-only to be bailed out by the supposed infamous George Bush and his federal cuts? And who is the one is already getting us ready for another round of taxes at a time when city residents are the most taxed people in the country? And what about the hiking of the income tax? None other than that partner in crime, the speaker of the city council.
What we don't need is a non innovative, paint-by-the-numbers tax hiker in the current mess we're in; nor do we need such sycophancy from a businessman turned publisher. In fact, in our view, the mayor can readily forgo his yearly colonoscopy by just asking Mort to shine his flash light.
But the city is blessed by a rich choir of voices-and the NY Post chimes in in beautiful harmony: "Bloomberg, of course, is an exception: He's a proven, competent leader - just what the doctor ordered at a time when New York City is facing perhaps unparalleled economic and fiscal challenges."
Sure he is. Mr. Indispensable. Just ask him. Or ask Pinch Sulzberger who has his paper of wreckage, in a fit of unexpected creativity, reprint Bloomberg talking points: "The question of voter choice is particularly relevant now. Although a majority of New Yorkers, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, oppose changing the term-limits rule, a majority of New Yorkers also strongly approve Mr. Bloomberg’s performance and, more to the point, say they would vote for him given the opportunity."
Sound familiar? As the News said: "Many in the public are unsettled by the notion of amending term limits without a referendum. The latest Quinnipiac Poll showed a 51%-to-45% slant against the idea. But the same survey showed that in even larger numbers - 59% - New Yorkers say they'll probably or definitely vote for Bloomberg if he's on the ballot. Almost two in three said they are confident he would meet the challenges of the coming crisis.
But, as this issue continues to roil the public consciousness, the notion of indispensability will gradually recede; replaced by anger and annoyance that a rich dilettante feels such a sense of entitlement that the will of the people be damned. As the contrasting reporting over at the Times has underscored, Mike Bloomberg can no longer hide behind a curtain of false rectitude-this cat's out of the bag.
But it doesn't stop there, because the News feels that the mayor's acumen uniquely qualifies him during this fiscal crisis:
"It's about empowering New Yorkers to make the best choice, be that Michael Bloomberg or someone else. Two Democrats have declared they'll run: Controller Bill Thompson and Rep. Anthony Weiner. Each has selling points, but the matter must not rest there. Not when there's talk of raising the property tax. Not when there's talk of hiking the income tax. Not when the MTA is floating the possibility of fare hikes and service cuts worse than initially conceived.
Not when state government, in its own $10 billion trough, will be looking for its own new taxes and ways to cut aid to the city. Under these circumstances, the Council must let New Yorkers decide whom they trust to manage in crisis and to preserve their bank accounts."
Are these folks for real? Who was the guy who raised our taxes in the post 9/11 meltdown-only to be bailed out by the supposed infamous George Bush and his federal cuts? And who is the one is already getting us ready for another round of taxes at a time when city residents are the most taxed people in the country? And what about the hiking of the income tax? None other than that partner in crime, the speaker of the city council.
What we don't need is a non innovative, paint-by-the-numbers tax hiker in the current mess we're in; nor do we need such sycophancy from a businessman turned publisher. In fact, in our view, the mayor can readily forgo his yearly colonoscopy by just asking Mort to shine his flash light.
But the city is blessed by a rich choir of voices-and the NY Post chimes in in beautiful harmony: "Bloomberg, of course, is an exception: He's a proven, competent leader - just what the doctor ordered at a time when New York City is facing perhaps unparalleled economic and fiscal challenges."
Sure he is. Mr. Indispensable. Just ask him. Or ask Pinch Sulzberger who has his paper of wreckage, in a fit of unexpected creativity, reprint Bloomberg talking points: "The question of voter choice is particularly relevant now. Although a majority of New Yorkers, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, oppose changing the term-limits rule, a majority of New Yorkers also strongly approve Mr. Bloomberg’s performance and, more to the point, say they would vote for him given the opportunity."
Sound familiar? As the News said: "Many in the public are unsettled by the notion of amending term limits without a referendum. The latest Quinnipiac Poll showed a 51%-to-45% slant against the idea. But the same survey showed that in even larger numbers - 59% - New Yorkers say they'll probably or definitely vote for Bloomberg if he's on the ballot. Almost two in three said they are confident he would meet the challenges of the coming crisis.
But, as this issue continues to roil the public consciousness, the notion of indispensability will gradually recede; replaced by anger and annoyance that a rich dilettante feels such a sense of entitlement that the will of the people be damned. As the contrasting reporting over at the Times has underscored, Mike Bloomberg can no longer hide behind a curtain of false rectitude-this cat's out of the bag.
Micheal We Hardly Knew Ya
As the culmination of some rather intense, and some would say unseemly, behind the scenes lobbying ends today in a vote at the city council, we are seeing-finally from our perspective-the deconstruction of the Myth of Michael. Forced for the first time to confront true opposition, and in a campaign that has all of the trappings of the old Tammany Hall, Mike Bloomberg stands revealed as just another power infused office holder over staying his welcome.
The NY Times this morning captures the essence of the revelation: "In his aggressive pursuit of a third term, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has begun to alienate some of his fiercest supporters, who say that his hardball tactics are undercutting his well-earned legacy as a reformer and an anti-politician." But, since we don't count ourselves among his fiercest supporters, our view is that the "well earned" legacy is sheer zirconium; where appearance belies a reality that owes its accolades to not only the good fortune of following a true reformer, but the the failure of the fourth estate to properly evaluate what the mayor's performance has actually been like.
All of which, in one ill-fated move, is changing before our eyes-and will continue to do so as the public begins to see just what the Bloomberg persona really is: "In dozens of interviews, former aides to the mayor, elected officials, good-government advocates and voters said they have become deeply disillusioned by the way Mr. Bloomberg is corralling support to rewrite the city’s term limits law, which New Yorkers have endorsed twice in citywide referendums."
The mayor, at least heretofore, has never really been challenged. When he raised taxes in 2002 his popularity plummeted-remember, in his first hint of a lack of probity, he claimed that the dangerous Mark Green would do that but not a shrewd businessman like himself-only to return when the Bush tax cuts flooded the city coffers with Wall Street cash. In the years to follow, he carefully cultivated a reform image that was sharply divergent-one could even say inversely proportional to his accomplishments. Aside from an aggressive nanny autocratism, what can we really say about Bloomberg reform legacy?
So now we head into a vote today; and although it will be close, it's hard to see how the mayor and the speaker in combination will not achieve what we believe will be a Pyrrhic victory. Here's one of Bloomberg's original boosters: "This is the first move that really pushes the boundary of what he can get away with,” said David Garth, a top political strategist in Mr. Bloomberg’s 2001 campaign for mayor. “This is not a good-government move, and Mike knows it.”
The Times goes further down this path: "If he does prevail, the victory may carry a cost to his reputation. The disenchantment with Mr. Bloomberg runs especially deep among his former aides and advisers at City Hall. In interviews, five of them said they had been surprised and unsettled by the mayor’s tactics. “It stinks of clubhouse politics,” said one former aide. “It’s not like him.”
Ah, Michael we hardly knew ya-the disillusionment of the acolytes! In this morning's NY Daily News an angry and disappointed Errol Louis-no knee jerk opponent of the mayor-takes off on the Bloomberg move to stay on, and particularly on the toadies in the legislature who are supporting it: "At least half the members of our municipal Legislature climb out of bed each morning with a cold shudder, realizing they lack the talent to convince any employer in the public, private or nonprofit sector to pay them a councilman's base salary of $112,500 a year for part-time work. And most employers don't allow workers to vote themselves a 22% salary increase, as the Council did in 2006."
As for the mayor: "So an appalled public will likely witness a depressing carnival of treachery, backstabbing, backroom money deals and self-serving double-talk down at City Hall Wednesday - all brought to you by an ex-reform mayor who values fame and the trappings of political power above his word and reputation." As one probably ex-supporter, the civil rights lawyer Richard Emery, told the Times: “He is becoming a typical hack, playing the same old games,” he said.
“It’s tragic and it’s sad.”
And once the deconstruction process begins, along with the erosion of trust, everything that the mayor attempts to do from now on will be seen from a new jaundiced perspective: "Some of the mayor's aides tell me the matter is simple: The mayor, after years of scorning political attacks on term limits as "disgusting" and "disgraceful," simply changed his mind. Wrong. You change your mind about what color tie to wear or whether it's worth waiting for the crosstown bus. You don't change your mind on matters involving honesty, integrity and keeping your word."
Having to face genuine and tough opposition is the reason why the mayor's true colors are beginning to show-adversity reveals character. As the Times points out: "Friends who originally urged Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third term said he has been taken aback by the depth of the opposition, which has prompted him to engage in a bruising political style he is not entirely comfortable with.“It has required slightly sharper elbows than anyone would have liked,” said one friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is not how he prefers to do business. He is not particularly happy with the situation.”
And the imperious reaction to the testimony of the opposition? Bloomberg claimed he really never even paid attention to the testimony of two days of hearings: "Mr. Bloomberg appeared to antagonize his critics over the last few days by saying he did not listen to any of the testimony and by describing many of the speakers at the hearings as “people who emote.” A majority opposed Mr. Bloomberg’s legislation." Reminds us of his comment when the Alliance pointed out that his cigarette tax was costing bodegas and newsstand dealers over $250 million a year: "It's a minor economic issue," he told reporters.
Davis Garth, likely passing up a lucrative third gig on the Bloomberg gravy train, has the final word on Bloomberg Revealed: "Mr. Garth, the political consultant who worked for Mr. Bloomberg, said New Yorkers were discovering that a mayor they revere as the consummate political outsider is capable of disappointing them. “A part of Mike was always too good to be true. The guy makes very few mistakes for a mayor of a city like this. He has been unbelievably successful.” Still, “there is an arrogance about the mayor, and people resent that.”
The NY Times this morning captures the essence of the revelation: "In his aggressive pursuit of a third term, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has begun to alienate some of his fiercest supporters, who say that his hardball tactics are undercutting his well-earned legacy as a reformer and an anti-politician." But, since we don't count ourselves among his fiercest supporters, our view is that the "well earned" legacy is sheer zirconium; where appearance belies a reality that owes its accolades to not only the good fortune of following a true reformer, but the the failure of the fourth estate to properly evaluate what the mayor's performance has actually been like.
All of which, in one ill-fated move, is changing before our eyes-and will continue to do so as the public begins to see just what the Bloomberg persona really is: "In dozens of interviews, former aides to the mayor, elected officials, good-government advocates and voters said they have become deeply disillusioned by the way Mr. Bloomberg is corralling support to rewrite the city’s term limits law, which New Yorkers have endorsed twice in citywide referendums."
The mayor, at least heretofore, has never really been challenged. When he raised taxes in 2002 his popularity plummeted-remember, in his first hint of a lack of probity, he claimed that the dangerous Mark Green would do that but not a shrewd businessman like himself-only to return when the Bush tax cuts flooded the city coffers with Wall Street cash. In the years to follow, he carefully cultivated a reform image that was sharply divergent-one could even say inversely proportional to his accomplishments. Aside from an aggressive nanny autocratism, what can we really say about Bloomberg reform legacy?
So now we head into a vote today; and although it will be close, it's hard to see how the mayor and the speaker in combination will not achieve what we believe will be a Pyrrhic victory. Here's one of Bloomberg's original boosters: "This is the first move that really pushes the boundary of what he can get away with,” said David Garth, a top political strategist in Mr. Bloomberg’s 2001 campaign for mayor. “This is not a good-government move, and Mike knows it.”
The Times goes further down this path: "If he does prevail, the victory may carry a cost to his reputation. The disenchantment with Mr. Bloomberg runs especially deep among his former aides and advisers at City Hall. In interviews, five of them said they had been surprised and unsettled by the mayor’s tactics. “It stinks of clubhouse politics,” said one former aide. “It’s not like him.”
Ah, Michael we hardly knew ya-the disillusionment of the acolytes! In this morning's NY Daily News an angry and disappointed Errol Louis-no knee jerk opponent of the mayor-takes off on the Bloomberg move to stay on, and particularly on the toadies in the legislature who are supporting it: "At least half the members of our municipal Legislature climb out of bed each morning with a cold shudder, realizing they lack the talent to convince any employer in the public, private or nonprofit sector to pay them a councilman's base salary of $112,500 a year for part-time work. And most employers don't allow workers to vote themselves a 22% salary increase, as the Council did in 2006."
As for the mayor: "So an appalled public will likely witness a depressing carnival of treachery, backstabbing, backroom money deals and self-serving double-talk down at City Hall Wednesday - all brought to you by an ex-reform mayor who values fame and the trappings of political power above his word and reputation." As one probably ex-supporter, the civil rights lawyer Richard Emery, told the Times: “He is becoming a typical hack, playing the same old games,” he said.
“It’s tragic and it’s sad.”
And once the deconstruction process begins, along with the erosion of trust, everything that the mayor attempts to do from now on will be seen from a new jaundiced perspective: "Some of the mayor's aides tell me the matter is simple: The mayor, after years of scorning political attacks on term limits as "disgusting" and "disgraceful," simply changed his mind. Wrong. You change your mind about what color tie to wear or whether it's worth waiting for the crosstown bus. You don't change your mind on matters involving honesty, integrity and keeping your word."
Having to face genuine and tough opposition is the reason why the mayor's true colors are beginning to show-adversity reveals character. As the Times points out: "Friends who originally urged Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third term said he has been taken aback by the depth of the opposition, which has prompted him to engage in a bruising political style he is not entirely comfortable with.“It has required slightly sharper elbows than anyone would have liked,” said one friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is not how he prefers to do business. He is not particularly happy with the situation.”
And the imperious reaction to the testimony of the opposition? Bloomberg claimed he really never even paid attention to the testimony of two days of hearings: "Mr. Bloomberg appeared to antagonize his critics over the last few days by saying he did not listen to any of the testimony and by describing many of the speakers at the hearings as “people who emote.” A majority opposed Mr. Bloomberg’s legislation." Reminds us of his comment when the Alliance pointed out that his cigarette tax was costing bodegas and newsstand dealers over $250 million a year: "It's a minor economic issue," he told reporters.
Davis Garth, likely passing up a lucrative third gig on the Bloomberg gravy train, has the final word on Bloomberg Revealed: "Mr. Garth, the political consultant who worked for Mr. Bloomberg, said New Yorkers were discovering that a mayor they revere as the consummate political outsider is capable of disappointing them. “A part of Mike was always too good to be true. The guy makes very few mistakes for a mayor of a city like this. He has been unbelievably successful.” Still, “there is an arrogance about the mayor, and people resent that.”
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
More Uncertainty
City Room blog's reporting that council members Lappin and McMahon have declared their opposition to the mayor's term limits bill-bring the number of opponents to 23: "Two City Council members added their intended votes on Wednesday afternoon against a move to extend term limits and allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year. Councilman Michael E. McMahon, who is the Democratic nominee for a Congressional seat on Staten Island, and Councilwoman Jessica S. Lappin, a first-term member from Manhattan, said they would vote no on the proposal. Mr. McMahon’s vote, in particular, surprised some observers; his brother Thomas, a prominent lobbyist, is married to Deputy Mayor Linda I. Gibbs, and the councilman has been a close ally of the mayor."
McMahon's opposition is based in large part on his race for the Congress in a district where voters strongly supported the original term limits bill. Lappin is somewhat of a surprise since many felt that she would eventually side with the mayor. She is, however, a first termer who may find herself out in the cold if the Lauder-inspired Charter ends up reaffirming term limits for the council members who would remain.
City Room also examines the Yassky-Brewer-Gerson amendment, and raises the fig leaf question that we also raised in an earlier post: "Mr. Yassky, Mr. Gerson and Ms. Brewer are among those who are undecided. But the conventional wisdom is that they will ultimately vote for the bill — even though they said Wednesday that they had not yet made up their minds. Small wonder, then, that several reporters asked the three a variation on the same question: whether their amendment was simply a fig leaf to give them political cover and say that they tried to stop the mayor’s bill, before ultimately voting for it.“Absolutely not,” Mr. Yassky said, in a sentiment that was echoed by the others."
We'll see if that holds up in the face of the speaker's optimism: "Ms. Quinn has told council members and others that she is confident that she has the 26 votes needed for passage in the 51-member Council. “I am very optimistic that the mayor’s bill will pass in the Council tomorrow,” she said Wednesday at an event on Staten Island." Our advice to the intrepid trio comes from Dan Rather; "Courage!"
Update
Erik Engquist at Crain's is also reporting that the mayor's bill may be in for some trouble: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to extend term limits appears to be in serious trouble.Three undecided members of the City Council announced that they will introduce an amendment that would place a major obstacle between the mayor and a third term. Brooklyn’s David Yassky and Manhattan’s Gale Brewer and Alan Gerson said their measure would make the extension subject to a public referendum next year."
Apparently, the council members are reacting to some rather strong constituent sentiment: "Ms. Brewer considers the current limit of two four-year terms to be too short, but is sympathetic to the strong public sentiment against the Council changing the law. She says her office has received about 650 calls, e-mails and letters on the issue, about 75% of them opposing the mayor’s bill.“I think [a limit of] 12 years makes sense,” Brewer said. “On the other hand, people feel very strongly that they want to make the decision.”
McMahon's opposition is based in large part on his race for the Congress in a district where voters strongly supported the original term limits bill. Lappin is somewhat of a surprise since many felt that she would eventually side with the mayor. She is, however, a first termer who may find herself out in the cold if the Lauder-inspired Charter ends up reaffirming term limits for the council members who would remain.
City Room also examines the Yassky-Brewer-Gerson amendment, and raises the fig leaf question that we also raised in an earlier post: "Mr. Yassky, Mr. Gerson and Ms. Brewer are among those who are undecided. But the conventional wisdom is that they will ultimately vote for the bill — even though they said Wednesday that they had not yet made up their minds. Small wonder, then, that several reporters asked the three a variation on the same question: whether their amendment was simply a fig leaf to give them political cover and say that they tried to stop the mayor’s bill, before ultimately voting for it.“Absolutely not,” Mr. Yassky said, in a sentiment that was echoed by the others."
We'll see if that holds up in the face of the speaker's optimism: "Ms. Quinn has told council members and others that she is confident that she has the 26 votes needed for passage in the 51-member Council. “I am very optimistic that the mayor’s bill will pass in the Council tomorrow,” she said Wednesday at an event on Staten Island." Our advice to the intrepid trio comes from Dan Rather; "Courage!"
Update
Erik Engquist at Crain's is also reporting that the mayor's bill may be in for some trouble: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to extend term limits appears to be in serious trouble.Three undecided members of the City Council announced that they will introduce an amendment that would place a major obstacle between the mayor and a third term. Brooklyn’s David Yassky and Manhattan’s Gale Brewer and Alan Gerson said their measure would make the extension subject to a public referendum next year."
Apparently, the council members are reacting to some rather strong constituent sentiment: "Ms. Brewer considers the current limit of two four-year terms to be too short, but is sympathetic to the strong public sentiment against the Council changing the law. She says her office has received about 650 calls, e-mails and letters on the issue, about 75% of them opposing the mayor’s bill.“I think [a limit of] 12 years makes sense,” Brewer said. “On the other hand, people feel very strongly that they want to make the decision.”
Terminal Impediment?
It really is getting curiouser and curiouser with regards to Tomorrow's term limits vote. According to Liz B, three council members will introduce an amendment to the mayor's bill. The three-Yassky, Brewer and Gerson-are undecided, but were seen by most observers to be eventual No votes; and they still may be. But now a great deal of uncertainty has been introduced into the equation: "
"A well-informed source called in to say that three Council members - David Yassky, Alan Gerson and Gale Brewer - are poised to introduce an amendment to the mayor's term limits bill that could throw a sizable wrench into the works of tomorrow's vote. As I understand it, the amendment would change the last paragraph of the bill, which requires that it would take effect immediately, to require that the measure NOT take effect unless and until it is affirmed by a public referendum. The amendment would also create a special election charter commission that would be tasked with setting up the referendum before the 2009 election."
Now, before all of you opponents get excited, there are those we've talked to who believe that this is simply a ruse-a device that will allow the three members, and maybe one or two others, to push for an amendment that, once it is defeated, will enable the amenders to vote Yes on the mayor's bill. Perhaps so, but not everyone agrees. On the other side, is the belief that the (possibly) four amenders will bring the pro referendum cohort very close to victory; and if so, will force the speaker to pull the vote for tomorrow.
Adding to the explosive mixture is the gathering labor/Working Families Part storm. As City Room points out: "City Council members who are considering voting for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to extend term limits are receiving strong pressure from labor leaders to oppose the measure. Some leaders of the coalition of labor unions and community and political groups are making it clear that they intend to take aim at certain council members in next year’s elections should the measure pass."
In combination with the proposed amendment, this poses a considerable obstacle for the weak-kneed-not only being forced to vote against a measure that 89% of New Yorkers believe is the right path to follow; but to do so knowing that a strong grass roots coalition is forming to take aim at them. This is particularly problematic for certain first termers who are planning to vote for the mayor's bill. These council members are not in the same cul-du-sac as their term limited colleagues since they do have an additional term ahead.
And the opposition, led in part by Bertha Lewis, is not to be trifled with: “Our position is quite clear,” said Ms. Lewis, who is also a leader within the Working Families Party. “A change in the law has to be done by a referendum. And we’re watching very closely how the members of the City Council vote. And voting in favor of the mayor’s bill are likely to tip the scale when it comes to decisions about who we will support in the 09 elections.”
All of which makes for quite a potentially dramatic denouement in the city council tomorrow. Many political careers could be hanging in the balance. In any case, this is certainly the most unusual political controversy we've seen in our long tenure watching city politics.
"A well-informed source called in to say that three Council members - David Yassky, Alan Gerson and Gale Brewer - are poised to introduce an amendment to the mayor's term limits bill that could throw a sizable wrench into the works of tomorrow's vote. As I understand it, the amendment would change the last paragraph of the bill, which requires that it would take effect immediately, to require that the measure NOT take effect unless and until it is affirmed by a public referendum. The amendment would also create a special election charter commission that would be tasked with setting up the referendum before the 2009 election."
Now, before all of you opponents get excited, there are those we've talked to who believe that this is simply a ruse-a device that will allow the three members, and maybe one or two others, to push for an amendment that, once it is defeated, will enable the amenders to vote Yes on the mayor's bill. Perhaps so, but not everyone agrees. On the other side, is the belief that the (possibly) four amenders will bring the pro referendum cohort very close to victory; and if so, will force the speaker to pull the vote for tomorrow.
Adding to the explosive mixture is the gathering labor/Working Families Part storm. As City Room points out: "City Council members who are considering voting for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to extend term limits are receiving strong pressure from labor leaders to oppose the measure. Some leaders of the coalition of labor unions and community and political groups are making it clear that they intend to take aim at certain council members in next year’s elections should the measure pass."
In combination with the proposed amendment, this poses a considerable obstacle for the weak-kneed-not only being forced to vote against a measure that 89% of New Yorkers believe is the right path to follow; but to do so knowing that a strong grass roots coalition is forming to take aim at them. This is particularly problematic for certain first termers who are planning to vote for the mayor's bill. These council members are not in the same cul-du-sac as their term limited colleagues since they do have an additional term ahead.
And the opposition, led in part by Bertha Lewis, is not to be trifled with: “Our position is quite clear,” said Ms. Lewis, who is also a leader within the Working Families Party. “A change in the law has to be done by a referendum. And we’re watching very closely how the members of the City Council vote. And voting in favor of the mayor’s bill are likely to tip the scale when it comes to decisions about who we will support in the 09 elections.”
All of which makes for quite a potentially dramatic denouement in the city council tomorrow. Many political careers could be hanging in the balance. In any case, this is certainly the most unusual political controversy we've seen in our long tenure watching city politics.
Into the Valley of the Shadow...
As the city council showdown on term limits approaches D-Day, with all of the internal lobbying going into its final intense phase, everyone assumes that the votes are there for a narrow Quinnberg victory. The only question remaining is: Will it be a Pyrrhic victory? As the NY Times reports:
"The vote would come just three weeks after Mr. Bloomberg announced his plan to change the law, saying he wants to steer the city through the economic troubles resulting from Wall Street’s crisis. Opponents have complained that Ms. Quinn is rushing the measure through for the mayor. Late last week, two days of public hearings attracted standing-room-only crowds, and most who spoke argued against the bill...But if the bill fails, it would be a stunning defeat for a popular mayor who has rarely failed to sway the Council to his side of an issue."
Well, they do say that haste makes waste, but in this case the choice wasn't pretty-as the latest Q Poll indicating a rapid erosion of support, even for the popular mayor. Any further dawdling, and the public pressure on undecided council members would have been too heated to ignore-hence the rapid move to a vote: "Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn said that since Mr. Lauder was casting doubt on the assurances the mayor and the speaker have given to first-termers, “freshmen are beginning to feel very uncomfortable. There are no guarantees that they are protected.” Ms. James was among those council members heartened by a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday morning. By 89 percent to 7 percent, city residents prefer changing term limits by referendum, according to the poll; 51 percent oppose extending term limits altogether, even if it means denying Mr. Bloomberg a run at a third term."
This morning's NY Daily News also focuses in on the dramatic shift of public opinion: "The news came as a Quinnipiac University poll found New Yorkers are souring on the plan to give the mayor, Council members and citywide officials a chance at a third four-year term. "It's a bluff," said Councilman Bill de Blasio (D-Brooklyn), one of the leading opponents. "If, God forbid, it passes, there will be lawsuits the next day."
So no matter what the council does tomorrow, there will be a continuing focus on the legal issue, and the public's dim view of the proceedings will grow even further. Into this growing disgust will be the expected Bloomberg knee jerk tax raising. As the NY Post reports: "New Yorkers got a preview yesterday of the impact of the Wall Street meltdown on local government revenues as Mayor Bloomberg predicted the city's budget gap over the next two years would be $1.5 billion larger than forecast in June. Bloomberg also indicated that, one way or another, taxes are going up. "Taxes are clearly one of the things on the table - going to be for us, going to be for the state, going to be for the federal government, I think," he said."
The mayor's fiscal acumen is beginning to sound more like Jimmy Buffet, not Warren; but his political predictions are less uncertain given his past performance. What this means, however, is that the mayor's popularity will continue to be buffeted and bruised-with the contentious school governance issue coming up shortly after the new year.
For the council, we predict that whatever happens there will be leadership challenges. It's hard to rule a body where disagreements and animosity are as pronounced as they are-and where the split is so close. This will be exacerbated by the ongoing legal battle. Of course, if the suits are upheld, all bets are off.
"The vote would come just three weeks after Mr. Bloomberg announced his plan to change the law, saying he wants to steer the city through the economic troubles resulting from Wall Street’s crisis. Opponents have complained that Ms. Quinn is rushing the measure through for the mayor. Late last week, two days of public hearings attracted standing-room-only crowds, and most who spoke argued against the bill...But if the bill fails, it would be a stunning defeat for a popular mayor who has rarely failed to sway the Council to his side of an issue."
Well, they do say that haste makes waste, but in this case the choice wasn't pretty-as the latest Q Poll indicating a rapid erosion of support, even for the popular mayor. Any further dawdling, and the public pressure on undecided council members would have been too heated to ignore-hence the rapid move to a vote: "Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn said that since Mr. Lauder was casting doubt on the assurances the mayor and the speaker have given to first-termers, “freshmen are beginning to feel very uncomfortable. There are no guarantees that they are protected.” Ms. James was among those council members heartened by a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday morning. By 89 percent to 7 percent, city residents prefer changing term limits by referendum, according to the poll; 51 percent oppose extending term limits altogether, even if it means denying Mr. Bloomberg a run at a third term."
This morning's NY Daily News also focuses in on the dramatic shift of public opinion: "The news came as a Quinnipiac University poll found New Yorkers are souring on the plan to give the mayor, Council members and citywide officials a chance at a third four-year term. "It's a bluff," said Councilman Bill de Blasio (D-Brooklyn), one of the leading opponents. "If, God forbid, it passes, there will be lawsuits the next day."
So no matter what the council does tomorrow, there will be a continuing focus on the legal issue, and the public's dim view of the proceedings will grow even further. Into this growing disgust will be the expected Bloomberg knee jerk tax raising. As the NY Post reports: "New Yorkers got a preview yesterday of the impact of the Wall Street meltdown on local government revenues as Mayor Bloomberg predicted the city's budget gap over the next two years would be $1.5 billion larger than forecast in June. Bloomberg also indicated that, one way or another, taxes are going up. "Taxes are clearly one of the things on the table - going to be for us, going to be for the state, going to be for the federal government, I think," he said."
The mayor's fiscal acumen is beginning to sound more like Jimmy Buffet, not Warren; but his political predictions are less uncertain given his past performance. What this means, however, is that the mayor's popularity will continue to be buffeted and bruised-with the contentious school governance issue coming up shortly after the new year.
For the council, we predict that whatever happens there will be leadership challenges. It's hard to rule a body where disagreements and animosity are as pronounced as they are-and where the split is so close. This will be exacerbated by the ongoing legal battle. Of course, if the suits are upheld, all bets are off.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Hopelessly De-Voted
As City Room blog is reporting, the city council has schedule a term limits vote for Thursday-a lock that they have the votes to pass the mayor's bill: "The City Council has scheduled a Thursday vote on a bill that would extend term limits to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other city officials to seek a third term in office, nullifying the outcome of two public referendums, in 1993 and 1996, that imposed term limits."
It's also instructive that the alternative legislation will not be sent up for a vote-probably because it wouldn't even get past the committee in order to go to the floor: "Over 19.5 hours of hearings on Thursday and Friday, the committee heard testimony on two bills: the mayor’s and an alternative, sponsored by Councilman Bill de Blasio and Councilwoman Letitia James, that would require a public referendum on term limits...Eric J. Kuo, a spokesman for Mr. Felder, who heads the committee, said that the de Blasio-James bill “will not be considered for a vote at this time.”
Or any other time we're pretty sure. All of which sets the stage for a raucous political upheaval, one whose consequence is unknowable; we're in the most uncharted of waters. Our view, however, is that this decision could well turn out to be momentous-with the mayor's legacy tarnished and in the balance. Everything that he touches from now on in, could well be refracted through this newly soiled lens. We are going to see just how much good will the mayor can purchase in the months ahead.
It's also instructive that the alternative legislation will not be sent up for a vote-probably because it wouldn't even get past the committee in order to go to the floor: "Over 19.5 hours of hearings on Thursday and Friday, the committee heard testimony on two bills: the mayor’s and an alternative, sponsored by Councilman Bill de Blasio and Councilwoman Letitia James, that would require a public referendum on term limits...Eric J. Kuo, a spokesman for Mr. Felder, who heads the committee, said that the de Blasio-James bill “will not be considered for a vote at this time.”
Or any other time we're pretty sure. All of which sets the stage for a raucous political upheaval, one whose consequence is unknowable; we're in the most uncharted of waters. Our view, however, is that this decision could well turn out to be momentous-with the mayor's legacy tarnished and in the balance. Everything that he touches from now on in, could well be refracted through this newly soiled lens. We are going to see just how much good will the mayor can purchase in the months ahead.
Only on My Terms
It now appears that we have two billionaires who want to regulate the rules of the game in this town-and their shifting positions on the issue of term limits really sets heads spinning. First up is the mayor who doesn't get from the NY Times' Clyde Haberman, the kind of royal treatment he has come to expect:
"In 2002, a prominent New Yorker’s blood was boiling over an attempt in the City Council to fiddle with the city’s term limits law. It was the voters who had imposed those limits in two separate referendums a few years earlier, this man said. “I would oppose any change in the law that a legislative body tries to make,” he said. Three years later, another effort was under way in the Council to monkey with the law, this time to extend the limit to three terms from two — to 12 years from 8. The prominent New Yorker’s blood was still up.
“This is an outrage,” he said in a radio interview. The people had spoken, he said. He added: “There’s no organization that I know that would put somebody in charge for a long period of time. You always want turnover and change. Eight years is great. You learn for four years. You can do for four years.”
That, as they say, was then, and this is now-so the man in the mirror has altered his principle in the name of pragmatism. Ah pragmatism, thy name is Mike Bloomberg; who now argues that the fact have changed because of the country's economic crisis-never mind that this whole soap opera began long before the current market meltdown reared its ugly head.
But, as Haberman aptly informs us, it was the term limits law that bequeathed to us the little cuddly billionaire who now is saying that current events makes him indispensable. Are argument all along has been that the current fiscal mess militates against a third Bloomberg term much more so than it argues for it; our belief here is that we need a government innovator and not this raise taxes/slash services paint by the numbers pedestrian.
Which brings us to the other billionaire, Mr. Ron Lauder. Frankly we're somewhat concerned about the man's mental stability since his shifting positions on the term issue raises some real competency questions. As City Room blog observes: "After threatening to fight Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to seek a third term, then agreeing to sit on the sidelines, then waffling, then backing down again, Ronald S. Lauder is tossing a new — and potentially serious — hurdle into the mayor’s path (at the same time that another billionaire, Tom Golisano, is pledging all-out opposition to the plan). In an interview, Mr. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir, said he strongly opposed allowing members of the City Council now serving their first term to remain in office for three terms.“I think it’s disingenuous for anyone to promise them a third term,” Mr. Lauder said by telephone on Monday night."
It all gets us to longing for the days of Martin Luther's, Here I Stand. Expedience has been raised to the level of principle in this town and, if the Q Poll is any indication, these shifts are likely to roil New York's political landscape for many months to come.
"In 2002, a prominent New Yorker’s blood was boiling over an attempt in the City Council to fiddle with the city’s term limits law. It was the voters who had imposed those limits in two separate referendums a few years earlier, this man said. “I would oppose any change in the law that a legislative body tries to make,” he said. Three years later, another effort was under way in the Council to monkey with the law, this time to extend the limit to three terms from two — to 12 years from 8. The prominent New Yorker’s blood was still up.
“This is an outrage,” he said in a radio interview. The people had spoken, he said. He added: “There’s no organization that I know that would put somebody in charge for a long period of time. You always want turnover and change. Eight years is great. You learn for four years. You can do for four years.”
That, as they say, was then, and this is now-so the man in the mirror has altered his principle in the name of pragmatism. Ah pragmatism, thy name is Mike Bloomberg; who now argues that the fact have changed because of the country's economic crisis-never mind that this whole soap opera began long before the current market meltdown reared its ugly head.
But, as Haberman aptly informs us, it was the term limits law that bequeathed to us the little cuddly billionaire who now is saying that current events makes him indispensable. Are argument all along has been that the current fiscal mess militates against a third Bloomberg term much more so than it argues for it; our belief here is that we need a government innovator and not this raise taxes/slash services paint by the numbers pedestrian.
Which brings us to the other billionaire, Mr. Ron Lauder. Frankly we're somewhat concerned about the man's mental stability since his shifting positions on the term issue raises some real competency questions. As City Room blog observes: "After threatening to fight Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to seek a third term, then agreeing to sit on the sidelines, then waffling, then backing down again, Ronald S. Lauder is tossing a new — and potentially serious — hurdle into the mayor’s path (at the same time that another billionaire, Tom Golisano, is pledging all-out opposition to the plan). In an interview, Mr. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir, said he strongly opposed allowing members of the City Council now serving their first term to remain in office for three terms.“I think it’s disingenuous for anyone to promise them a third term,” Mr. Lauder said by telephone on Monday night."
It all gets us to longing for the days of Martin Luther's, Here I Stand. Expedience has been raised to the level of principle in this town and, if the Q Poll is any indication, these shifts are likely to roil New York's political landscape for many months to come.
Referendum Phobia
As this morning's Q Poll underscores (via Liz), Mayor Mike has a good reason to stay away from a referendum on his wish to keep ahold of the reins of power. The folks, and even many who like the mayor, feel that the idea of changing term limits should be put to a vote: "Today's Q poll finds New York City voters are tilting against the idea of extending term limits so the mayor and two-thirds of Council members can seek re-election in 2009...Generally speaking, voters said they support term limits (62-29) and oppose extending the current eight-year limit to 12 years (36-56). When asked specifically whether they would support extending term limits so Bloomberg can run again, 51 percent said they oppose the idea, 45 percent said they favor it and 3 percent didn't know or had no opinion. By an 89-7 percent margin, voters said they wanted the term limits question to be settled by another referendum, not by the City Council."
So its not just a few malcontents, is it Mike? "The problem is that if this goes to a referendum, Bloomberg would probably lose - at least according to the Q poll's numbers (52-41)." All of which exacerbates the problem of doing this legislatively, particularly for those council members who have larger political ambitions. As Liz points out: "In today's poll, voters also said they oppose (60 - 31) extending term limits so their local City Council members can serve for more years."
And this is also becoming a real bone of contention in the black community-Calling Al Sharpton, "Where Are You?" Tom White, et al, beware: "The mayor's biggest dearth of support is among black voters, who oppose changing term limits 35-62. His strongest supporters are members of the last political party to which he belonged - the GOP. Republicans favor the mayor's term limits extension effort, 54-44."
So its not just a few malcontents, is it Mike? "The problem is that if this goes to a referendum, Bloomberg would probably lose - at least according to the Q poll's numbers (52-41)." All of which exacerbates the problem of doing this legislatively, particularly for those council members who have larger political ambitions. As Liz points out: "In today's poll, voters also said they oppose (60 - 31) extending term limits so their local City Council members can serve for more years."
And this is also becoming a real bone of contention in the black community-Calling Al Sharpton, "Where Are You?" Tom White, et al, beware: "The mayor's biggest dearth of support is among black voters, who oppose changing term limits 35-62. His strongest supporters are members of the last political party to which he belonged - the GOP. Republicans favor the mayor's term limits extension effort, 54-44."
Searching for Inedible Heroes
Just when you might have thought that the editorial hyperbole might have reached its fashionable limits on term limits, along comes the NY Daily News looking for heroes on the city council; talk about looking for love in all the wrong places! Here's what the News is seeking: "The City Council will soon have the opportunity - perhaps Thursday - to demonstrate that it has at last come of age as New York's local legislature...For the good of 8 million citizens - including 4 million registered voters - a majority of the members must enable New Yorkers to have full choices on the 2009 mayoral ballot. The Council must amend the term limits law to permit Mayor Bloomberg to run for a third time."
As the sportscaster Dick Engberg might say, "Oh my!" We never thought that NYC could be confused with the old home, home on the range, but leave it to the Daily News-at least when it comes to Mike Bloomberg-to be heard singing, "Where seldom there's heard a discouraging word..." So it really comes as no shock to find that the News believes that heroism is involved with extending the Imperial reign of Mike I.
And the News cites the testimony of mogul Dick Parson about hard times ahead to reinforce the essentialness of the mayor:
"As the city enters uniquely bad economic times thanks to the Wall Street meltdown, voters deserve the chance to go with Bloomberg for four more years - if they so choose. Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons, who has been involved with civic affairs for more than 35 years, succinctly described the coming troubles when he testified last week in favor of extending term limits to three terms from two. "It would be hard to overstate the potential of the economic crisis on New York City," he said. "It will make the 1970s fiscal crisis look like a day at the beach." The era was hell - and the city did not recover for the better part of three decades. Even the most vital services - police, subways, sanitation, schools - spiraled downward."
And as the News should remember the city's fiscal crisis was exacerbated by the fact that its leaders tried to tax their way out of trouble. And what do the mayor and the speaker want to do? Why raise taxes in order to "preserve vital services."
Still, this is all becoming more interesting as we await the possible council vote on Thursday; with first term members looking for guarantees that their limited colleagues won't be getting the gold mine while they get the shaft. And this gets more complicated all the time, as unions and billionaires combine in unlikely alliances. Here's today's NY Times: "Meanwhile, the cosmetics heir Ronald S. Lauder, whose support Mr. Bloomberg has carefully cultivated, signaled in an interview that he would vigorously oppose allowing council members now serving their first term to remain in office for three terms. It was his finances and advocacy that led to the establishment of term limits, in 1993 and 1996 referendums. Mr. Lauder’s position, and the implied threat behind it, could make it harder for the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, to round up enough votes to change the law."
If all of the remaining undecided first termers say No, then the votes aren't there to pass this bill. The smart money's still on the mayor and the speaker, but the search for heroes needs to be called off; it's no longer a rescue mission, its now only about the recovery of the bodies.
As the sportscaster Dick Engberg might say, "Oh my!" We never thought that NYC could be confused with the old home, home on the range, but leave it to the Daily News-at least when it comes to Mike Bloomberg-to be heard singing, "Where seldom there's heard a discouraging word..." So it really comes as no shock to find that the News believes that heroism is involved with extending the Imperial reign of Mike I.
And the News cites the testimony of mogul Dick Parson about hard times ahead to reinforce the essentialness of the mayor:
"As the city enters uniquely bad economic times thanks to the Wall Street meltdown, voters deserve the chance to go with Bloomberg for four more years - if they so choose. Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons, who has been involved with civic affairs for more than 35 years, succinctly described the coming troubles when he testified last week in favor of extending term limits to three terms from two. "It would be hard to overstate the potential of the economic crisis on New York City," he said. "It will make the 1970s fiscal crisis look like a day at the beach." The era was hell - and the city did not recover for the better part of three decades. Even the most vital services - police, subways, sanitation, schools - spiraled downward."
And as the News should remember the city's fiscal crisis was exacerbated by the fact that its leaders tried to tax their way out of trouble. And what do the mayor and the speaker want to do? Why raise taxes in order to "preserve vital services."
Still, this is all becoming more interesting as we await the possible council vote on Thursday; with first term members looking for guarantees that their limited colleagues won't be getting the gold mine while they get the shaft. And this gets more complicated all the time, as unions and billionaires combine in unlikely alliances. Here's today's NY Times: "Meanwhile, the cosmetics heir Ronald S. Lauder, whose support Mr. Bloomberg has carefully cultivated, signaled in an interview that he would vigorously oppose allowing council members now serving their first term to remain in office for three terms. It was his finances and advocacy that led to the establishment of term limits, in 1993 and 1996 referendums. Mr. Lauder’s position, and the implied threat behind it, could make it harder for the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, to round up enough votes to change the law."
If all of the remaining undecided first termers say No, then the votes aren't there to pass this bill. The smart money's still on the mayor and the speaker, but the search for heroes needs to be called off; it's no longer a rescue mission, its now only about the recovery of the bodies.
Absentminded
If what Woody Allen has said is true, and 90% of success in life is simply showing up, then we got big problems in our city schools; you know, the ones that have been showing spectacular progress according to the Bloomberg manufactured rose colored glasses. Here's this morning's account from the NY Times (citing a New School report) of rampant absenteeism:
"More than 90,000 of New York City’s elementary school students — roughly 20 percent — missed at least a month of classes during the last school year, with attendance problems most acute in central Brooklyn, Harlem and the South Bronx, according to a report scheduled for release on Tuesday. Chronic absenteeism in elementary schools is disproportionately a problem in poor and minority communities and it immediately puts students behind their middle-class peers,” concludes the report, by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School. “The academic pressures build over time and build quickly."
And the situation's even worse in the upper grades: "The situation was worse in higher grades — 40 percent of high school students and 24 percent of middle school students were absent for at least a month — but the report focuses on elementary schools because absenteeism among young students is less widely discussed even though it is believed to worsen over time and lead to dropouts."
And wouldn't you know that when the schools are graded in the bogus accounting system that the Kleinemen have set up, absenteeism only accounts for 5% of the grade; the chancellor apparently only looks like Woody Allen but has eschewed his acuity about the importance of showing up.
So we have this anomaly. Our schools are showing great improvement-except for the fact that large swaths of the kids are chronically absent: "Examining detailed attendance reports for the city’s nearly 1,500 public schools, the report found that in 124 elementary schools, 98 middle schools and 41 schools serving kindergarten through eighth grade, at least 30 percent of the students were chronically absent, defined as missing 20 days of the 185-day school year. (The report did not provide the number of high schools with such absentee rates.) Makes you wonder about the veracity of those test scores, doesn't it?
And, of course, absenteeism is most severe in those areas where school performance is worse: "Indeed, absenteeism varies widely across the city. In Bayside, Queens, a middle-class neighborhood with many single-family homes, about 5 percent of students in kindergarten through fifth grade were chronically absent, compared with 30 percent of those in the Morrisania section of the Bronx, where there are several public housing projects."
Apparently, not everyone has gotten the education message-and that includes the editorial cheer leading squad that has been doing flips for a third term for Mayor Mike. Maybe they could answer why, with a school budget that has increased 79%, school performance remains flat and so many of the school children aren't bothering to attend.
"More than 90,000 of New York City’s elementary school students — roughly 20 percent — missed at least a month of classes during the last school year, with attendance problems most acute in central Brooklyn, Harlem and the South Bronx, according to a report scheduled for release on Tuesday. Chronic absenteeism in elementary schools is disproportionately a problem in poor and minority communities and it immediately puts students behind their middle-class peers,” concludes the report, by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School. “The academic pressures build over time and build quickly."
And the situation's even worse in the upper grades: "The situation was worse in higher grades — 40 percent of high school students and 24 percent of middle school students were absent for at least a month — but the report focuses on elementary schools because absenteeism among young students is less widely discussed even though it is believed to worsen over time and lead to dropouts."
And wouldn't you know that when the schools are graded in the bogus accounting system that the Kleinemen have set up, absenteeism only accounts for 5% of the grade; the chancellor apparently only looks like Woody Allen but has eschewed his acuity about the importance of showing up.
So we have this anomaly. Our schools are showing great improvement-except for the fact that large swaths of the kids are chronically absent: "Examining detailed attendance reports for the city’s nearly 1,500 public schools, the report found that in 124 elementary schools, 98 middle schools and 41 schools serving kindergarten through eighth grade, at least 30 percent of the students were chronically absent, defined as missing 20 days of the 185-day school year. (The report did not provide the number of high schools with such absentee rates.) Makes you wonder about the veracity of those test scores, doesn't it?
And, of course, absenteeism is most severe in those areas where school performance is worse: "Indeed, absenteeism varies widely across the city. In Bayside, Queens, a middle-class neighborhood with many single-family homes, about 5 percent of students in kindergarten through fifth grade were chronically absent, compared with 30 percent of those in the Morrisania section of the Bronx, where there are several public housing projects."
Apparently, not everyone has gotten the education message-and that includes the editorial cheer leading squad that has been doing flips for a third term for Mayor Mike. Maybe they could answer why, with a school budget that has increased 79%, school performance remains flat and so many of the school children aren't bothering to attend.
Keeping Up Appearances
The City Room blog is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg is denying that he's done anything untoward in pressuring not-for-profits to come out and show the flag for Himself: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today strongly defended his administration’s tactics in assembling support among nonprofit groups for legislation that would allow the mayor to seek a third term in office."
This is in keeping with the over all pretense of the man and his minions that his governance sails above all of the grubbier political precincts; nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the levels of coercion/persuasion here are unmatched-much as is the Bloomberg bankroll.
Still, Mayor Mike continues to elevate political disingenuousness to an art form: “We’re out there promoting and trying to rally people to support the administration’s position,” Mr. Bloomberg said, speaking with reporters following a groundbreaking ceremony for a new building at Kaufman Astoria Studios in Queens. “That’s what we’re supposed to do,” he said. “We do it appropriately. I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near crossing the line. I understand why they might say things they don’t really believe. But that’s up to them.”
As we've said before, this is all simply a crock-and if there was a RICO investigation with discovery there wouldn't be enough hand cuffs to go around. The reality here is that the comingling of private and public money-in both a carrot and stick fashion-creates an unprecedented level of influence-making the mayor's defense down right comical : “We’ve been very careful to not do that,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Do we try to get people to come and testify? Absolutely. That’s what we’re always supposed to do, and we do it exactly the way the Conflicts of Interest Board said is appropriate.”
Citing your own in-house COIB as your best defense is, well, no real defense at all; and the mayor's claim that the one hearing was sufficient is in keeping with his smokeless-filled backroom dealing. He's apparently forgetting-and confident that there will be a hundred million ways to encourage voter amnesia-what he himself has said about the end run of the referendum process.
Liz B has the latest ad from extension opponents. Here are words to live-or to die-by: "The public wants term limits, and while...it might be that the City Council has the right to override them, deliberately saying to the public, 'We don't care what you think,'...I would use the word: Disgraceful."
But remember, Bloomberg also told council members to not sweat a yes vote because the folks who vote have a short memory; it all devolves from the perspective of someone who knows how easy it is to buy an election. Hopefully, this time the past will not be prologue.
This is in keeping with the over all pretense of the man and his minions that his governance sails above all of the grubbier political precincts; nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the levels of coercion/persuasion here are unmatched-much as is the Bloomberg bankroll.
Still, Mayor Mike continues to elevate political disingenuousness to an art form: “We’re out there promoting and trying to rally people to support the administration’s position,” Mr. Bloomberg said, speaking with reporters following a groundbreaking ceremony for a new building at Kaufman Astoria Studios in Queens. “That’s what we’re supposed to do,” he said. “We do it appropriately. I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near crossing the line. I understand why they might say things they don’t really believe. But that’s up to them.”
As we've said before, this is all simply a crock-and if there was a RICO investigation with discovery there wouldn't be enough hand cuffs to go around. The reality here is that the comingling of private and public money-in both a carrot and stick fashion-creates an unprecedented level of influence-making the mayor's defense down right comical : “We’ve been very careful to not do that,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Do we try to get people to come and testify? Absolutely. That’s what we’re always supposed to do, and we do it exactly the way the Conflicts of Interest Board said is appropriate.”
Citing your own in-house COIB as your best defense is, well, no real defense at all; and the mayor's claim that the one hearing was sufficient is in keeping with his smokeless-filled backroom dealing. He's apparently forgetting-and confident that there will be a hundred million ways to encourage voter amnesia-what he himself has said about the end run of the referendum process.
Liz B has the latest ad from extension opponents. Here are words to live-or to die-by: "The public wants term limits, and while...it might be that the City Council has the right to override them, deliberately saying to the public, 'We don't care what you think,'...I would use the word: Disgraceful."
But remember, Bloomberg also told council members to not sweat a yes vote because the folks who vote have a short memory; it all devolves from the perspective of someone who knows how easy it is to buy an election. Hopefully, this time the past will not be prologue.
Monday, October 20, 2008
State of the Union
Yesterday, according to City Room, a number of municipal unions came out in support of our billionaire mayor-reinforcing the old bedfellows saw about politics. One union, the Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association, particularly caught our eye: "Mr. Nespoli, President, Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association, was not shy about the role of self-interest in the term limits debate. The current law, restricting legislators to eight years in office, is detrimental to unions, he suggested..."
Indeed it is; and we would say that the mayor's cozy relationship with the garbage collectors has been detrimental to the public's interest. Think of how much money the tax payers could be saving if the garbage collection routes were put out to bid-and competition created heretofore unrealized savings.
Here's the City Journal's original take on the reinvention concept put forward by Osborne and Gaebler some 15 years ago: "The authors maintain that the realization of this ambitious goal is uncontroversial and within grasp. The central problem of governments today, they write, is “not what they do, but how they operate.” Debates about “what government should do, and for whom” are “secondary today.”
As it should also be today-but we still haven't weaned ourselves from the top heavy, bureaucratic approach, and embraced the O&G concept of steering rather than rowing: "The class of managerial reinventions with the best potential for more than marginal benefits is privatization. Broadly defined, privatization is the deliberate shift of a wide range of public functions and activities from public to private hands. “Government should steer, not row, the boat” is the privatization movement’s rallying cry, echoed by Osborne and Gaebler."
The benefits devolve from the level of competition: "Osborne and Gaebler provide a reasoned, balanced discussion of contracting out. Although this form of privatization has few strong opponents (public employee unions aside), there are plenty of skeptics doubtful about the scope and magnitude of its potential benefits. The authors note that the potential of contracting out derives not from any inherent superiority of private over public production, but from the power of competitive markets. The benefits, therefore, diminish with diminished competition."
Which brings us to garbage collection. Certainly an innovative and self-funded billionaire with no political ties or obligations could have gone in this privatizing direction; especially after 9/11. Bloomberg, however, didn't have the imagination, and was surrounded by a bunch of old style, big government types who had a trained incapacity to respond in anything but a knee jerk fashion. As a result, we're left with the old and tired service cuts/tax increase playbook.
So the support that the mayor sought and received yesterday from the unions was certainly was bought and paid for-with the public's hard earned tax dollars. What's disquieting, is the silence from the editorialists who are always inveighing against the power of municipal labor. The editorial chorus has laryngitis when it comes to Brother Michael.
Indeed it is; and we would say that the mayor's cozy relationship with the garbage collectors has been detrimental to the public's interest. Think of how much money the tax payers could be saving if the garbage collection routes were put out to bid-and competition created heretofore unrealized savings.
Here's the City Journal's original take on the reinvention concept put forward by Osborne and Gaebler some 15 years ago: "The authors maintain that the realization of this ambitious goal is uncontroversial and within grasp. The central problem of governments today, they write, is “not what they do, but how they operate.” Debates about “what government should do, and for whom” are “secondary today.”
As it should also be today-but we still haven't weaned ourselves from the top heavy, bureaucratic approach, and embraced the O&G concept of steering rather than rowing: "The class of managerial reinventions with the best potential for more than marginal benefits is privatization. Broadly defined, privatization is the deliberate shift of a wide range of public functions and activities from public to private hands. “Government should steer, not row, the boat” is the privatization movement’s rallying cry, echoed by Osborne and Gaebler."
The benefits devolve from the level of competition: "Osborne and Gaebler provide a reasoned, balanced discussion of contracting out. Although this form of privatization has few strong opponents (public employee unions aside), there are plenty of skeptics doubtful about the scope and magnitude of its potential benefits. The authors note that the potential of contracting out derives not from any inherent superiority of private over public production, but from the power of competitive markets. The benefits, therefore, diminish with diminished competition."
Which brings us to garbage collection. Certainly an innovative and self-funded billionaire with no political ties or obligations could have gone in this privatizing direction; especially after 9/11. Bloomberg, however, didn't have the imagination, and was surrounded by a bunch of old style, big government types who had a trained incapacity to respond in anything but a knee jerk fashion. As a result, we're left with the old and tired service cuts/tax increase playbook.
So the support that the mayor sought and received yesterday from the unions was certainly was bought and paid for-with the public's hard earned tax dollars. What's disquieting, is the silence from the editorialists who are always inveighing against the power of municipal labor. The editorial chorus has laryngitis when it comes to Brother Michael.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
