In the discussions of the three amigos challenging the senate leadership of Malcolm Smith, one senator, Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, as been caricatured as a neanderthal right winger. Now, however, comes this from Spin Cycle: "Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn...is one of the three Democrats counted by the camp of GOP Leader Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) as potentially putting him back in power in January despite having lost the majority on Election Day. But at least on one hot-button issue, the commuter tax, Kruger is probably no ally of Long Island, which is purported to lose clout under the transition to a Democratic Senate. The GOP-friendly Kruger has released a statement calling for the tax's "long-overdue disinterment."
So all of the character assassination probably should stop; and the question of who should lead the senate needs to be addressed honestly-and not through the invidious lens of the politics of personal destruction. Here's a clip from Kruger's press statement: "The .45 percent commuter tax was established in 1966 and repealed in1999 amid a hotly contested special Senate race in Rockland County. Sen.Kruger was one of the few legislators who did not support the repeal of thetax. While the repeal may have wooed suburban voters, it was a“shortsighted and fiscally unsound move that failed to acknowledge future economic downturns, which – surprise of surprises -- is exactly where we are now,” Sen. Kruger said."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Training Days
According to Liz, the emerging senate majority is going to training camp: "Well, at least they’re not heading to sunny San Juan, nor is it in the middle of the summer track season, but the Senate Democrats later this month and in early December will be heading to a retreat in Saratoga Springs, pictured above, during which they will attend what was described to me as “Majority School.” That means they will be boning up on how to actually run the Senate, which they haven’t done in decades but will have to do in January once they take the majority from the Republicans.Among the topics that Malcolm Smith’s new incoming majority plan to cover: Chamber and Floor management, Committee Structure and Ethics. The seminar will also end with a “mock session” in which the Dems will get to practice gaveling in."
We wonder whether the three amigos have been invited to attend; but, all kidding aside, shouldn't all of our elected officials be concentrating on devising solutions to the state's budgetary meltdown? And many observers are wondering whether the senate as a whole is simply out of touch with the average needs of New Yorkers.
At least that's the opinion of Anne Michaud-now operating out at Newsday: "What do Long Islanders want? The way our state senators are answering that question here this week is worlds away from what people are saying at home. My neighbors and friends want affordable taxes, communities where their kids can buy starter homes, and a reasonable level of service from the government entities around us - schools that teach well, safe streets, a decent train or bus ride, and care for people in need."
Do our senators understand this? "Given the times, most people would understand if state government cut spending. In fact, if that would help us reduce our tax bill, we would be thrilled." Unfortunately, that message isn't getting though, according to Michaud: "But it's impossible to glean what Long Islanders want by watching our senators' actions this week. The delegation of eight Republicans and one Democrat, Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington), blocked cuts to the state budget that Long Islanders would likely support."
Perhaps the municipal unions and the Working Families Party are controlling the narrative-and the WFP's Dan Cantor believes that taxing the wealthy is the answer: "Yes, prudent spending cuts in state spending are a necessity - that much is undeniable. But so far, the governor is asking working families to shoulder the entire burden of the budget deficit alone, while taking any income tax increase on New York's many millionaires off the table."
Perhaps Cantor's unaware of the high levels of existing taxation that New Yorkers suffer with; and the disproportionate burden upper middle, and upper income citizens already are asked to shoulder. Making the state more productive for small businesses and job growth should be priority No. 1.
And Cantor relies on our experience post 9/11 as an exemplar to guide our present action: "In 2003, following the economic downturn caused by the 9/11 attacks, the national recession and the burst of the dot-com bubble, New York relied on modest increases in income tax rates on the wealthy to help close its budget gap. The state employed a temporary top rate of 7.25% for single filers with incomes over $100,000 and 7.7% on income over $500,000. The rich did not leave the state. Instead, the economy rebounded and the number of high income New Yorkers continued to grow."
That recovery, however, was Wall Street driven; and is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. Raising taxes in this recession would be a job killer as well as a budget buster. We need real state leaders who understand just how dire this situation is; and who also comprehend the realistic remedies that we need to pursue. Training our new class of leaders without addressing the core policy issues is simply inane-a non sequitor that elides any solution to the state's problems.
We wonder whether the three amigos have been invited to attend; but, all kidding aside, shouldn't all of our elected officials be concentrating on devising solutions to the state's budgetary meltdown? And many observers are wondering whether the senate as a whole is simply out of touch with the average needs of New Yorkers.
At least that's the opinion of Anne Michaud-now operating out at Newsday: "What do Long Islanders want? The way our state senators are answering that question here this week is worlds away from what people are saying at home. My neighbors and friends want affordable taxes, communities where their kids can buy starter homes, and a reasonable level of service from the government entities around us - schools that teach well, safe streets, a decent train or bus ride, and care for people in need."
Do our senators understand this? "Given the times, most people would understand if state government cut spending. In fact, if that would help us reduce our tax bill, we would be thrilled." Unfortunately, that message isn't getting though, according to Michaud: "But it's impossible to glean what Long Islanders want by watching our senators' actions this week. The delegation of eight Republicans and one Democrat, Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington), blocked cuts to the state budget that Long Islanders would likely support."
Perhaps the municipal unions and the Working Families Party are controlling the narrative-and the WFP's Dan Cantor believes that taxing the wealthy is the answer: "Yes, prudent spending cuts in state spending are a necessity - that much is undeniable. But so far, the governor is asking working families to shoulder the entire burden of the budget deficit alone, while taking any income tax increase on New York's many millionaires off the table."
Perhaps Cantor's unaware of the high levels of existing taxation that New Yorkers suffer with; and the disproportionate burden upper middle, and upper income citizens already are asked to shoulder. Making the state more productive for small businesses and job growth should be priority No. 1.
And Cantor relies on our experience post 9/11 as an exemplar to guide our present action: "In 2003, following the economic downturn caused by the 9/11 attacks, the national recession and the burst of the dot-com bubble, New York relied on modest increases in income tax rates on the wealthy to help close its budget gap. The state employed a temporary top rate of 7.25% for single filers with incomes over $100,000 and 7.7% on income over $500,000. The rich did not leave the state. Instead, the economy rebounded and the number of high income New Yorkers continued to grow."
That recovery, however, was Wall Street driven; and is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. Raising taxes in this recession would be a job killer as well as a budget buster. We need real state leaders who understand just how dire this situation is; and who also comprehend the realistic remedies that we need to pursue. Training our new class of leaders without addressing the core policy issues is simply inane-a non sequitor that elides any solution to the state's problems.
Marie Bloomberg
Mike Bloomberg's charm was never his strong suit, and now the mayor's renowned superciliousness may be reaching epic proportion; In classic Marie Antoinette style, the mayor is demonstrating an almost complete disdain for the suffering of New Yorkers during this severe economic meltdown. As the NY Times reports: "One city lawmaker called it Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s “Let them eat cake” attitude...At a news conference, Mr. Bloomberg described the rebates as “up in the air.” Asked what he would tell homeowners who have been depending on the money to pay bills or buy holiday gifts, he responded: “Plan for the worst, and hope for the best.” When pressed, the mayor said: “I just answered your question. You just don’t want the answer.”
Call it an Annie Hall, "La Di Da," moment. The NY Post weighs in as well; and with a number of city councillors filing a lawsuit, there's gonna be a heightened focus on the mayor's attitude. When pressed about his plan to lower the thermostats in city buildings the mayor responded in a cavalier fashion that his patented: "During another part of his press conference, the mayor said he's going to order thermostats lowered in city buildings. "It's hardly a big deal to keep everybody working," he said. "Wear a sweater if you're chilly."
This was all on top of threatened city layoffs. As the NY Daily News points out, cataloguing the mayor's callous responses: "Call him Mayor Doomsberg. In rat-a-tat fashion on Wednesday, Hizzoner:
-Warned city workers they are in danger of being laid off.
-Defiantly told homeowners not to count on property tax rebates.
-Ordered city thermostats turned down as temperatures hovered near freezing."
The mayor's view? "You're trying to plan, if you're a city worker, whether you're going to have a job. You have to start worrying about that and plan," Bloomberg said. "There's an awful lot of the 300,000 municipal employees who have got to start worrying about their jobs." And they called Don Rickels, "Mr. Warmth."
All of which has started speculation that the mayor's insensitivity isn't gonna serve him well as we head into a new election cycle of his own design. The Times captures this: "The mayor has argued that the city cannot afford the rebates this year. Still, Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks left people in the political world scratching their heads, with some accusing him of profound insensitivity to those who lack fat bank accounts, especially as job losses and foreclosures mount in the city."
Lew Fidler rails on the mayor-a portend of things to come: “It’s the height of arrogance and insensitivity,” said Councilman Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn, who also said that Mr. Bloomberg had a “Let them eat cake” attitude toward the homeowners. “They look at what does this mean to someone on the Upper East Side or Central Park West and say, $400, so what?” Mr. Fidler said. “I’m looking at it from what it means to Mrs. Goldstein, a 72-year-old senior in my district who lives on Social Security and is counting on that money,” he added, using a hypothetical example."
In our view, Mike Bloomberg may not be the best kind of leader as we enter a real "feel your pain" era: "The mayor’s comments recall previous remarks that have left him seeming out of touch with those he governs. When residents complained that the city was issuing parking tickets after a snowstorm in 2007, the mayor — who typically takes the subway or a chauffeured sport utility vehicle to work — suggested that New Yorkers stop “griping.” About crowded subways, he has said: “So you stand next to people. Get real. This is New York.” This year, responding to complaints that black rubber mats and other playground equipment get dangerously hot in the summer, the mayor said: “If it’s hot, don’t sit on it. Air-conditioning the slide is not something we can afford to do.”
Now don't get us wrong; straight talk is often both necessary and desirable during a crisis of this proportion. However, delivering the bad news takes a degree of skill and empathy that Bloomberg simply doesn't have. And when you try to illegally withhold needed holiday cash from suffering citizens, it isn't the best idea to show do so with such boorishness.
Mike Bloomberg is being severely challenged; and he has never reacted well when this happens: "But it also appears that Mr. Bloomberg is irritated by a newly aggressive City Council, which was deeply divided over his move last month to push through legislation allowing him to seek a third term. One person close to the mayor, who insisted on anonymity to avoid revealing private conversations with Mr. Bloomberg, said the mayor was especially irked that four Council members went to court on Tuesday to try to compel the administration to issue the rebates immediately. Richard D. Emery, a civil rights and election lawyer, said he was dumbfounded by the mayor’s stalling in sending out checks he has no legal authority to cancel. “The pattern of Bloomberg arrogance is reaching frightening proportions,” he said. “The impetuousness is kind of scary.”
So, as we have said, here, here and here, Mike Bloomberg's on a political slippery slope that originated from the moment he turned tawdry with his term limits power grab. Going from that Tammany moment into a season of tax increases and service cuts will escalate the growing disenchantment with the mayor that New Yorkers will begin to feel with Mike Bloomberg. The hand writing is on the wall; now all we need is a credible populist challenge to His Arrogance.
Call it an Annie Hall, "La Di Da," moment. The NY Post weighs in as well; and with a number of city councillors filing a lawsuit, there's gonna be a heightened focus on the mayor's attitude. When pressed about his plan to lower the thermostats in city buildings the mayor responded in a cavalier fashion that his patented: "During another part of his press conference, the mayor said he's going to order thermostats lowered in city buildings. "It's hardly a big deal to keep everybody working," he said. "Wear a sweater if you're chilly."
This was all on top of threatened city layoffs. As the NY Daily News points out, cataloguing the mayor's callous responses: "Call him Mayor Doomsberg. In rat-a-tat fashion on Wednesday, Hizzoner:
-Warned city workers they are in danger of being laid off.
-Defiantly told homeowners not to count on property tax rebates.
-Ordered city thermostats turned down as temperatures hovered near freezing."
The mayor's view? "You're trying to plan, if you're a city worker, whether you're going to have a job. You have to start worrying about that and plan," Bloomberg said. "There's an awful lot of the 300,000 municipal employees who have got to start worrying about their jobs." And they called Don Rickels, "Mr. Warmth."
All of which has started speculation that the mayor's insensitivity isn't gonna serve him well as we head into a new election cycle of his own design. The Times captures this: "The mayor has argued that the city cannot afford the rebates this year. Still, Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks left people in the political world scratching their heads, with some accusing him of profound insensitivity to those who lack fat bank accounts, especially as job losses and foreclosures mount in the city."
Lew Fidler rails on the mayor-a portend of things to come: “It’s the height of arrogance and insensitivity,” said Councilman Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn, who also said that Mr. Bloomberg had a “Let them eat cake” attitude toward the homeowners. “They look at what does this mean to someone on the Upper East Side or Central Park West and say, $400, so what?” Mr. Fidler said. “I’m looking at it from what it means to Mrs. Goldstein, a 72-year-old senior in my district who lives on Social Security and is counting on that money,” he added, using a hypothetical example."
In our view, Mike Bloomberg may not be the best kind of leader as we enter a real "feel your pain" era: "The mayor’s comments recall previous remarks that have left him seeming out of touch with those he governs. When residents complained that the city was issuing parking tickets after a snowstorm in 2007, the mayor — who typically takes the subway or a chauffeured sport utility vehicle to work — suggested that New Yorkers stop “griping.” About crowded subways, he has said: “So you stand next to people. Get real. This is New York.” This year, responding to complaints that black rubber mats and other playground equipment get dangerously hot in the summer, the mayor said: “If it’s hot, don’t sit on it. Air-conditioning the slide is not something we can afford to do.”
Now don't get us wrong; straight talk is often both necessary and desirable during a crisis of this proportion. However, delivering the bad news takes a degree of skill and empathy that Bloomberg simply doesn't have. And when you try to illegally withhold needed holiday cash from suffering citizens, it isn't the best idea to show do so with such boorishness.
Mike Bloomberg is being severely challenged; and he has never reacted well when this happens: "But it also appears that Mr. Bloomberg is irritated by a newly aggressive City Council, which was deeply divided over his move last month to push through legislation allowing him to seek a third term. One person close to the mayor, who insisted on anonymity to avoid revealing private conversations with Mr. Bloomberg, said the mayor was especially irked that four Council members went to court on Tuesday to try to compel the administration to issue the rebates immediately. Richard D. Emery, a civil rights and election lawyer, said he was dumbfounded by the mayor’s stalling in sending out checks he has no legal authority to cancel. “The pattern of Bloomberg arrogance is reaching frightening proportions,” he said. “The impetuousness is kind of scary.”
So, as we have said, here, here and here, Mike Bloomberg's on a political slippery slope that originated from the moment he turned tawdry with his term limits power grab. Going from that Tammany moment into a season of tax increases and service cuts will escalate the growing disenchantment with the mayor that New Yorkers will begin to feel with Mike Bloomberg. The hand writing is on the wall; now all we need is a credible populist challenge to His Arrogance.
Costco's Stamps of Disapproval
As the City Room blog has reported, Costco is running into considerable flack because of a store policy that doesn't honor food stamps: "Costco in general has a reputation of being a socially conscious company,” said Eric N. Gioia, a city councilman from Queens who last year began a campaign asking Costco to accept food stamps after discovering it did not during the “live on food stamps for a week” stunt. “There is no logical reason for someone not to accept food stamps. It is not only compassionate, but it’s good for their bottom line.”
Of course, the fact that the Costco store in Long Island City is a stone's throw from public housing with 30,000 low income residents, only adds to the controversy-since these folks aren't able to take advantage of the store's bargains by using food stamps. The fact that Costco has a $50 membership fee also restricts the availability of the retailer for all New Yorkers.
One of our main problems with this policy, is how the citing of these box stores-and BJs doesn't accept food stamps as well-impacts local supermarkets; the box stores drain higher end customers and erode the ability of neighborhood markets to survive. In effect, you create an oasis in one spot-and desert everywhere else.
And the store's food stamp policy is designed to redline the poor. When the Alliance stopped a Costco store from locating in Hell's Kitchen, we discovered that the company's SEC filing detailed how their refusal to accept food stamps-as well as its membership fees-controlled company "slippage" (corporate speak for theft).
Yet, as Albor Ruiz opines this morning, it is the poor who are most in need when it comes to the availability of food stamps; and Costco's policy has a disparate impact on those most in need: "Councilman Eric Gioia (D-Sunnyside) is also worried about the food situation. He is demanding that Costco change its policy of not accepting food stamps. "Especially with the rising food prices, hundreds of thousands of people in New York find themselves in a position they never thought they would be in - having to choose between buying food or paying the rent," Gioia said. In Queens, the Costco on Vernon Blvd. in Long Island City is within walking distance to the nearly 30,000 city housing residents of Queensbridge, Ravenswood and Astoria Homes that Gioia represents."
City Room captures some of this flavor: "The government pays dollar-for-dollar for the food stamp use, so it is not as though Costco has to discount their margins. Costco, which has created an image that has both upscale and downscale appeal, has been known for attracting the elite (at least in Washington). But perhaps Costco is more wary of the other end of the spectrum, finding western Queens appealing for its real estate, but not for its customer base."
So NYC needs to evaluate all special use applications for box stores-particularly if it wants to preserve our disappearing supermarkets. The other night, Eyewitness News dramatized the extent of this problem-highlighting Key Food on Bruckner Boulevard, and the loss of markets in East Harlem. As the Sandra Bookman report stated: "This is happening all over the city," said Enrique Vega. The South Bronx community activist is among those fighting to keep the Key Foods at Bruckner Boulevard and White Plains Road from closing when its lease expires at the end of the year."
And our good friend Mary McKinney weigh in as well: "It's about the dollar. Forget about the people in these communities. We have lived in these communities. We have built these communities, and most of the people that own this real estate, don't live in our community. We're saying think about us," said Mary McKinney. In fact, more and more residents of New York City's poorest communities are being forced to buy their food at neighborhood bodegas, few of which carry nutritious fresh produce."
So the Costco situation is bigger than simply the store's refusal to accept food stamps; and the public health is at stake: "And that, says the Bloomberg administration, points to a looming health crisis."Those areas of the city that had the highest incidents of obesity and diabetes also had a lack of neighborhood grocery stores," said planning commissioner Amanda Burden."
The more we approve new box stores, the greater the threat to neighborhood supermarkets, stores that do accept food stamps. And this supermarket dearth was a topic at yesterday's Food Policy Conference that we attended at Columbia. As the Politicker points out: "Meanwhile, the city is thinking about incentivizing the construction of supermarkets—which have been on the decline in recent years—or even building them on public land."
In the coming battle of Brooklyn box stores, this issue will be front and center, since the promotion of BJs and Costcos can't coexist with the concomitant support for supermarket growth. Choices need to be made.
Of course, the fact that the Costco store in Long Island City is a stone's throw from public housing with 30,000 low income residents, only adds to the controversy-since these folks aren't able to take advantage of the store's bargains by using food stamps. The fact that Costco has a $50 membership fee also restricts the availability of the retailer for all New Yorkers.
One of our main problems with this policy, is how the citing of these box stores-and BJs doesn't accept food stamps as well-impacts local supermarkets; the box stores drain higher end customers and erode the ability of neighborhood markets to survive. In effect, you create an oasis in one spot-and desert everywhere else.
And the store's food stamp policy is designed to redline the poor. When the Alliance stopped a Costco store from locating in Hell's Kitchen, we discovered that the company's SEC filing detailed how their refusal to accept food stamps-as well as its membership fees-controlled company "slippage" (corporate speak for theft).
Yet, as Albor Ruiz opines this morning, it is the poor who are most in need when it comes to the availability of food stamps; and Costco's policy has a disparate impact on those most in need: "Councilman Eric Gioia (D-Sunnyside) is also worried about the food situation. He is demanding that Costco change its policy of not accepting food stamps. "Especially with the rising food prices, hundreds of thousands of people in New York find themselves in a position they never thought they would be in - having to choose between buying food or paying the rent," Gioia said. In Queens, the Costco on Vernon Blvd. in Long Island City is within walking distance to the nearly 30,000 city housing residents of Queensbridge, Ravenswood and Astoria Homes that Gioia represents."
City Room captures some of this flavor: "The government pays dollar-for-dollar for the food stamp use, so it is not as though Costco has to discount their margins. Costco, which has created an image that has both upscale and downscale appeal, has been known for attracting the elite (at least in Washington). But perhaps Costco is more wary of the other end of the spectrum, finding western Queens appealing for its real estate, but not for its customer base."
So NYC needs to evaluate all special use applications for box stores-particularly if it wants to preserve our disappearing supermarkets. The other night, Eyewitness News dramatized the extent of this problem-highlighting Key Food on Bruckner Boulevard, and the loss of markets in East Harlem. As the Sandra Bookman report stated: "This is happening all over the city," said Enrique Vega. The South Bronx community activist is among those fighting to keep the Key Foods at Bruckner Boulevard and White Plains Road from closing when its lease expires at the end of the year."
And our good friend Mary McKinney weigh in as well: "It's about the dollar. Forget about the people in these communities. We have lived in these communities. We have built these communities, and most of the people that own this real estate, don't live in our community. We're saying think about us," said Mary McKinney. In fact, more and more residents of New York City's poorest communities are being forced to buy their food at neighborhood bodegas, few of which carry nutritious fresh produce."
So the Costco situation is bigger than simply the store's refusal to accept food stamps; and the public health is at stake: "And that, says the Bloomberg administration, points to a looming health crisis."Those areas of the city that had the highest incidents of obesity and diabetes also had a lack of neighborhood grocery stores," said planning commissioner Amanda Burden."
The more we approve new box stores, the greater the threat to neighborhood supermarkets, stores that do accept food stamps. And this supermarket dearth was a topic at yesterday's Food Policy Conference that we attended at Columbia. As the Politicker points out: "Meanwhile, the city is thinking about incentivizing the construction of supermarkets—which have been on the decline in recent years—or even building them on public land."
In the coming battle of Brooklyn box stores, this issue will be front and center, since the promotion of BJs and Costcos can't coexist with the concomitant support for supermarket growth. Choices need to be made.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Bloomberg Redux
As a postscript to the Barrett deconstruction of Mythic Mike, its good to take a look at Fred Siegel's piece in the Weekly Standard on the mayor-it goes along way towards introducing a modicum of reality to the false propheteering that surrounds Mike Bloomberg: "The folks over at Newsweek have a sly sense of humor. They put New York mayor Michael Bloomberg on the cover of their November 3 issue and let him dispense fiscal advice to the next president. In the article, Bloomberg, who has presided over record levels of spending and debt increases, chastised "Washington" for putting us in a hole by "spending with reckless abandon for years." The lofty Bloomberg told Newsweek's readers, "Programs that don't pass a cost-benefit analysis, that have been driven by politics rather than economics, should be cut."
The Bloomberg fable has nothing that hasn't been adequately explained in the wonderful Hans Christian Anderson tale about the emperor and his new clothes: "Newsweek's offices are in New York City; shouldn't Bloomberg's assertions have raised a few red flags? But on he went. The mayor, who has nearly doubled spending on education with no known return on the investment other than a vastly expanded PR staff and chaos in repeatedly reorganized schools, talked about "our [educational] success in New York." Did Newsweek notice that the additional $9 billion he's spent on education hasn't shown up in any improvements on national tests? The article closed with Bloomberg's heartfelt advice to the next president to "demonstrate that your talk of bipartisanship is not just talk." Here his deeds have generally been as good as his words. He has been willing to spend vast sums to buy support in both parties to achieve the greater glory of Bloomberg. He has the money, resources, and advisers to be his own party and is less bipartisan than he is an alternative political pole, one that offers Michael Bloomberg as the sole program."
What we have is a cult of personality for someone who is lacking in the basic requisites of such cultic-like devotion. And, as we have been noting, the term limits debacle has started to tarnish the phony accolades that his paid retainers have foisted on a no longer so gullible public. As Siegel points out:
"Until a few weeks ago New York had a term-limits law--twice ratified by public referenda--that limited the mayor and the city council to eight years in office. Bloomberg could have held a referendum on overturning them--a referendum he was very likely to win given his 70 percent approval rating. But there were dangers in taking the democratic path. The referendum would have been scheduled for February 2009, and, as Baruch College's Doug Muzzio notes, voters are likely to be hit before then by hikes in their property taxes, water bills, and subway fares. The tough times, though softened for the political class by Bloomberg's deep pockets, might have produced only a narrow victory unbefitting a Great Man. Instead, operating on the basis of ambiguities in the city charter, Bloomberg strong-armed the city council into overturning term-limits: threatening to cut off funds to their districts and stop his "anonymous" donations to the nonprofits they count on to get out the vote if they opposed his plan."
And, just as we chided Barrett for his misplaced praise for first term Mike, Siegel hits on what that term actually started to set in motion: "For the time being Bloomberg, who presided over the great spending spree of the last few years, has been reduced to insisting that only a genius like himself can save Gotham from the fiscal dangers imposed by Wall Street's collapse (and his own maladministration). This seems odd since the man who spoke of New York as "the luxury product" has shown no interest in nurturing small businesses, which are essential for regenerating the economy and have been squeezed hard by his administration's search for revenue. Though Newsweek might not have noticed it, there was a net middle-class out-migration from New York City even in the midst of the late lamented boom."
So it's time to shelve the hagiography and the slavish flaunting of praise on Mike from those who have (or hope to) benefited from his bountiful handouts. As Bloomberg prepares to go to his hackneyed and injurious tax raising policy approach for a second time, the observations of Nicole Gelinas are germane: "Mayor Bloomberg should remind himself: New York’s small-scale industry is likely just as fragile as Wall Street right now. Many businesses likely cannot withstand even marginal fee and tax increases, never mind the big ones on the table. Some people argue that there’s no alternative to raising taxes in this environment, but in this environment, there may be no alternative to not raising taxes."
The Bloomberg fable has nothing that hasn't been adequately explained in the wonderful Hans Christian Anderson tale about the emperor and his new clothes: "Newsweek's offices are in New York City; shouldn't Bloomberg's assertions have raised a few red flags? But on he went. The mayor, who has nearly doubled spending on education with no known return on the investment other than a vastly expanded PR staff and chaos in repeatedly reorganized schools, talked about "our [educational] success in New York." Did Newsweek notice that the additional $9 billion he's spent on education hasn't shown up in any improvements on national tests? The article closed with Bloomberg's heartfelt advice to the next president to "demonstrate that your talk of bipartisanship is not just talk." Here his deeds have generally been as good as his words. He has been willing to spend vast sums to buy support in both parties to achieve the greater glory of Bloomberg. He has the money, resources, and advisers to be his own party and is less bipartisan than he is an alternative political pole, one that offers Michael Bloomberg as the sole program."
What we have is a cult of personality for someone who is lacking in the basic requisites of such cultic-like devotion. And, as we have been noting, the term limits debacle has started to tarnish the phony accolades that his paid retainers have foisted on a no longer so gullible public. As Siegel points out:
"Until a few weeks ago New York had a term-limits law--twice ratified by public referenda--that limited the mayor and the city council to eight years in office. Bloomberg could have held a referendum on overturning them--a referendum he was very likely to win given his 70 percent approval rating. But there were dangers in taking the democratic path. The referendum would have been scheduled for February 2009, and, as Baruch College's Doug Muzzio notes, voters are likely to be hit before then by hikes in their property taxes, water bills, and subway fares. The tough times, though softened for the political class by Bloomberg's deep pockets, might have produced only a narrow victory unbefitting a Great Man. Instead, operating on the basis of ambiguities in the city charter, Bloomberg strong-armed the city council into overturning term-limits: threatening to cut off funds to their districts and stop his "anonymous" donations to the nonprofits they count on to get out the vote if they opposed his plan."
And, just as we chided Barrett for his misplaced praise for first term Mike, Siegel hits on what that term actually started to set in motion: "For the time being Bloomberg, who presided over the great spending spree of the last few years, has been reduced to insisting that only a genius like himself can save Gotham from the fiscal dangers imposed by Wall Street's collapse (and his own maladministration). This seems odd since the man who spoke of New York as "the luxury product" has shown no interest in nurturing small businesses, which are essential for regenerating the economy and have been squeezed hard by his administration's search for revenue. Though Newsweek might not have noticed it, there was a net middle-class out-migration from New York City even in the midst of the late lamented boom."
So it's time to shelve the hagiography and the slavish flaunting of praise on Mike from those who have (or hope to) benefited from his bountiful handouts. As Bloomberg prepares to go to his hackneyed and injurious tax raising policy approach for a second time, the observations of Nicole Gelinas are germane: "Mayor Bloomberg should remind himself: New York’s small-scale industry is likely just as fragile as Wall Street right now. Many businesses likely cannot withstand even marginal fee and tax increases, never mind the big ones on the table. Some people argue that there’s no alternative to raising taxes in this environment, but in this environment, there may be no alternative to not raising taxes."
Follow the Leaders?
Yesterday's aborted legislative session didn't receive high parks for any visible demonstration of political leadership. Even Governor Paterson, who did stake out some sane positions on the budget, wasn't treated kindly by a press that saw his calls for cooperation from the assembly and the senate fall on deaf ears. As Bill Hammond points out this morning: "There were winners and losers in Tuesday's Albany budget battle but the biggest loser was you - THE TAXPAYER. By doing nothing, the Legislature put basic services like schools, public safety and mass transit in jeopardy of even deeper and more damaging cuts - and greatly increased the likelihood of economy-sapping tax hikes to close the gap."
The governor also looked weak, according to a number of Albany observers: "GOV. PATERSON was another loser: Although he held the high ground on substance, Paterson looked weak and ineffectual in his first major defeat since taking over for Eliot Spitzer in March. Instead of wielding his executive clout to pressure lawmakers, he folded like an MTA map." Fred Dicker agrees: "Paterson himself had the pained look of a promising student who first dazzles his teacher and then flunks his big exam."
Of course all of the other leaders received their share of criticism, but Hammond singles out Malcolm Smith: "SENATE MINORITY LEADER MALCOLM SMITH (D-Queens) was another loser. Smith, who intends to take over as majority leader in less than two months, looked unready for the big leagues. He went from delivering unconvincing talking points with a glazed expression to blowing his stack at Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco (R-Schenectady). Granted, he was in the impossible position of explaining why he was too chicken to vote on the governor's budget cuts. Still, successful leaders must be more convincing defending the indefensible."
Smith, who is already busy preparing for his coronation, has still been unable to corral dissident Democrats to his side-and one of those rebels, Pedro Espada from the Bronx, is receiving kudos from El Diario for his calls for Hispanic empowerment. While another holdout is under siege from gay activists, an attack that will only serve to harden his opposition to Smith.
All of which raises questions about Smith's abilities to lead-and the cries of racism in a vote recount in the Padavan senate race by the very same Queens Democrats who bolstered the minority leader's rise, only reinforces suspicion that the whole enterprise isn't ready for prime time; especially when charges of racism and homophobia are the only apparent substance of the rallying cry for a Smith leadership.
What's needed from our political leaders are common sense fiscal solutions that rein in the size and scope of government, and make New York a better place to live and do business in. The new senate leader has to have both vision and courage; and be able to be a partner for the governor in these most dire of times. That leaders wasn't present in Albany yesterday.
The governor also looked weak, according to a number of Albany observers: "GOV. PATERSON was another loser: Although he held the high ground on substance, Paterson looked weak and ineffectual in his first major defeat since taking over for Eliot Spitzer in March. Instead of wielding his executive clout to pressure lawmakers, he folded like an MTA map." Fred Dicker agrees: "Paterson himself had the pained look of a promising student who first dazzles his teacher and then flunks his big exam."
Of course all of the other leaders received their share of criticism, but Hammond singles out Malcolm Smith: "SENATE MINORITY LEADER MALCOLM SMITH (D-Queens) was another loser. Smith, who intends to take over as majority leader in less than two months, looked unready for the big leagues. He went from delivering unconvincing talking points with a glazed expression to blowing his stack at Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco (R-Schenectady). Granted, he was in the impossible position of explaining why he was too chicken to vote on the governor's budget cuts. Still, successful leaders must be more convincing defending the indefensible."
Smith, who is already busy preparing for his coronation, has still been unable to corral dissident Democrats to his side-and one of those rebels, Pedro Espada from the Bronx, is receiving kudos from El Diario for his calls for Hispanic empowerment. While another holdout is under siege from gay activists, an attack that will only serve to harden his opposition to Smith.
All of which raises questions about Smith's abilities to lead-and the cries of racism in a vote recount in the Padavan senate race by the very same Queens Democrats who bolstered the minority leader's rise, only reinforces suspicion that the whole enterprise isn't ready for prime time; especially when charges of racism and homophobia are the only apparent substance of the rallying cry for a Smith leadership.
What's needed from our political leaders are common sense fiscal solutions that rein in the size and scope of government, and make New York a better place to live and do business in. The new senate leader has to have both vision and courage; and be able to be a partner for the governor in these most dire of times. That leaders wasn't present in Albany yesterday.
Bloomberg Exposed
Wayne Barret has produced a magnum opus on the "transformation" (public deterioration) of Mayor Mike Bloomberg. We can only hope that it is a prelude of more explication of how, in the articles apt subtitle, "the benevolent billionaire with no political debts ended up owning us all."
We should add, however, that, as brilliant an expose as the Barrett piece is, we take strong issue with its initial premise: "Mike Bloomberg is the best mayor—in fact, the best state or city chief executive—I've covered in 31 years at the Voice. He's also the worst."
We'll get to our disagreements later; Barrett's brief against the mayor is so powerful that our discussion shouldn't be marred by any initial quibbling. What he does so masterfully, is to detail the web of elite special interests that have been harnessed on behalf of the promotion of Mike Bloomberg-and how these interests have been aggrandized in the process. Here's the money quote on the monied elites shilling for a mayoral third term:
"No one is suggesting that these giants didn't actually believe their arguments for a third term, but the large number of Bloomberg fans who are also Bloomberg beneficiaries makes it harder and harder to distinguish enthusiasm from interest. His control over a vast city budget, hundreds of millions in private donations, and billions in undisclosed personal investments cloud the authenticity of every nice thing said about him. And a day-after-Christmas decision last year by the Bloomberg-appointed Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) has made his money trail both more expansive and more elusive. At his request, the board decided that he would no longer be restricted to salting away his money in "large, professionally managed mutual and exchange-traded funds." The COIB now allows Bloomberg's influential investment advisor, Steve Rattner, another big third-term booster, to put Bloomberg's estimated $20 billion fortune to work in a wide variety of investments, so long as he and the rest of us never find out precisely what they are."
Even more devastating is how Barrett details the seduction of the city's publishers-aided and abetted by Public Servant Rubenstein (Howard, for the unenlightened): "We are all used to editorial boards making endorsements determined by their owners, but this was the first time in memory that these three proud institutions had marched in such lockstep on a policy matter after meetings between a political figure and their three owners."
And Barrett dramatizes how all three of the media moguls have had interlocking business interests with the billionaire mayor; so much so that any real journalism has been suborned by the cash nexus-we're way beyond the ward healers of Tammany Hall. The NY Daily News' Mort Zuckerman's front and center here:
"The colossus we know the most about is Zuckerman. When Bloomberg ran for mayor in 2001 and the Daily News was the only paper to endorse him, he held more than a half-million dollars of stock in Boston Properties, the publicly traded real estate company that Zuckerman controls (Bloomberg may have actually owned more, but, by law, he was required only to disclose dollar amounts up to that ceiling). Bloomberg had to give up those holdings when he took office, prompted by an earlier COIB ruling, and the Bloomberg administration ended up doing its share of deals with Zuckerman's company—like air rights and other approvals on the company's 39-story tower at 250 West 55th Street. At an October 8 investors' conference, Boston's senior vice president Robert Selsam boasted of the company's success with City Planning, recounting how the firm had secured three complicated variances across five zoning districts that allowed it to maximize floors and footage. "The key," said Selsam, "is knowing how to effectively navigate the review and approval processes" of the city. He didn't, however, mention that he might have a bit of an edge at that game."
What we're seeing is just how the public interest has been traduced; and how it has been transposed, not only by Mike Bloomberg's own narrow class-oriented world view (something that he was able to effectively camouflage in his first term); but also by his dissemination of millions of so far untraced philanthropic dollars:
"Many New Yorkers have an eerie feeling now that Mike's money is literally everywhere and that a city, said to be for sale in the era of the big-time bosses, has actually been bought by a mayor so much bigger than they ever boasted of being. The richest man in New York is also, for the first time, the mayor of the city and one of its grandest philanthropists, making it almost impossible for the rest of us to talk to him without wondering at some level of consciousness: "Can I get a slice of this guy?" His personal and public outlays have flooded the city's bloodstream for years now, and few are so uninterested in a possible transfusion of their own that they will take him on."
And nothing underscores this tawdry subornation of democracy than the role played by Kathy Wylde, Jerry Speyer, and the NYC partnership in the coronation of the mayor; and a full detailing of how much all of these moguls have personally benefited from Mayor Mike's "public policy" decisions has yet to be catalogued (Barrett doesn't touch on the bennies that the Bobbsey Twins-Steve Roth of Vronado and Steve Ross of Related-have garnered during Bloomberg's tenure): "The fact is that under Wylde and Speyer's leadership, the Partnership is the closest thing we now have in New York to a political club with the clout to make a mayor. Of course, the Partnership sees itself as a civic association acting on behalf of us all, but Bloomberg has not just been good for business in the broadest sense—he's been especially good for particular businesses, like Jerry Speyer's."
And what we've come to expect in all of the shameless shilling for the mayor, is that the editorialists at the NY Times are always first in line when it comes time to check one's principles at the door. Barrett underscores the extent that the paper's publisher-with another of the billionaires, Shiller in Chief Steve Rattner, doing the enabling-dropped all previous objections to term extensions as his paper's finances flagged: "Sulzberger insists that the paper isn't for sale, but with the value of the family's controlling stock plummeting, a generous offer from a white knight like Bloomberg might be too much for some members of the Sulzberger clan to resist, making a third term for Mayor Mike a potential firewall protecting Arthur Sulzberger's ability to continue controlling it."
So the public service that Wayne Barret has done here is to lay out the template of just how clearly the "above politics" Bloomberg has acted like the most tawdry of Tammany pols; while at the same time ruling in the interest of the scions of his own class. All that's left is to begin the reportorial task of tracing the mayor's charitable giving in order to dramatize how his money has corrupted the democratic process,
But as far as Barrett's premise of a Bloomberg transformation, well, we'll have to part company there. The first Bloomberg term wasn't the masterful exercise in good government that Wayne believes it to be. Aside from the theft of the Bronx Terminal Market by Deputy Dan for the Related Company-with no public bidding-there was Bloomberg's complete failure to understand how to make city government more economical and efficient. The NY Post's editorial yesterday on the growth of the mayoral staff is just one case in point.
The simple fact here is that from his very first day, Mike Bloomberg has aided and abetted the growth of the size and scope of city government; and has done little to innovate so that we can do more with less and allow the city's private sector to flourish. Here's the primary misconception Barrett advances: "In his first term, he was able to close a gaping budget chasm without crippling city services by imposing the largest and bravest property-tax hike in history—and it sent his approval ratings plunging. When the city boomed again, this Nixon-to-China boldness by a businessman/mayor had forever refuted the knee-jerk right-wing orthodoxy that higher taxes invariably kill growth."
This theory misrepresents a painful reality that has been unmasked by the current fiscal meltdown. In fact, the city's recovery didn't "forever refute" any theory; it only proved that there can be an exception to any rule. The city's booming recovery came about because it was Wall Street generated-and generated by global forces that were immune to local tax policies. At the same time, however, as New York soared to the 49th worst state in the Small Business Survival Index, local businesses began to reel from higher taxes and regulatory fees. And with Wall Street down for the count, this high tax environment is crippling our economic comeback.
So from our standpoint, the "transformation" of Mike Bloomberg is less a dramatic revelation of a fallen hero, than it is an exposure of the generic limitations of someone whose money, and limited class-based world view, has been-from the very beginning-stymieing any creative policy making and governance reform. In the process, thousands of small businesses and the neighborhoods they serve, have been shorted by a Wall Street operator who believes that the world is defined from within the parameters of high finance; and the people who occupy the highest stratum of our class structure.
Barrett's citation of the original NY Times editorial opposing Bloomberg's first run for the mayoralty, should serve as an appropriate epitaph for this brilliant expose:
"Even within the annals of businessmen-candidates, he is ill-matched to the job he covets. His company has no stockholders and no unions. It is a brand-new business, its corporate culture and decision-making structure devised to suit his character. . . . Many of Mr. Bloomberg's greatest talents would turn out to be utterly beside the point." When the bursting collective bargaining, pension, and debt costs of the recent Bloomberg boom years are considered, the Times of old might have had a point. As it also had as recently as June 9, when it warned against a term-limits gambit and urged Bloomberg to seek another office: "We are wary of changing the rules just to suit the ambition of a particular politician."
We should add, however, that, as brilliant an expose as the Barrett piece is, we take strong issue with its initial premise: "Mike Bloomberg is the best mayor—in fact, the best state or city chief executive—I've covered in 31 years at the Voice. He's also the worst."
We'll get to our disagreements later; Barrett's brief against the mayor is so powerful that our discussion shouldn't be marred by any initial quibbling. What he does so masterfully, is to detail the web of elite special interests that have been harnessed on behalf of the promotion of Mike Bloomberg-and how these interests have been aggrandized in the process. Here's the money quote on the monied elites shilling for a mayoral third term:
"No one is suggesting that these giants didn't actually believe their arguments for a third term, but the large number of Bloomberg fans who are also Bloomberg beneficiaries makes it harder and harder to distinguish enthusiasm from interest. His control over a vast city budget, hundreds of millions in private donations, and billions in undisclosed personal investments cloud the authenticity of every nice thing said about him. And a day-after-Christmas decision last year by the Bloomberg-appointed Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) has made his money trail both more expansive and more elusive. At his request, the board decided that he would no longer be restricted to salting away his money in "large, professionally managed mutual and exchange-traded funds." The COIB now allows Bloomberg's influential investment advisor, Steve Rattner, another big third-term booster, to put Bloomberg's estimated $20 billion fortune to work in a wide variety of investments, so long as he and the rest of us never find out precisely what they are."
Even more devastating is how Barrett details the seduction of the city's publishers-aided and abetted by Public Servant Rubenstein (Howard, for the unenlightened): "We are all used to editorial boards making endorsements determined by their owners, but this was the first time in memory that these three proud institutions had marched in such lockstep on a policy matter after meetings between a political figure and their three owners."
And Barrett dramatizes how all three of the media moguls have had interlocking business interests with the billionaire mayor; so much so that any real journalism has been suborned by the cash nexus-we're way beyond the ward healers of Tammany Hall. The NY Daily News' Mort Zuckerman's front and center here:
"The colossus we know the most about is Zuckerman. When Bloomberg ran for mayor in 2001 and the Daily News was the only paper to endorse him, he held more than a half-million dollars of stock in Boston Properties, the publicly traded real estate company that Zuckerman controls (Bloomberg may have actually owned more, but, by law, he was required only to disclose dollar amounts up to that ceiling). Bloomberg had to give up those holdings when he took office, prompted by an earlier COIB ruling, and the Bloomberg administration ended up doing its share of deals with Zuckerman's company—like air rights and other approvals on the company's 39-story tower at 250 West 55th Street. At an October 8 investors' conference, Boston's senior vice president Robert Selsam boasted of the company's success with City Planning, recounting how the firm had secured three complicated variances across five zoning districts that allowed it to maximize floors and footage. "The key," said Selsam, "is knowing how to effectively navigate the review and approval processes" of the city. He didn't, however, mention that he might have a bit of an edge at that game."
What we're seeing is just how the public interest has been traduced; and how it has been transposed, not only by Mike Bloomberg's own narrow class-oriented world view (something that he was able to effectively camouflage in his first term); but also by his dissemination of millions of so far untraced philanthropic dollars:
"Many New Yorkers have an eerie feeling now that Mike's money is literally everywhere and that a city, said to be for sale in the era of the big-time bosses, has actually been bought by a mayor so much bigger than they ever boasted of being. The richest man in New York is also, for the first time, the mayor of the city and one of its grandest philanthropists, making it almost impossible for the rest of us to talk to him without wondering at some level of consciousness: "Can I get a slice of this guy?" His personal and public outlays have flooded the city's bloodstream for years now, and few are so uninterested in a possible transfusion of their own that they will take him on."
And nothing underscores this tawdry subornation of democracy than the role played by Kathy Wylde, Jerry Speyer, and the NYC partnership in the coronation of the mayor; and a full detailing of how much all of these moguls have personally benefited from Mayor Mike's "public policy" decisions has yet to be catalogued (Barrett doesn't touch on the bennies that the Bobbsey Twins-Steve Roth of Vronado and Steve Ross of Related-have garnered during Bloomberg's tenure): "The fact is that under Wylde and Speyer's leadership, the Partnership is the closest thing we now have in New York to a political club with the clout to make a mayor. Of course, the Partnership sees itself as a civic association acting on behalf of us all, but Bloomberg has not just been good for business in the broadest sense—he's been especially good for particular businesses, like Jerry Speyer's."
And what we've come to expect in all of the shameless shilling for the mayor, is that the editorialists at the NY Times are always first in line when it comes time to check one's principles at the door. Barrett underscores the extent that the paper's publisher-with another of the billionaires, Shiller in Chief Steve Rattner, doing the enabling-dropped all previous objections to term extensions as his paper's finances flagged: "Sulzberger insists that the paper isn't for sale, but with the value of the family's controlling stock plummeting, a generous offer from a white knight like Bloomberg might be too much for some members of the Sulzberger clan to resist, making a third term for Mayor Mike a potential firewall protecting Arthur Sulzberger's ability to continue controlling it."
So the public service that Wayne Barret has done here is to lay out the template of just how clearly the "above politics" Bloomberg has acted like the most tawdry of Tammany pols; while at the same time ruling in the interest of the scions of his own class. All that's left is to begin the reportorial task of tracing the mayor's charitable giving in order to dramatize how his money has corrupted the democratic process,
But as far as Barrett's premise of a Bloomberg transformation, well, we'll have to part company there. The first Bloomberg term wasn't the masterful exercise in good government that Wayne believes it to be. Aside from the theft of the Bronx Terminal Market by Deputy Dan for the Related Company-with no public bidding-there was Bloomberg's complete failure to understand how to make city government more economical and efficient. The NY Post's editorial yesterday on the growth of the mayoral staff is just one case in point.
The simple fact here is that from his very first day, Mike Bloomberg has aided and abetted the growth of the size and scope of city government; and has done little to innovate so that we can do more with less and allow the city's private sector to flourish. Here's the primary misconception Barrett advances: "In his first term, he was able to close a gaping budget chasm without crippling city services by imposing the largest and bravest property-tax hike in history—and it sent his approval ratings plunging. When the city boomed again, this Nixon-to-China boldness by a businessman/mayor had forever refuted the knee-jerk right-wing orthodoxy that higher taxes invariably kill growth."
This theory misrepresents a painful reality that has been unmasked by the current fiscal meltdown. In fact, the city's recovery didn't "forever refute" any theory; it only proved that there can be an exception to any rule. The city's booming recovery came about because it was Wall Street generated-and generated by global forces that were immune to local tax policies. At the same time, however, as New York soared to the 49th worst state in the Small Business Survival Index, local businesses began to reel from higher taxes and regulatory fees. And with Wall Street down for the count, this high tax environment is crippling our economic comeback.
So from our standpoint, the "transformation" of Mike Bloomberg is less a dramatic revelation of a fallen hero, than it is an exposure of the generic limitations of someone whose money, and limited class-based world view, has been-from the very beginning-stymieing any creative policy making and governance reform. In the process, thousands of small businesses and the neighborhoods they serve, have been shorted by a Wall Street operator who believes that the world is defined from within the parameters of high finance; and the people who occupy the highest stratum of our class structure.
Barrett's citation of the original NY Times editorial opposing Bloomberg's first run for the mayoralty, should serve as an appropriate epitaph for this brilliant expose:
"Even within the annals of businessmen-candidates, he is ill-matched to the job he covets. His company has no stockholders and no unions. It is a brand-new business, its corporate culture and decision-making structure devised to suit his character. . . . Many of Mr. Bloomberg's greatest talents would turn out to be utterly beside the point." When the bursting collective bargaining, pension, and debt costs of the recent Bloomberg boom years are considered, the Times of old might have had a point. As it also had as recently as June 9, when it warned against a term-limits gambit and urged Bloomberg to seek another office: "We are wary of changing the rules just to suit the ambition of a particular politician."
Keeping Bloomberg After School
As Liz B points out, the coalition to combat the mayoral blank check on school governance is really gearing up for a major fight-something that Mayor Mike doesn't need as he continues to dose out the fiscal Castor Oil to New Yorkers. The various groups gathered to contest what they term, the mayor's "one man rule"
"Participants, who shouted "one man rule has got to go," deemed mayoral control a "failure" and announced the formation of the Campaign for Better Schools, which includes more than 25 groups like AQE, the New York Immigrant Coalition and the Coalition for Educational Justice, to fight its reapproval without changes. Elected officials on hand for the rally: Councilman Bill de Blasio, Sen. Eric Schneiderman and Sen. Kevin Parker. Schneiderman and Parker both voiced support for stronger public participation in education policy-making, which is an issue that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has also cited (specifically, the need for more parental input) as a priority for his Democrat-controlled house."
Can't you just hear the late Marvin Gaye singing, "Let's Get it On?" We can feel the winds of change blowing, and that breeze is about to gust away the Bloomberg educational narrative-parroted by all of the folks on Mike's own personal dole. Gotham Gazette lays the issue out well:
"As the mayor's allies have marshaled his wealth and prestige to press their case, other key players -- teachers, parents, administrators, politicians -- stake out their positions. On Saturday, for example, the union that represents school principals and other administrators released a report calling for significant change in the current system. At the crux of this -- beyond the power, politics and money -- is the question of how well the nation's largest school system has served its students over the last seven years and what, if any, changes in governance would help the schools do better."
The key question comes down to: Who're gonna believe? That's because the mayor's rapidly reaching that Grouch Marx point ("Who're going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?") of no return-with the folks closest to the actual running of the system, parents administrators and teachers, debunking the mayoral spin.
And the severe budget shortfall will dramatically impact the debate: "Then there is the new budget reality. Between the implementation of mayoral control in 2002 and last summer, the school system's operating budget increased by 42 percent to $16.9 billion. Those additional funds may have papered over policy differences.Now with funding cuts looming, fights will almost certainly arise over what and where to cut, revealing other fissures.. This has already become apparent. Last week the Independent Budget office released a report, which concluded that the education department spent some $135 million last year on programs to assess and rate schools. Schools Chancellor Joel Klein defended the expenditures as "some of the smartest dollars we've spent." But Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who requested the report, said, "I'd rather see cuts in the accountability initiative than cuts in individual school budgets."
Increased, and independent scrutiny, is not a palliative for the mayor's hopes; something that he's prepared to counteract with a multi-million spin job: "The fight over school control, coming just months before the 2009 mayoral election, will become inextricably tied to Bloomberg's re-election campaign. A private group, set up by close Bloomberg allies, has announced plans to raise $20 million for a public relations and lobbying effort aimed at preserving mayoral control. Meanwhile the mayor has indicated he could spend up to $100 million to win re-election -- and some of those millions of dollars in advertising will undoubtedly trumpet his actions on education."
In our view, however, the grass roots efforts for greater transparency and parental input will be hard to counteract. As the NY Daily News reports: "It's time to end one-man rule of our schools," said Victoria Bousquet of the Coalition for Educational Justice, who has two sons at Medgar Evers Preparatory School in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. "Mayoral control has not delivered results." Leaders of the campaign say they want to rein in the mayor's power to set policy and make budget decisions. They also want to get a clearer picture of the Education Department's finances."
It's gonna be the elite, and the mayor's media toadies, versus the folks. And with the mayor's image taking a beating, we don't believe that his credibility will go unchallenged, and ultimately destroyed. We'll give a student the last word on this sensitive subject: "Robert Moore, a 16-year-old student at Bushwick High School for Social Justice, said students and parents should have more say in how the schools are run. "In the current system, the mayor's voice is the only one heard," he said."
"Participants, who shouted "one man rule has got to go," deemed mayoral control a "failure" and announced the formation of the Campaign for Better Schools, which includes more than 25 groups like AQE, the New York Immigrant Coalition and the Coalition for Educational Justice, to fight its reapproval without changes. Elected officials on hand for the rally: Councilman Bill de Blasio, Sen. Eric Schneiderman and Sen. Kevin Parker. Schneiderman and Parker both voiced support for stronger public participation in education policy-making, which is an issue that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has also cited (specifically, the need for more parental input) as a priority for his Democrat-controlled house."
Can't you just hear the late Marvin Gaye singing, "Let's Get it On?" We can feel the winds of change blowing, and that breeze is about to gust away the Bloomberg educational narrative-parroted by all of the folks on Mike's own personal dole. Gotham Gazette lays the issue out well:
"As the mayor's allies have marshaled his wealth and prestige to press their case, other key players -- teachers, parents, administrators, politicians -- stake out their positions. On Saturday, for example, the union that represents school principals and other administrators released a report calling for significant change in the current system. At the crux of this -- beyond the power, politics and money -- is the question of how well the nation's largest school system has served its students over the last seven years and what, if any, changes in governance would help the schools do better."
The key question comes down to: Who're gonna believe? That's because the mayor's rapidly reaching that Grouch Marx point ("Who're going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?") of no return-with the folks closest to the actual running of the system, parents administrators and teachers, debunking the mayoral spin.
And the severe budget shortfall will dramatically impact the debate: "Then there is the new budget reality. Between the implementation of mayoral control in 2002 and last summer, the school system's operating budget increased by 42 percent to $16.9 billion. Those additional funds may have papered over policy differences.Now with funding cuts looming, fights will almost certainly arise over what and where to cut, revealing other fissures.. This has already become apparent. Last week the Independent Budget office released a report, which concluded that the education department spent some $135 million last year on programs to assess and rate schools. Schools Chancellor Joel Klein defended the expenditures as "some of the smartest dollars we've spent." But Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who requested the report, said, "I'd rather see cuts in the accountability initiative than cuts in individual school budgets."
Increased, and independent scrutiny, is not a palliative for the mayor's hopes; something that he's prepared to counteract with a multi-million spin job: "The fight over school control, coming just months before the 2009 mayoral election, will become inextricably tied to Bloomberg's re-election campaign. A private group, set up by close Bloomberg allies, has announced plans to raise $20 million for a public relations and lobbying effort aimed at preserving mayoral control. Meanwhile the mayor has indicated he could spend up to $100 million to win re-election -- and some of those millions of dollars in advertising will undoubtedly trumpet his actions on education."
In our view, however, the grass roots efforts for greater transparency and parental input will be hard to counteract. As the NY Daily News reports: "It's time to end one-man rule of our schools," said Victoria Bousquet of the Coalition for Educational Justice, who has two sons at Medgar Evers Preparatory School in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. "Mayoral control has not delivered results." Leaders of the campaign say they want to rein in the mayor's power to set policy and make budget decisions. They also want to get a clearer picture of the Education Department's finances."
It's gonna be the elite, and the mayor's media toadies, versus the folks. And with the mayor's image taking a beating, we don't believe that his credibility will go unchallenged, and ultimately destroyed. We'll give a student the last word on this sensitive subject: "Robert Moore, a 16-year-old student at Bushwick High School for Social Justice, said students and parents should have more say in how the schools are run. "In the current system, the mayor's voice is the only one heard," he said."
Sic Transit Gloria
We were heartened to hear that Leader-in-Waiting Smith had set up his transition team; it certainly makes sense to try to project an air of inevitability into what really is an unstable, and unpredictable situation: "Despite the fact that he's still trying to nail down the majority leader post, current Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith is steaming ahead with his plans to take control of the chamber come January. To wit: He just named the following members of his transition team..."
What strikes us most about the assembled crew of transitioners is that it appears they appear to be selected, in almost a caricature of Democratic governance, for their racial and geographic balance. Missing, in our view, are some serious folks who can analyze the depth of the crisis we're in; and, as a result, offer some creative solutions. No think outside the boxers for Malcolm.
But if we're really going to get a handle on the fiscal meltdown-and its budgetary implications-we are going to need to bring some unconventional thinkers to the task; instead of doing that, Smith has opted for a political roster that creates the impression of orthodoxy that lulls the faint of heart into somnambulance. That is, all except for our good buddy Sheinkoff, someone who never lulled anyone.
That being said, it might make more sense to actually assemble the 32 votes needed before assembling the drapery for the office of senate leader. And, we might also inquire; what will this transition assemblage really be working on? There doesn't appear to be an idea man or woman in the bunch.
What strikes us most about the assembled crew of transitioners is that it appears they appear to be selected, in almost a caricature of Democratic governance, for their racial and geographic balance. Missing, in our view, are some serious folks who can analyze the depth of the crisis we're in; and, as a result, offer some creative solutions. No think outside the boxers for Malcolm.
But if we're really going to get a handle on the fiscal meltdown-and its budgetary implications-we are going to need to bring some unconventional thinkers to the task; instead of doing that, Smith has opted for a political roster that creates the impression of orthodoxy that lulls the faint of heart into somnambulance. That is, all except for our good buddy Sheinkoff, someone who never lulled anyone.
That being said, it might make more sense to actually assemble the 32 votes needed before assembling the drapery for the office of senate leader. And, we might also inquire; what will this transition assemblage really be working on? There doesn't appear to be an idea man or woman in the bunch.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Leadership and Budget Confusion
The fight over senate leadership is so confusing that there's even disagreement over what the rules say in regards to the choosing of a new leader. As the Times Union points out (via Liz): "A storm is brewing over what constitutes a valid election for Senate majority leader, and it could result in a clash unlike anything seen in the gold-leafed chamber in 43 years."
The Republicans and the Democrats are apparently on a totally different page: "Senate Republican lawyers, citing a passage in the state Journal Clerk's manual (last updated in 1970) dealing with the selection of a speaker, say a simple majority of the votes cast by those who show up to vote is all that's necessary. As things stand now, that would give Republican leader Dean Skelos the advantage over current Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith."
But the Dems, on the other hand: "They are completely wrong," said Mortimer Lawrence, Smith's chief of staff, who is also a lawyer. Senate Democrats say the majority of the Senate members must get behind one candidate — a higher standard than those simply showing up to vote. The Democrats base their interpretation on how many members must pass legislation."
All of which brings Alan Hevesi back into political relevance-at least for the dissertation he wrote over forty years ago: "First, Hevesi concluded that a senator can only become majority leader by gaining the majority of votes of the chambers members. That means Smith, whose Democrats will dominate the Senate in January, needs 32 supporters — three fewer than he currently holds due to the intransigence of the famous "Gang of Three": Senator-elect Pedro Espada and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., both of the Bronx, and Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn."
But the TU never really says definitively what the rules are here-and the pending leadership chaos is manna from heaven for the senate rebels who continue to bust chops. Here's Liz'a portrait of the "Caucus of One": "Sen. Carl Kruger, perhaps best known these days as the the ringleader of the Gang of Three, will be in Albany for tomorrow's special legislative session, but, unlike his renegade-in-arms, Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., he won't be caucusing with his fellow Democrats. That's not to say that the Brooklyn lawmaker, who is the only Democrat to chair a committee (Social Services) in the GOP-controlled house, will be taking part is closed-door Senate GOP meetings, either. "I'm caucusing with myself," Kruger said. "I have not been in a Democratic caucus for the better part of two years. I try to deal with a better class of people, I guess."
Kruger was sardonically referring to himself here-apparently Groucho Marx-like, at least as far as club membership is concerned. Kruger believes in a bipartisan approach, something that Malcolm Smith has belatedly discovered: "Their time might have been better spent trying to develop relationships that would have gotten some of our bills out onto the floor," Kruger said.
"That's what (Smith) now says he wants to do, ironically, run this as a bipartisan Legislature in a consensus atmosphere. That's something I've been trying to do for a very, very long time. It's amazing to me that at the eleventh hour, faced with the current circumstances as they are, he's decided to adopt that philosophy. I just wonder how long it will last."
But a spirit of bipartisanship certainly is absent from the current budget battle-an ominous sign for the governor who was forced to cancel today's special legislative session, As the NY Post tells us: "Outflanked by the lame-duck Republican majority in the State Senate, Gov. Paterson last night hastily delayed his call for an "emergency" budget-cutting session today and vowed not to move forward without a deal with the Legislature."
All of which bodes ill for the state, as gridlock on all levels leaves New York rudderless to deal with a severe fiscal crisis: "Paterson angrily labeled the GOP power play "a political game" that threatened the state's ability to weather the worst fiscal crisis in recent memory. "This is not a game," Paterson said. "If this state starts to fall into the same situation as California did, I want you all to remember this moment," referring to that state's recent announcement that government workers may have to take unpaid leaves."
According to Bill Hammond, it looks as if Paterson is gonna need a Plan B; but perhaps the senate Dems (as well as Dean Skelos) will need one as well. These are impasses that can't stand for much longer, or else we'll all be drowning together in red ink.
The Republicans and the Democrats are apparently on a totally different page: "Senate Republican lawyers, citing a passage in the state Journal Clerk's manual (last updated in 1970) dealing with the selection of a speaker, say a simple majority of the votes cast by those who show up to vote is all that's necessary. As things stand now, that would give Republican leader Dean Skelos the advantage over current Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith."
But the Dems, on the other hand: "They are completely wrong," said Mortimer Lawrence, Smith's chief of staff, who is also a lawyer. Senate Democrats say the majority of the Senate members must get behind one candidate — a higher standard than those simply showing up to vote. The Democrats base their interpretation on how many members must pass legislation."
All of which brings Alan Hevesi back into political relevance-at least for the dissertation he wrote over forty years ago: "First, Hevesi concluded that a senator can only become majority leader by gaining the majority of votes of the chambers members. That means Smith, whose Democrats will dominate the Senate in January, needs 32 supporters — three fewer than he currently holds due to the intransigence of the famous "Gang of Three": Senator-elect Pedro Espada and Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., both of the Bronx, and Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn."
But the TU never really says definitively what the rules are here-and the pending leadership chaos is manna from heaven for the senate rebels who continue to bust chops. Here's Liz'a portrait of the "Caucus of One": "Sen. Carl Kruger, perhaps best known these days as the the ringleader of the Gang of Three, will be in Albany for tomorrow's special legislative session, but, unlike his renegade-in-arms, Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., he won't be caucusing with his fellow Democrats. That's not to say that the Brooklyn lawmaker, who is the only Democrat to chair a committee (Social Services) in the GOP-controlled house, will be taking part is closed-door Senate GOP meetings, either. "I'm caucusing with myself," Kruger said. "I have not been in a Democratic caucus for the better part of two years. I try to deal with a better class of people, I guess."
Kruger was sardonically referring to himself here-apparently Groucho Marx-like, at least as far as club membership is concerned. Kruger believes in a bipartisan approach, something that Malcolm Smith has belatedly discovered: "Their time might have been better spent trying to develop relationships that would have gotten some of our bills out onto the floor," Kruger said.
"That's what (Smith) now says he wants to do, ironically, run this as a bipartisan Legislature in a consensus atmosphere. That's something I've been trying to do for a very, very long time. It's amazing to me that at the eleventh hour, faced with the current circumstances as they are, he's decided to adopt that philosophy. I just wonder how long it will last."
But a spirit of bipartisanship certainly is absent from the current budget battle-an ominous sign for the governor who was forced to cancel today's special legislative session, As the NY Post tells us: "Outflanked by the lame-duck Republican majority in the State Senate, Gov. Paterson last night hastily delayed his call for an "emergency" budget-cutting session today and vowed not to move forward without a deal with the Legislature."
All of which bodes ill for the state, as gridlock on all levels leaves New York rudderless to deal with a severe fiscal crisis: "Paterson angrily labeled the GOP power play "a political game" that threatened the state's ability to weather the worst fiscal crisis in recent memory. "This is not a game," Paterson said. "If this state starts to fall into the same situation as California did, I want you all to remember this moment," referring to that state's recent announcement that government workers may have to take unpaid leaves."
According to Bill Hammond, it looks as if Paterson is gonna need a Plan B; but perhaps the senate Dems (as well as Dean Skelos) will need one as well. These are impasses that can't stand for much longer, or else we'll all be drowning together in red ink.
With Friends Like These
Malcolm Smith is generating a great deal of support for his leadership bid-but it's from gay rights activists who are more than likely to hinder the senator's efforts to cobble together enough votes to reach his goal. The reason, as Liz B points out, is that the gay rights pressure is sure to harden the Reverend Diaz's position: "Diaz is also the target of another kind of (probably unwelcome) attention from a new (and rather exhaustively-titled) Facebook page called "Stop a Marriage Referendum in New York: Malcolm Smith for Majority Leader."
The kind of in your face tactics that the gay groups are utilizing is a good way to solidify the base; but a poor method to win over opponents like Diaz-who represents a district where the strength of the gay rights movement is fairly non existent. And the anger at Diaz is definitely counterproductive for Smith: "Officers of the group include a number of well-known LGBT activists like Ethan Geto, Stonewall Democrats Matthew Carlin, Corey Johnson, and the page's creator, Jeff Campagna, a producer and activist, who wrote: "I am furious that the obstacle standing between us and marriage equality is a Democratic state senator named Ruben Diaz Sr., from the Bronx, who with his two friends Senators Carl Kruger and Pedro Espada Jr., also Democrats, is threatening to stand with the Republicans to block Malcolm Smith from becoming Senate Majority Leader in January."
The gay activists, seeing the results of Proposition 8 in California, are very concerned about the impact of a possible referendum; and are ready to go to war with the senator: "But Ruben Diaz Sr. isn’t just threatening to block Malcolm Smith from being majority leader. He’s so obsessed with gay marriage that he’s trying to figure out how to bring Proposition 8 to the ballot in New York...Maybe Senator Diaz thinks that we’re all going to let this pass and walk on eggshells as he plays power games with his Senate colleagues. We have before. Remember when we cheered the passage of a sexual orientation non-discrimination act that was stripped of protections for gender expression because we didn’t want to rock the boat?"
As part of the campaign on Smith's behalf, supporters of gay marriage are encouraged to contact Diaz's office: "Both on Facebook and at an anti-Prop 8 rally outside City Hall last week, Campagna urged gay marriage supporters to contact Diaz Sr. and urge him to support Smith. At the rally, he called on everyone present to pull out their cell phones and program in the senator's office number, which he yelled out from the podium."
And Diaz also took some shots from El Diario, whose advocacy on the gay rights issue probably puts it at odds with the majority of its readers; and the paper conflates opposition to gay marriage with a violation of the separation of church and state: "Rev. Diaz and others are supposedly not for denying rights to gays and lesbians but believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. Yet, it’s this very discriminatory position that serves to exclude lesbian and gay couples from obtaining the rights, benefits and standing that heterosexuals take for granted."
And further: "This use of religious beliefs to block basic civil rights undermines the separation of church and state in this nation. The basis of that separation lies in the experience of early American colonists who had fled religious persecution elsewhere to pursue tolerance, acceptance and freedom in the “new” world."
This argument totally misrepresents the fact that the Judeo-Christian ethic underpins a great many of our basic legal principles; and that fact has nothing to do with the establishment of religion. Arguing against a change in the law based on one's religious beliefs, however you see the relative merits of the law in question, is not a challenge to the separation clause of our constitution. In any case, it certainly is within the purview of the voters to weigh in on the question; and a referendum on this issue is as germane to democratic principles as the one for term limits.
But all of the effort to intimidate Diaz is likely to backfire; and the kinds of raucus public demonstrations that we've seen, are probably a poor way to advance the idea of gay marriage to folks like Diaz-and the many other New Yorkers who are not yet comfortable with the idea.
The kind of in your face tactics that the gay groups are utilizing is a good way to solidify the base; but a poor method to win over opponents like Diaz-who represents a district where the strength of the gay rights movement is fairly non existent. And the anger at Diaz is definitely counterproductive for Smith: "Officers of the group include a number of well-known LGBT activists like Ethan Geto, Stonewall Democrats Matthew Carlin, Corey Johnson, and the page's creator, Jeff Campagna, a producer and activist, who wrote: "I am furious that the obstacle standing between us and marriage equality is a Democratic state senator named Ruben Diaz Sr., from the Bronx, who with his two friends Senators Carl Kruger and Pedro Espada Jr., also Democrats, is threatening to stand with the Republicans to block Malcolm Smith from becoming Senate Majority Leader in January."
The gay activists, seeing the results of Proposition 8 in California, are very concerned about the impact of a possible referendum; and are ready to go to war with the senator: "But Ruben Diaz Sr. isn’t just threatening to block Malcolm Smith from being majority leader. He’s so obsessed with gay marriage that he’s trying to figure out how to bring Proposition 8 to the ballot in New York...Maybe Senator Diaz thinks that we’re all going to let this pass and walk on eggshells as he plays power games with his Senate colleagues. We have before. Remember when we cheered the passage of a sexual orientation non-discrimination act that was stripped of protections for gender expression because we didn’t want to rock the boat?"
As part of the campaign on Smith's behalf, supporters of gay marriage are encouraged to contact Diaz's office: "Both on Facebook and at an anti-Prop 8 rally outside City Hall last week, Campagna urged gay marriage supporters to contact Diaz Sr. and urge him to support Smith. At the rally, he called on everyone present to pull out their cell phones and program in the senator's office number, which he yelled out from the podium."
And Diaz also took some shots from El Diario, whose advocacy on the gay rights issue probably puts it at odds with the majority of its readers; and the paper conflates opposition to gay marriage with a violation of the separation of church and state: "Rev. Diaz and others are supposedly not for denying rights to gays and lesbians but believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. Yet, it’s this very discriminatory position that serves to exclude lesbian and gay couples from obtaining the rights, benefits and standing that heterosexuals take for granted."
And further: "This use of religious beliefs to block basic civil rights undermines the separation of church and state in this nation. The basis of that separation lies in the experience of early American colonists who had fled religious persecution elsewhere to pursue tolerance, acceptance and freedom in the “new” world."
This argument totally misrepresents the fact that the Judeo-Christian ethic underpins a great many of our basic legal principles; and that fact has nothing to do with the establishment of religion. Arguing against a change in the law based on one's religious beliefs, however you see the relative merits of the law in question, is not a challenge to the separation clause of our constitution. In any case, it certainly is within the purview of the voters to weigh in on the question; and a referendum on this issue is as germane to democratic principles as the one for term limits.
But all of the effort to intimidate Diaz is likely to backfire; and the kinds of raucus public demonstrations that we've seen, are probably a poor way to advance the idea of gay marriage to folks like Diaz-and the many other New Yorkers who are not yet comfortable with the idea.
Bagging the Rebate Revocation: Send in the Clowns
Well it looks as if New Yorker City homeowners will be getting their $400 rebates after all. Just weeks after we were told that Mayor Mike Bloomberg's fiscal expertise was needed to save our city from ruination, a funny thing happened on the way to a city hall hearing-the mayor and his crack finance experts were exposed for their failure to simply understand the basics of New York State tax law.
As the NY Times reports: "Remember two weeks ago when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced he was shelving the $400 homeowners’ rebate checks because the city could not afford them? Look for yours in the mail. It turns out the mayor does not have the power to halt the rebates, the city’s top budget official grudgingly admitted on Monday, under questioning from the City Council. Any elimination of the popular rebates requires City Council approval, budget director Mark Page acknowledged. And council members, who have been flooded with calls from angry residents looking for their checks, declared the mayor’s idea to cut them “dead on arrival.”
Perhaps the Bloombergistas should exchange their bond terminals for clown make up. As Clyde Haberman points out this morning, the city council has a degree of buyer's remorse when it comes to a mayoral third term:
"They were particularly angry at the mayor’s plan to save the municipal treasury $256 million by canceling $400 tax rebate checks that were supposed to have been mailed to homeowners weeks ago. It turns out that the cancellation needs the Council’s consent; that approval is as likely as your winning the Mega Millions lottery. Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Page will have to figure out another way to scrape together the money. “This is just one of those ‘out of touch with reality’ moments that you guys have from time to time,” Councilman Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn said to the budget director, his voice laced with scorn."
As a result, Haberman simply can't resist the following observation:
"Just think: Only days ago, Council members were offering Mr. Bloomberg (and themselves) as New York’s salvation from fiscal doom. Ms. Quinn and Mr. Fidler were among the 29 council members who voted to amend the term limits law and thereby allow Mr. Bloomberg (and themselves) to run for an extra four years in office. Everyone knows that the only way they could pull off this self-serving rules change in midgame was to argue that the billionaire Mr. Bloomberg was uniquely positioned to lead the city, Moses-like, out of the fiscal wilderness. Now, on key matters of finance, they say the mayor doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There is a serious disconnect."
And on top of this demonstration of fiscal acumen comes this epiphany on plastic bag taxes-mayor no can do because, just like any other tax, this one needs both city council and state legislative approval (the trick of calling it a "fee" fooled no one). As the Times tells us, having to do its own quick rewrite of its story to reflect legal realities: "City officials are still fine-tuning the details of the surcharge: Which kinds of plastic bags would require one? Is 6 cents — 5 for the city and one for the merchant — enough? While Mayor Bloomberg has called the charge a fee that could be approved by the City Council, the city’s top budget official said on Monday that it was a tax and would require approval from the State Legislature."
All of which has Haberman slapping his knees in his appreciation of another demonstration of Bloomberg's indispensability in the economic hard times we face: "It also turns out that the mayor got it wrong in calling for a 6-cent charge on plastic bags in stores. He had called it a fee, which he and the Council could impose on their own. On Monday, Mr. Page acknowledged this amounts to a tax, requiring Albany’s approval."
Ah, deconstruction of a fable is sometimes so cruel; in this case the Myth of Mike as financial savior of NYC comes crumbling down, much like the falling statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. As the Times reports:
"The revelation represented an unusual embarrassment for an administration that prides itself on precision and efficiency, especially coming weeks after Mr. Bloomberg based his successful campaign for an extension of term limits on his fiscal résumé. On Nov. 5, when he announced he was shelving the rebates, the mayor said that the move would save the city $256 million as it grapples with an economic downturn. The news about the rebates was not the only red-faced moment for the administration on Monday. Mr. Page also acknowledged that the mayor could not impose his much-discussed plan to impose a 6-cent charge on plastic bags without the approval of the State Legislature."
Which prompts Haberman to remind us that the down fall of Mayor Abe Beame came after his sloganeering about his own expertise became quite a joke when the last big fiscal crisis hit the city: "For his part, Mr. Bloomberg may not want to trumpet how well he knows the buck. That’s what Abraham D. Beame, then the city comptroller, did to win the mayoralty in 1973. “He knows the buck” was his campaign slogan. In no time, New York teetered toward bankruptcy, and “he knows the buck” became a punch line."
In reality, the mayor's ignorance on these two issues probably helped to save him-albeit temporarily, perhaps-from himself. Both the rebate refusal and the plastic bag tax are wildly unpopular with New Yorkers. That being said, he'll have to come up with additional tax proposals that will also probably strike the city's citizens in a similar manner. The result? A mayor, who prided himself as a non partisan expert, being exposed as an out of touch wizard hiding behind a curtain of hubris.
As the NY Times reports: "Remember two weeks ago when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced he was shelving the $400 homeowners’ rebate checks because the city could not afford them? Look for yours in the mail. It turns out the mayor does not have the power to halt the rebates, the city’s top budget official grudgingly admitted on Monday, under questioning from the City Council. Any elimination of the popular rebates requires City Council approval, budget director Mark Page acknowledged. And council members, who have been flooded with calls from angry residents looking for their checks, declared the mayor’s idea to cut them “dead on arrival.”
Perhaps the Bloombergistas should exchange their bond terminals for clown make up. As Clyde Haberman points out this morning, the city council has a degree of buyer's remorse when it comes to a mayoral third term:
"They were particularly angry at the mayor’s plan to save the municipal treasury $256 million by canceling $400 tax rebate checks that were supposed to have been mailed to homeowners weeks ago. It turns out that the cancellation needs the Council’s consent; that approval is as likely as your winning the Mega Millions lottery. Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Page will have to figure out another way to scrape together the money. “This is just one of those ‘out of touch with reality’ moments that you guys have from time to time,” Councilman Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn said to the budget director, his voice laced with scorn."
As a result, Haberman simply can't resist the following observation:
"Just think: Only days ago, Council members were offering Mr. Bloomberg (and themselves) as New York’s salvation from fiscal doom. Ms. Quinn and Mr. Fidler were among the 29 council members who voted to amend the term limits law and thereby allow Mr. Bloomberg (and themselves) to run for an extra four years in office. Everyone knows that the only way they could pull off this self-serving rules change in midgame was to argue that the billionaire Mr. Bloomberg was uniquely positioned to lead the city, Moses-like, out of the fiscal wilderness. Now, on key matters of finance, they say the mayor doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There is a serious disconnect."
And on top of this demonstration of fiscal acumen comes this epiphany on plastic bag taxes-mayor no can do because, just like any other tax, this one needs both city council and state legislative approval (the trick of calling it a "fee" fooled no one). As the Times tells us, having to do its own quick rewrite of its story to reflect legal realities: "City officials are still fine-tuning the details of the surcharge: Which kinds of plastic bags would require one? Is 6 cents — 5 for the city and one for the merchant — enough? While Mayor Bloomberg has called the charge a fee that could be approved by the City Council, the city’s top budget official said on Monday that it was a tax and would require approval from the State Legislature."
All of which has Haberman slapping his knees in his appreciation of another demonstration of Bloomberg's indispensability in the economic hard times we face: "It also turns out that the mayor got it wrong in calling for a 6-cent charge on plastic bags in stores. He had called it a fee, which he and the Council could impose on their own. On Monday, Mr. Page acknowledged this amounts to a tax, requiring Albany’s approval."
Ah, deconstruction of a fable is sometimes so cruel; in this case the Myth of Mike as financial savior of NYC comes crumbling down, much like the falling statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. As the Times reports:
"The revelation represented an unusual embarrassment for an administration that prides itself on precision and efficiency, especially coming weeks after Mr. Bloomberg based his successful campaign for an extension of term limits on his fiscal résumé. On Nov. 5, when he announced he was shelving the rebates, the mayor said that the move would save the city $256 million as it grapples with an economic downturn. The news about the rebates was not the only red-faced moment for the administration on Monday. Mr. Page also acknowledged that the mayor could not impose his much-discussed plan to impose a 6-cent charge on plastic bags without the approval of the State Legislature."
Which prompts Haberman to remind us that the down fall of Mayor Abe Beame came after his sloganeering about his own expertise became quite a joke when the last big fiscal crisis hit the city: "For his part, Mr. Bloomberg may not want to trumpet how well he knows the buck. That’s what Abraham D. Beame, then the city comptroller, did to win the mayoralty in 1973. “He knows the buck” was his campaign slogan. In no time, New York teetered toward bankruptcy, and “he knows the buck” became a punch line."
In reality, the mayor's ignorance on these two issues probably helped to save him-albeit temporarily, perhaps-from himself. Both the rebate refusal and the plastic bag tax are wildly unpopular with New Yorkers. That being said, he'll have to come up with additional tax proposals that will also probably strike the city's citizens in a similar manner. The result? A mayor, who prided himself as a non partisan expert, being exposed as an out of touch wizard hiding behind a curtain of hubris.
Monday, November 17, 2008
A Mayor Not Worth His Salt
Here we go again-Mother Bloomberg is back at trying to insure that we all are as healthy as we can be. According to the NY Post, the target du jour is now salt: "The city has come up with a plan to help you shake your salt habit, according to New York magazine. In a closed-door gathering at Gracie Mansion late last month, health experts and food-industry representatives were told about Mayor Bloomberg's next crusade - an effort to reduce the salt in processed food by 20 percent over the next five years, the magazine reports in this week's issue."
That's what we really like about the mayor; while the city's economy's in free fall, and folks are worried about their jobs, and the ability to pay the rent, Mayor Mike's focusing on people's diet-once again trying to tell New Yorkers how they should live their lives: "City health czar Dr. Thomas Frieden went as far as saying that high blood pressure, which is linked to excessive salt, is "the greatest public-health threat facing the city." He leaned on industry groups to sign on to the plan by the end this month, according to an attendee. Restaurateurs will be encouraged to join a "voluntary" initiative and that there won't be new regulations."
No, the city's greatest health threat is economic insolvency, and an economy that is about to hemorrhage jobs; so all of Frieden's hysteria over fast food needs to be put into some kind of perspective. Those neighborhood businesses, and the jobs they generate, are more integral to the health of the city than the regulatory impositions of an out of control Health Commissar. And we know what Frieden sees as "voluntary."
It's time to get these Nannys the old heave ho; and we believe that the continued health hectoring by the mayor and his minions will speed his already beginning political decline. Clearly, Bloomberg's a mayor who's not worth his salt.
That's what we really like about the mayor; while the city's economy's in free fall, and folks are worried about their jobs, and the ability to pay the rent, Mayor Mike's focusing on people's diet-once again trying to tell New Yorkers how they should live their lives: "City health czar Dr. Thomas Frieden went as far as saying that high blood pressure, which is linked to excessive salt, is "the greatest public-health threat facing the city." He leaned on industry groups to sign on to the plan by the end this month, according to an attendee. Restaurateurs will be encouraged to join a "voluntary" initiative and that there won't be new regulations."
No, the city's greatest health threat is economic insolvency, and an economy that is about to hemorrhage jobs; so all of Frieden's hysteria over fast food needs to be put into some kind of perspective. Those neighborhood businesses, and the jobs they generate, are more integral to the health of the city than the regulatory impositions of an out of control Health Commissar. And we know what Frieden sees as "voluntary."
It's time to get these Nannys the old heave ho; and we believe that the continued health hectoring by the mayor and his minions will speed his already beginning political decline. Clearly, Bloomberg's a mayor who's not worth his salt.
The Battle Over Mayoral Control of the Schools
What's becoming clear, as the opposing forces gather to combat renewing the current version of the mayoral school governance contract, is that a great deal of effort will have to be made just to inform New Yorkers about the realities extant in the city schools-the press hasn't be a reliable ally to the folks on this issue, a fact that was underscored when a critical NY Daily News story was killed at the last minute.
In the fog that has accompanied the coverage of school governance issues, what remains hidden is the extent to which school performance lags substantially behind the bold proclamations of the Tweed PR machine (a lag that's dramatized by the gap in test score performance between city and national exams). When a system is run in such a top-down fashion, and when transparency is the exception rather than the rule, it's vital that the press function in a critical manner.
That kind of critical exposure should come from a well orchestrated campaign that involves parents, teachers and administrators-the folks with a first hand view of what's really going on in the system. Legislative hearings, white papers and press events where these first hand looks can be disseminated, can and will pierce through the veil of press complicity.
We're hopeful that the NY Times will replicate its growing role as Bloomberg watchdog in its coverage of the school governance question, Certainly, Jenny Medina's stories are a good start for the paper. Yesterday, she wrote about the Tweed grading system, and underscored how it tended to obfuscate rather than illuminate-especially for the parents it's supposed to guide in the making of choices for their kids:
"The A-through-F grading system for New York City schools is billed as a public information tool, helping people sort out which schools are teaching children and which schools are just moving them along. Instead of inscrutable education jargon and endless score charts, the letter grades act like billboards broadcasting achievements and failures. But for parents shopping for the best schools, the letter grades can obscure some of the most salient information, because they are determined largely by how much progress students make year to year rather than how well their skills stand up against objective standards."
The grading system is a product of the inordinately expensive accountability department that has been set up; a system whose sheer size and expense turns it's name into a bureaucratic oxymoron. And, as the Times tells us, the grading system is less helpful to the parents than it is to the managers: "The grades, which the city calls progress reports, are more performance management review than consumer report, blunt shorthand rather than nuanced evaluation. The fact that a school got an A is not necessarily a clear indication that parents should want to send their children to it."
The expensive nature of accounting services was revealed in an earlier piece that Medina did for the paper: "The Education Department is spending roughly $130 million this year to track the performance of schools in New York City, according to a report published on Thursday by the city’s Independent Budget Office...The report found that while private money initially paid for many of the accountability efforts, the same kinds of measures were increasingly being financed with city dollars. Many of the figures cited in the report had already been released, but this was the first attempt to detail the overall costs of Chancellor Joel I. Klein’s accountability efforts."
Of course, with the city's budget in shambles, the rising cost of bureaucratization-not to mention its effectiveness-is certainly going to become a hot political issue, and the Public Advocate has been all over it: "Ms. Gotbaum said during a news conference at her downtown office that because of the current state and city budget cuts, the Education Department should “re-evaluate the accountability system from top to bottom” to ensure that it is “cost effective and producing real results in the classroom.” “There are hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent without real assurance that our schools are getting any better,” she said."
All of which underscores the extent to which accountability-reified in its own luxurious planet-may be divorced from the consumers who need to have the critical information necessary in making the proper choices for their children; in fact, this highlights the level of concern that Tweed has-as well as the esteem it holds-for parents as a group: “Judging schools on year-to-year fluctuations is like judging stocks just on quarterly reports,” said Clara Hemphill, the author of several guides to the best public schools in New York City. “I tell parents not to take these too seriously.”
The following Times passages in the latest Medina story, underscore the wide gap between a management and a consumer perspective:
"James S. Liebman, the Education Department’s chief accountability officer and the architect of the progress reports, says the problem is that the public rarely looks beyond the letter grade even though the reports contain a variety of other guideposts. It is possible, for instance, to see what percentage of the weakest students improved by at least one grade level, and what percentage of higher-performing students improved on state tests from one year to the next.
“What the parents want to look for in schools is to see how well they do with ‘a kid like mine,’ ” Mr. Liebman said. “All of that is in the progress report. There is a lot of information in there that is directly useful for parents if they take a look at it.”
A closer look, though, can often be confusing to the layman. At 14 of the high schools that received A’s last week, for example, fewer than two-thirds of the students graduated in four years. Students at the 113 A-rated high schools had median SAT scores of 1209 out of a possible 2400, a score that ranked in the 17th percentile nationally."
Kinda makes the grading system ineffective, doesn't it? At the same time it also demonstrates, in our view, the opaque nature of the entire Tweed enterprise; and this expensive opacity also makes it hard for elected officials, even if they have the requisite desire, to evaluate school performance. It is our measured opinion here, that the upcoming legislative review process will dramatically reveal just how much the school emperors have no clothes; and how absurd it is to consider Joel Klein for any federal educational post.
In the fog that has accompanied the coverage of school governance issues, what remains hidden is the extent to which school performance lags substantially behind the bold proclamations of the Tweed PR machine (a lag that's dramatized by the gap in test score performance between city and national exams). When a system is run in such a top-down fashion, and when transparency is the exception rather than the rule, it's vital that the press function in a critical manner.
That kind of critical exposure should come from a well orchestrated campaign that involves parents, teachers and administrators-the folks with a first hand view of what's really going on in the system. Legislative hearings, white papers and press events where these first hand looks can be disseminated, can and will pierce through the veil of press complicity.
We're hopeful that the NY Times will replicate its growing role as Bloomberg watchdog in its coverage of the school governance question, Certainly, Jenny Medina's stories are a good start for the paper. Yesterday, she wrote about the Tweed grading system, and underscored how it tended to obfuscate rather than illuminate-especially for the parents it's supposed to guide in the making of choices for their kids:
"The A-through-F grading system for New York City schools is billed as a public information tool, helping people sort out which schools are teaching children and which schools are just moving them along. Instead of inscrutable education jargon and endless score charts, the letter grades act like billboards broadcasting achievements and failures. But for parents shopping for the best schools, the letter grades can obscure some of the most salient information, because they are determined largely by how much progress students make year to year rather than how well their skills stand up against objective standards."
The grading system is a product of the inordinately expensive accountability department that has been set up; a system whose sheer size and expense turns it's name into a bureaucratic oxymoron. And, as the Times tells us, the grading system is less helpful to the parents than it is to the managers: "The grades, which the city calls progress reports, are more performance management review than consumer report, blunt shorthand rather than nuanced evaluation. The fact that a school got an A is not necessarily a clear indication that parents should want to send their children to it."
The expensive nature of accounting services was revealed in an earlier piece that Medina did for the paper: "The Education Department is spending roughly $130 million this year to track the performance of schools in New York City, according to a report published on Thursday by the city’s Independent Budget Office...The report found that while private money initially paid for many of the accountability efforts, the same kinds of measures were increasingly being financed with city dollars. Many of the figures cited in the report had already been released, but this was the first attempt to detail the overall costs of Chancellor Joel I. Klein’s accountability efforts."
Of course, with the city's budget in shambles, the rising cost of bureaucratization-not to mention its effectiveness-is certainly going to become a hot political issue, and the Public Advocate has been all over it: "Ms. Gotbaum said during a news conference at her downtown office that because of the current state and city budget cuts, the Education Department should “re-evaluate the accountability system from top to bottom” to ensure that it is “cost effective and producing real results in the classroom.” “There are hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent without real assurance that our schools are getting any better,” she said."
All of which underscores the extent to which accountability-reified in its own luxurious planet-may be divorced from the consumers who need to have the critical information necessary in making the proper choices for their children; in fact, this highlights the level of concern that Tweed has-as well as the esteem it holds-for parents as a group: “Judging schools on year-to-year fluctuations is like judging stocks just on quarterly reports,” said Clara Hemphill, the author of several guides to the best public schools in New York City. “I tell parents not to take these too seriously.”
The following Times passages in the latest Medina story, underscore the wide gap between a management and a consumer perspective:
"James S. Liebman, the Education Department’s chief accountability officer and the architect of the progress reports, says the problem is that the public rarely looks beyond the letter grade even though the reports contain a variety of other guideposts. It is possible, for instance, to see what percentage of the weakest students improved by at least one grade level, and what percentage of higher-performing students improved on state tests from one year to the next.
“What the parents want to look for in schools is to see how well they do with ‘a kid like mine,’ ” Mr. Liebman said. “All of that is in the progress report. There is a lot of information in there that is directly useful for parents if they take a look at it.”
A closer look, though, can often be confusing to the layman. At 14 of the high schools that received A’s last week, for example, fewer than two-thirds of the students graduated in four years. Students at the 113 A-rated high schools had median SAT scores of 1209 out of a possible 2400, a score that ranked in the 17th percentile nationally."
Kinda makes the grading system ineffective, doesn't it? At the same time it also demonstrates, in our view, the opaque nature of the entire Tweed enterprise; and this expensive opacity also makes it hard for elected officials, even if they have the requisite desire, to evaluate school performance. It is our measured opinion here, that the upcoming legislative review process will dramatically reveal just how much the school emperors have no clothes; and how absurd it is to consider Joel Klein for any federal educational post.
Mayor's Dangerous Slippery Slope
As we have been happily willing to point out, the deconstruction of Mike Bloomberg's mythic image as the non partisan steward of the public good-something that began in earnest with the term limits power grab-will now continue spiraling downward as the city's budget turmoil forces its attention on masses of average New Yorkers. In this vein, the NY Times' Michael Barbaro presented us on Saturday, as a public service, with another installment of, "How the Mayor Turns:"A year before the next mayoral election, Michael R. Bloomberg appears to have settled on his campaign message: higher property taxes, smaller school budgets, shuttered dental clinics, more parking fees and a new surcharge on plastic shopping bags. And by the way, he advises ordinary New Yorkers, buy fewer dresses and put off that new car."
The mayor believes that this Bloomberg brand of stern, uncompromising honesty, is just why the city needs him for an additional term: "It is a seemingly toxic sales pitch at a moment when the city’s economic engine, Wall Street, is imploding, thousands of jobs are disappearing and New Yorkers are on edge. But in persuading the City Council to revise its term limits law so he could seek a third term, Mr. Bloomberg cast himself as an economic white knight who is uniquely capable of leading the city through a steep downturn. And he is acting swiftly to fulfill that promise."
With a white knight like this, who could be frightened of a really malevolent leader? What Bloomberg's doing is taking a page out of his 2002 playbook-you know, grim candor mixed with higher taxes and fees-and believing that it can be utilized to successfully convince New Yorkers to retain its empathy challenged CEO: "Yet the severity of what he must do, the short time he has to accomplish it and his frequent lack of delicacy could threaten his popularity at a time when he needs it most. Already, New Yorkers are dialing up the city’s 311 information hot line and their council members’ offices to fume about higher property taxes."
And remember that in 2002, he had three years to turn the situation around-doing so with Wall Street cash that poured in as the financial sector took off-something that's just not happening in 2008. In effect, the Wall Street windfall masked the impact of Bloomberg taxes, levies that did long term damage to so many small businesses and neighborhood retailers (the disappearing supermarket is representative of the impact that the Bloomberg program had).
What the current crisis-and Bloomberg's knee jerk response-does, is to expose just how thin the mayor's government playbook really is. Imagine continuing to support programs subsidizing unwed mothers-costing close to half a billion dollars-while homeowners get stiffed on their property tax rebates.
Once this kind of Lindsay-like approach becomes clear to the voters, the mayor's grip on the popular will will slip way beyond his grasp. As Adam Lisberg pointed out yesterday in the NY Daily News: "And some of his opponents say the mayor - even with his billions - may be more vulnerable to a challenge next year than conventional wisdom holds. "A lot of people are starting to think there's more than one outcome here," one Council member said, pointing to Obama-mania, the surge in new black voter registrations and a term limits backlash. "That means they'll stop acting like there's only one outcome here."
And, as the Times tells us, it has already begun in earnest: "He is going after the middle class to cover the budget, and it bothers me a lot,” said Mordy Roman, the owner of a liquor store in Brooklyn. “In hard times I don’t see this going over very well with people.” And the fight over school governance hasn't even started yet.
On top of the cuts, there's the stoppage of the $400 rebate; certainly a drop in the bucket compared to other extravagances in the municipal budget, this mayoral move is really beginning to gall the folks: "So far, however, the mayor’s economic decisiveness is not exactly winning over New Yorkers. Just days after engineering the change to term limits last week, Mr. Bloomberg infuriated thousands of homeowners by stopping the city from mailing out an annual $400 property tax rebate, which many families rely on to buy holiday gifts or pay winter heating bills. The move would save the city $250 million — a fraction of the city’s $60 billion annual budget, but the mayor said it was a prudent step."
We need to recall that the mayor's initial taxing foray drove his approval ratings, George Bush-like, into the twenties; and the overriding of the popular will on term limits has given the voters a very different take on the mayor's mien:
“People are starting to get really annoyed with him,” said Jayson Levitz, a homeowner in Queens, who had been waiting for his $400 rebate check. “He is so arrogant that he feels only he can handle this meltdown. But it does not take a brainiac to increase taxes.” Mr. Levitz, who said he voted for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001 because “the city needed a business person,” now hopes to see the mayor defeated. Jeanette Didio, a homeowner in Brooklyn who is currently unemployed, called the city’s hot line to plead for her rebate check, without which she cannot pay for a visit to the dentist, she said. “I don’t think this mayor realizes that there are people more needy than others,” she said. “I need that money.”
The mayor's minions plead nolo contendre: "Edward Skyler, deputy mayor for operations, said that with the city facing a budget shortfall of $4 billion over the next two years because of lower tax revenue, the mayor “has no easy options in front of him.” “We saved for a rainy day, but instead we are in monsoon season,” he said. “The depth of this emergency means there are no longer any sacred cows.”
Apparently excepting the $433 million for housing the unwed mothers. Big Ed doesn't understand just how little Mayor Mike has understood the need to devise economies and efficiencies in government; abjuring these measures for feel good lavishness on municipal labor and social spending. Now, given the current crisis, all he has left is to bring knives to a gun fight.
Still, the Bloombergistas mistakenly feel that the same old song will get all of us dancing again: "Mr. Bloomberg has played the role of the clear-eyed C.E.O. of New York City before: after the Sept. 11 attack, when as a new mayor he cut spending and sharply raised taxes. His political advisers are convinced that just as they did back then, voters will initially grouse but ultimately reward the mayor for tough, popularity-be-damned decisions in the middle of a crisis."
In our view, this is less likely to happen today-people are less willing to afford the mayor any benefits of doubt; and his arrogance will exacerbate the slow and steady decline of his popularity: "In 2002, Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire former businessman, seemed perfectly poised to lead a recovery — he was the anti-politician and he did not need the job. Now, after a bruising battle for the chance to remain in office for a third term, some of those qualities seem tarnished, or at the very least, undercut."
All of this is underscored by Bloomberg's world view-“We are a high-tax city,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “We expect to get something for it.”-and his failure to really get the historical lessons of the 1970s: "Aides to Mr. Bloomberg said he was unperturbed by the political ramifications of his economic proposals, which he considers vital to steadying the city’s finances. Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly refused, despite the unpopularity of taxes, to simply cut his way out of the current budget woes, a mistake he says was made in the 1970s, when crime soared and garbage was piled high on city streets."
Here he falsely conflates really essential services with the pork ridden bloatedness of his contemporary budget. Big Ed's response underscores the seriousness of the mayor's problem: "Some critics of the mayor have suggested that he is addicted to taxes, and has been shy about taking on daunting budget burdens, like union pay and benefits. But Mr. Skyler, the deputy mayor, said, “It’s hard to argue that a mayor who is proposing fewer police officers and the elimination of a property tax rebate is making decisions based on politics, rather than the best interest of the city.”
But it isn't hard to argue that the mayor's decision making-and his limited world view-demonstrates his trained incapacity to deal with the fundamental problems that the city faces. So he's acting apolitically, does that makes his political actions correct? In Skylar's Bloomberg-colored glasses, not responding to legitimate political forces, and acting as if they don't matter, is the sine qua non of statesmanship; when in reality, it only demonstrates to us tone deafness and leadership limitations.
Councilman Vinny Gentile, the original opponent of the mayor's first property tax hike gets the final word on this-one that we believe could become the mayor's epitaph: "Councilman Vincent J. Gentile, who represents Brooklyn, said that scores of residents had pleaded with him to fight the mayor’s tax proposals, especially the elimination of the $400 rebate, which he called “a lifeline” for the working class. “People are just holding on by their fingertips,” he said, adding that the Bloomberg administration “has a tin ear when it comes to the concerns of everyday New Yorkers.”
The mayor believes that this Bloomberg brand of stern, uncompromising honesty, is just why the city needs him for an additional term: "It is a seemingly toxic sales pitch at a moment when the city’s economic engine, Wall Street, is imploding, thousands of jobs are disappearing and New Yorkers are on edge. But in persuading the City Council to revise its term limits law so he could seek a third term, Mr. Bloomberg cast himself as an economic white knight who is uniquely capable of leading the city through a steep downturn. And he is acting swiftly to fulfill that promise."
With a white knight like this, who could be frightened of a really malevolent leader? What Bloomberg's doing is taking a page out of his 2002 playbook-you know, grim candor mixed with higher taxes and fees-and believing that it can be utilized to successfully convince New Yorkers to retain its empathy challenged CEO: "Yet the severity of what he must do, the short time he has to accomplish it and his frequent lack of delicacy could threaten his popularity at a time when he needs it most. Already, New Yorkers are dialing up the city’s 311 information hot line and their council members’ offices to fume about higher property taxes."
And remember that in 2002, he had three years to turn the situation around-doing so with Wall Street cash that poured in as the financial sector took off-something that's just not happening in 2008. In effect, the Wall Street windfall masked the impact of Bloomberg taxes, levies that did long term damage to so many small businesses and neighborhood retailers (the disappearing supermarket is representative of the impact that the Bloomberg program had).
What the current crisis-and Bloomberg's knee jerk response-does, is to expose just how thin the mayor's government playbook really is. Imagine continuing to support programs subsidizing unwed mothers-costing close to half a billion dollars-while homeowners get stiffed on their property tax rebates.
Once this kind of Lindsay-like approach becomes clear to the voters, the mayor's grip on the popular will will slip way beyond his grasp. As Adam Lisberg pointed out yesterday in the NY Daily News: "And some of his opponents say the mayor - even with his billions - may be more vulnerable to a challenge next year than conventional wisdom holds. "A lot of people are starting to think there's more than one outcome here," one Council member said, pointing to Obama-mania, the surge in new black voter registrations and a term limits backlash. "That means they'll stop acting like there's only one outcome here."
And, as the Times tells us, it has already begun in earnest: "He is going after the middle class to cover the budget, and it bothers me a lot,” said Mordy Roman, the owner of a liquor store in Brooklyn. “In hard times I don’t see this going over very well with people.” And the fight over school governance hasn't even started yet.
On top of the cuts, there's the stoppage of the $400 rebate; certainly a drop in the bucket compared to other extravagances in the municipal budget, this mayoral move is really beginning to gall the folks: "So far, however, the mayor’s economic decisiveness is not exactly winning over New Yorkers. Just days after engineering the change to term limits last week, Mr. Bloomberg infuriated thousands of homeowners by stopping the city from mailing out an annual $400 property tax rebate, which many families rely on to buy holiday gifts or pay winter heating bills. The move would save the city $250 million — a fraction of the city’s $60 billion annual budget, but the mayor said it was a prudent step."
We need to recall that the mayor's initial taxing foray drove his approval ratings, George Bush-like, into the twenties; and the overriding of the popular will on term limits has given the voters a very different take on the mayor's mien:
“People are starting to get really annoyed with him,” said Jayson Levitz, a homeowner in Queens, who had been waiting for his $400 rebate check. “He is so arrogant that he feels only he can handle this meltdown. But it does not take a brainiac to increase taxes.” Mr. Levitz, who said he voted for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001 because “the city needed a business person,” now hopes to see the mayor defeated. Jeanette Didio, a homeowner in Brooklyn who is currently unemployed, called the city’s hot line to plead for her rebate check, without which she cannot pay for a visit to the dentist, she said. “I don’t think this mayor realizes that there are people more needy than others,” she said. “I need that money.”
The mayor's minions plead nolo contendre: "Edward Skyler, deputy mayor for operations, said that with the city facing a budget shortfall of $4 billion over the next two years because of lower tax revenue, the mayor “has no easy options in front of him.” “We saved for a rainy day, but instead we are in monsoon season,” he said. “The depth of this emergency means there are no longer any sacred cows.”
Apparently excepting the $433 million for housing the unwed mothers. Big Ed doesn't understand just how little Mayor Mike has understood the need to devise economies and efficiencies in government; abjuring these measures for feel good lavishness on municipal labor and social spending. Now, given the current crisis, all he has left is to bring knives to a gun fight.
Still, the Bloombergistas mistakenly feel that the same old song will get all of us dancing again: "Mr. Bloomberg has played the role of the clear-eyed C.E.O. of New York City before: after the Sept. 11 attack, when as a new mayor he cut spending and sharply raised taxes. His political advisers are convinced that just as they did back then, voters will initially grouse but ultimately reward the mayor for tough, popularity-be-damned decisions in the middle of a crisis."
In our view, this is less likely to happen today-people are less willing to afford the mayor any benefits of doubt; and his arrogance will exacerbate the slow and steady decline of his popularity: "In 2002, Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire former businessman, seemed perfectly poised to lead a recovery — he was the anti-politician and he did not need the job. Now, after a bruising battle for the chance to remain in office for a third term, some of those qualities seem tarnished, or at the very least, undercut."
All of this is underscored by Bloomberg's world view-“We are a high-tax city,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “We expect to get something for it.”-and his failure to really get the historical lessons of the 1970s: "Aides to Mr. Bloomberg said he was unperturbed by the political ramifications of his economic proposals, which he considers vital to steadying the city’s finances. Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly refused, despite the unpopularity of taxes, to simply cut his way out of the current budget woes, a mistake he says was made in the 1970s, when crime soared and garbage was piled high on city streets."
Here he falsely conflates really essential services with the pork ridden bloatedness of his contemporary budget. Big Ed's response underscores the seriousness of the mayor's problem: "Some critics of the mayor have suggested that he is addicted to taxes, and has been shy about taking on daunting budget burdens, like union pay and benefits. But Mr. Skyler, the deputy mayor, said, “It’s hard to argue that a mayor who is proposing fewer police officers and the elimination of a property tax rebate is making decisions based on politics, rather than the best interest of the city.”
But it isn't hard to argue that the mayor's decision making-and his limited world view-demonstrates his trained incapacity to deal with the fundamental problems that the city faces. So he's acting apolitically, does that makes his political actions correct? In Skylar's Bloomberg-colored glasses, not responding to legitimate political forces, and acting as if they don't matter, is the sine qua non of statesmanship; when in reality, it only demonstrates to us tone deafness and leadership limitations.
Councilman Vinny Gentile, the original opponent of the mayor's first property tax hike gets the final word on this-one that we believe could become the mayor's epitaph: "Councilman Vincent J. Gentile, who represents Brooklyn, said that scores of residents had pleaded with him to fight the mayor’s tax proposals, especially the elimination of the $400 rebate, which he called “a lifeline” for the working class. “People are just holding on by their fingertips,” he said, adding that the Bloomberg administration “has a tin ear when it comes to the concerns of everyday New Yorkers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
