Following our comments of the other day-and mirroring their content, the NY Post weighed in on the departure of Tom Frieden to the CDC: "City Health Commissioner Tom Frieden is off to join the Obama administration, as head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This deals a heavy blow to Mike Bloomberg's dream of making New Yorkers healthy in spite of their stubborn selves. Still, we have no doubt that Mayor Nudge's replacement health czar will be equally committed to free condoms and faux French fries."
Calling the commissioner, Dr. Mary Poppins, the paper went on to point out: "This isn't to question Frieden's motives. We've had our differences with the doctor, but we've never considered him anything but an honorable man. But there is something profoundly disquieting in public-health policies that require the results of diabetes tests to be transmitted for storage in City Hall databases -- to say nothing of sin taxes that generate major-league criminal activity."
To say nothing of the good doctor's impulse to force people to be healthy: "And then there's the annoying stuff. Transfat-free donuts? Please. Calorie counts at Mickey D's? Hey, they call it junk food for a reason! Call us old-fashioned, but public-health properly is about bacteria in the water supply and rats in the restaurants -- not government-mandated behavior-modification programs."
Well said!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sueprmarket Planning, God Laughs
In what amounts to a really strange move, the state and city have announced that they are moving ahead on the supermarket initiative that we had discussed a few months ago-and did it late Friday afternoon without any fanfare. In a press release from the Food Trust we are told: "To coincide with the announcement of the Healthy Food/Healthy Communities initiative and the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health Program (FRESH) announced today by New York Governor David A. Paterson, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn, the New York Supermarket Commission and The Food Trust have released a full list of recommendations, Stimulating Supermarket Development: A New Day in New York."
Why the secrecy? Perhaps it has something to do with the disagreements from some in the industry and labor over the narrow scope of the proposal. As we wrote some time ago; commenting on the Observer's article on the topic: "So who could object? Well, perhaps that habitual naysayer might find the plan wanting: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents grocery store workers, said the draft policies were a “good step,” but do not go far enough to counter the forces that are continually shuttering grocery stores citywide. “The more compelling policy issue is the disappearance of existing stores,” he said. He also urged the city to prioritize grocery store uses when selling off city-owned land, which was one of the Planning Department’s own recommendations last fall."
So, aside from the fact that we represent the RWDSU (sister union of the UFCW), the point is right on target-the city has concentrated on new growth when the 400-500 existing stores are not really given the kind of attention they deserve; especially considering the fact that it's existing store disappearance that's the crux of the crisis. Local markets need a real stimulus package, not one that offers a slight boost to newcomers while ignoring the exisiting stores.
But this underscores the weakness of the so-called Bloomberg "five borough" economic development plan. When examined carefully we see that the mayor's election campaign rap has a nice tune, but the lyrics ring false; because beneath all of the feel good pictures of Mike Bloomberg actually talkng to common New Yorkers, lies the reality of job loss, store closings, and an administration whose policies have ignored-at best-the problems of small business in the city. Which brings us to the heart of our critique of the supermarket initiative-even (or especially because)one that is well intended.
It will take years for this proposal to bear fruit; and in all likelihood, if the city spawns four or five new markets in the coming decade because of this plan, that will be a lot. In the meantime, though, the neighborhood economies continue to be devastated-exacerbated by a housing debacle that is forcing middle class Black and Latino folks in many city communities from their homes. And these are precisely those areas where the supermarket crisis is often most severe.
The economic challenge here is one that relates to the cost of doing business. The Bloombergistas, so focused on large scale development and Wall Street-centric, have increased taxes and unleashed a regulatory wave that has priced neighborhood retailers right out of the city. The sales taxes hike and the inane plastic bag tax are simply emblematic of an anti-small business world view that can't be eradicated with campaign propaganda disinfectant.
It also underscores the weakness of the Bloomberg world view. The mayor has supported a slew of business taxes and fees-from the aforementioned sales tax, to the devastating commercial real estate tax and the confiscatory bodega tax on tobacco. There are, however, places where he draws the line. When Freddy Ferrer proposed a stock transfer tax in 2005, Bloomberg let out a geshrie. As the Village Voice observed at the time: " Ferrer's early endorsement of a stock-transfer tax gave the mayor the ammunition he needed to depict Ferrer as an ideologue with no grasp of what makes the New York economic engine purr..."
So when it came to that part of the economy where the Bloomberg cohort dwells, the mayor was steadfast in his opposition to any tax because, at least there, he understood that such a levy would hurt the economy he prizes. But when it came to taxing a bodega staple-tobacco products, the Bloomberg response was; "It's a minor economic issue." And the loss of over $250 million a year in this sector to the black market is a big contributing factor to record store closings and evictions.
These policies, along with the current recession, is what lies at the crux of the city's-and state's-economic woes; something that a few loans made available in an election year will not ameliorate. If we examine the Bloomberg tenure, we have what amounts to a Pogo situation. The cartoon character's most famous remark applies to Mike Bloomberg: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Why the secrecy? Perhaps it has something to do with the disagreements from some in the industry and labor over the narrow scope of the proposal. As we wrote some time ago; commenting on the Observer's article on the topic: "So who could object? Well, perhaps that habitual naysayer might find the plan wanting: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents grocery store workers, said the draft policies were a “good step,” but do not go far enough to counter the forces that are continually shuttering grocery stores citywide. “The more compelling policy issue is the disappearance of existing stores,” he said. He also urged the city to prioritize grocery store uses when selling off city-owned land, which was one of the Planning Department’s own recommendations last fall."
So, aside from the fact that we represent the RWDSU (sister union of the UFCW), the point is right on target-the city has concentrated on new growth when the 400-500 existing stores are not really given the kind of attention they deserve; especially considering the fact that it's existing store disappearance that's the crux of the crisis. Local markets need a real stimulus package, not one that offers a slight boost to newcomers while ignoring the exisiting stores.
But this underscores the weakness of the so-called Bloomberg "five borough" economic development plan. When examined carefully we see that the mayor's election campaign rap has a nice tune, but the lyrics ring false; because beneath all of the feel good pictures of Mike Bloomberg actually talkng to common New Yorkers, lies the reality of job loss, store closings, and an administration whose policies have ignored-at best-the problems of small business in the city. Which brings us to the heart of our critique of the supermarket initiative-even (or especially because)one that is well intended.
It will take years for this proposal to bear fruit; and in all likelihood, if the city spawns four or five new markets in the coming decade because of this plan, that will be a lot. In the meantime, though, the neighborhood economies continue to be devastated-exacerbated by a housing debacle that is forcing middle class Black and Latino folks in many city communities from their homes. And these are precisely those areas where the supermarket crisis is often most severe.
The economic challenge here is one that relates to the cost of doing business. The Bloombergistas, so focused on large scale development and Wall Street-centric, have increased taxes and unleashed a regulatory wave that has priced neighborhood retailers right out of the city. The sales taxes hike and the inane plastic bag tax are simply emblematic of an anti-small business world view that can't be eradicated with campaign propaganda disinfectant.
It also underscores the weakness of the Bloomberg world view. The mayor has supported a slew of business taxes and fees-from the aforementioned sales tax, to the devastating commercial real estate tax and the confiscatory bodega tax on tobacco. There are, however, places where he draws the line. When Freddy Ferrer proposed a stock transfer tax in 2005, Bloomberg let out a geshrie. As the Village Voice observed at the time: " Ferrer's early endorsement of a stock-transfer tax gave the mayor the ammunition he needed to depict Ferrer as an ideologue with no grasp of what makes the New York economic engine purr..."
So when it came to that part of the economy where the Bloomberg cohort dwells, the mayor was steadfast in his opposition to any tax because, at least there, he understood that such a levy would hurt the economy he prizes. But when it came to taxing a bodega staple-tobacco products, the Bloomberg response was; "It's a minor economic issue." And the loss of over $250 million a year in this sector to the black market is a big contributing factor to record store closings and evictions.
These policies, along with the current recession, is what lies at the crux of the city's-and state's-economic woes; something that a few loans made available in an election year will not ameliorate. If we examine the Bloomberg tenure, we have what amounts to a Pogo situation. The cartoon character's most famous remark applies to Mike Bloomberg: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Be Careful What You Wish For
A funny thing happened on the way to our end zone dance for the departure of NYC's health commissioner, Mother Tom Frieden-it looks as if Mike Bloomberg has found, in Dr. Tom Farley, a replacement for the good doctor who is even more extreme in his desire to regulate our lives, and force us to be healthier. As the NY Times reported yesterday: "Dr. Farley, these people said, has a strong background in public health management and shares with Mr. Bloomberg an unbridled — and at times contentious — enthusiasm for using government to curb salt, high fat content and sugar in food, and to promote pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly endeavors."
And, as the paper went on to point out: “Tom Farley is a really top-notch epidemiologist and a really, really well-respected public health official,” said a former New York City health official who had been told about the selection, but spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement. “He has a lot of interest in addressing the issues that are causing people to have poor health.”
Or, as Sarah Palin would say; "You betcha!" My God, even his initials are the same as Frieden's; and Farley has laid out his views pretty comprehensively: "In 2005, Dr. Farley, who is chairman of Tulane’s community health sciences department, and Dr. Deborah A. Cohen, a senior natural scientist at the Rand Corporation, wrote “Prescription for a Healthy Nation,” a book that provoked the kind of polarizing reaction that Dr. Frieden and Mr. Bloomberg are accustomed to."
What are these views exactly? "Since it is, in Farley and Cohen’s view, our ‘physical and social environment’ that’s making us sick, we should make small changes in that environment to encourage health, such as lowering the price of healthy foods and enforcing such rules as a workplace ban on snack food in cubicles,” Publishers Weekly said in a review. “Unfortunately, throughout this litany of human foibles and social and governmental failures, there’s a pervasive tone of puritanical disapproval, and Americans are unlikely to pay attention to this pair of scolds.”
But wait a second. It's one thing when a public health scold publishes a book that no one but the fellow travellers read; it's quite another when the Scold-in-Chief is running the largest municipal health department in the country. And if you peruse his book, you get the idea pretty quick that Farley wants to regulate us to health-no matter what folks may currently feel about their own habits and behaviors.
In fact, it isn't hard to see that Frieden himself may have cribbed his silly field of dreams produce peddler idea from the perscriptions that Farley lays out in a chapter of his book titled, "More is More: Accessibility." Farley wants to micromanage what grocers can put on their shelves-and where they can place the products; even calling for a mandate that places vegetables right at check out. He also makes any number of ill informed observations about the disparity between supermarkets in lower income areas versus those in middle class areas (Where he found that the black area market had less shelf space for healthier foods, leading to this speculation: "It makes you wonder how much store displays contribute to the high obesity rates in poor black people." p.76)
So it's no wonder that Farley sees the doubling of the shelf space for fruit and vegetables as just the ingredient for increasing consumption-just as Frieden thought that green carts would lead to similar higher levels. And the next step beyond where you can put the stuff you sell, is how much you can charge for it. Taxes and regulatory mandates from the commissars can't be far behind.
Similar observations about the higher rates of liquor stores in poor neighborhoods also confuse correlation with causation; but the health meddlers see all of this as a clarion call to action. And of course the Twinkie tax is seen as a marvelous idea: "The idea of a "Twinkie" tax has been met with outrage in some parts...but not only would it be effective, it also isn't that different from where we are right now. Many states and cities have sales taxesthat apply differently to different items, and many already tax sodas and candy." (p.81)
So, brace yourselves New Yorkers. Farley in for Frieden is about to take place and it underscores the Chinese proverb about being careful what you wish for. What it means, however, is that Mike Bloomberg has chosen another health czar who has no clue about how markets function. Just what we need when we're trying to encourage more supermarkets to come into the city.
And, as the paper went on to point out: “Tom Farley is a really top-notch epidemiologist and a really, really well-respected public health official,” said a former New York City health official who had been told about the selection, but spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement. “He has a lot of interest in addressing the issues that are causing people to have poor health.”
Or, as Sarah Palin would say; "You betcha!" My God, even his initials are the same as Frieden's; and Farley has laid out his views pretty comprehensively: "In 2005, Dr. Farley, who is chairman of Tulane’s community health sciences department, and Dr. Deborah A. Cohen, a senior natural scientist at the Rand Corporation, wrote “Prescription for a Healthy Nation,” a book that provoked the kind of polarizing reaction that Dr. Frieden and Mr. Bloomberg are accustomed to."
What are these views exactly? "Since it is, in Farley and Cohen’s view, our ‘physical and social environment’ that’s making us sick, we should make small changes in that environment to encourage health, such as lowering the price of healthy foods and enforcing such rules as a workplace ban on snack food in cubicles,” Publishers Weekly said in a review. “Unfortunately, throughout this litany of human foibles and social and governmental failures, there’s a pervasive tone of puritanical disapproval, and Americans are unlikely to pay attention to this pair of scolds.”
But wait a second. It's one thing when a public health scold publishes a book that no one but the fellow travellers read; it's quite another when the Scold-in-Chief is running the largest municipal health department in the country. And if you peruse his book, you get the idea pretty quick that Farley wants to regulate us to health-no matter what folks may currently feel about their own habits and behaviors.
In fact, it isn't hard to see that Frieden himself may have cribbed his silly field of dreams produce peddler idea from the perscriptions that Farley lays out in a chapter of his book titled, "More is More: Accessibility." Farley wants to micromanage what grocers can put on their shelves-and where they can place the products; even calling for a mandate that places vegetables right at check out. He also makes any number of ill informed observations about the disparity between supermarkets in lower income areas versus those in middle class areas (Where he found that the black area market had less shelf space for healthier foods, leading to this speculation: "It makes you wonder how much store displays contribute to the high obesity rates in poor black people." p.76)
So it's no wonder that Farley sees the doubling of the shelf space for fruit and vegetables as just the ingredient for increasing consumption-just as Frieden thought that green carts would lead to similar higher levels. And the next step beyond where you can put the stuff you sell, is how much you can charge for it. Taxes and regulatory mandates from the commissars can't be far behind.
Similar observations about the higher rates of liquor stores in poor neighborhoods also confuse correlation with causation; but the health meddlers see all of this as a clarion call to action. And of course the Twinkie tax is seen as a marvelous idea: "The idea of a "Twinkie" tax has been met with outrage in some parts...but not only would it be effective, it also isn't that different from where we are right now. Many states and cities have sales taxesthat apply differently to different items, and many already tax sodas and candy." (p.81)
So, brace yourselves New Yorkers. Farley in for Frieden is about to take place and it underscores the Chinese proverb about being careful what you wish for. What it means, however, is that Mike Bloomberg has chosen another health czar who has no clue about how markets function. Just what we need when we're trying to encourage more supermarkets to come into the city.
Thuggery and Filthy Lucre
The NY Times editorial board is playing catch up-catching up to the fact that Mike Bloomberg is not only breaking the bounds of decency with his obscene level of spending; but making a mockery of the Times' sacrosanct campaign finance concerns: "Months ahead of schedule, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City seems to be running frantically for re-election, much the way he did as an unknown eight years ago. Despite polls showing his increasing popularity among New Yorkers, the mayor has already spent $18.7 million on his re-election campaign — more than three times the limit for primary candidates who use public campaign money."
And he's also putting his money to good use-with a smarmy, underhanded, below the radar, negative campaign against Anthony Weiner: "At the same time, his political operatives are busily sending out negative information, especially about Representative Anthony Weiner, even though Mr. Weiner is still not firmly in the race."
Leaving the campaign finance system in tatters: "The mayor is expected to saunter easily into a third term, but the negative track of his campaign belies his claims about taking the high road and running the positive race of an easy front-runner. Meanwhile, the money he is spending and expected to spend undermines the foundations of the city’s model campaign-financing system."
Yah think? So, perhaps the paper should have had a bit more awareness of this expected turn of events when it graciously opened the door for the mayor to run again. Didn't these folks have the slightest prescience that the Blooombucks would rain down in buckets for this unseemly third act? As it said at the time: "Although a majority of New Yorkers, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, oppose changing the term-limits rule, a majority of New Yorkers also strongly approve Mr. Bloomberg’s performance and, more to the point, say they would vote for him given the opportunity. They should be given that opportunity."
Perhaps the paper should have been more circumspect, or at least hedged their support for the extension on the mayor's willingness to abide by some rational limits on his spending. It's a little late in the day to scold the mayor when the paper has been one of his most devoted enablers.
The Times does remark, in passing, that Bloomberg believes in the ethical nature of his spending spree, because he is demonstrating that he isn't beholden to, OMG, the dreaded special interests: "Mr. Bloomberg argues that by spending his own money, he is beholden to just one person — himself." This limited view, however, elides some even greater concerns-the manner in which unprecedented spending like this sucks any oxygen from right out of the room for any other countervailing political perspective.
The NY Daily News, reporting on the Bloomberg spending orgy, highlights this in the comments it elicits from the wily Wolfson: "Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said the mayor is trying to get his message across, not buy votes. "Absolutely not," Wolfson said. "We're engaging in a dialogue with voters. That's what any campaign does." Four years ago, Bloomberg spent $84,565,090 to win - dwarfing the $9,658,247 spent by his Democratic opponent, Fernando Ferrer. Wolfson, who at the time had never worked for a non-Democrat, wrote then in a New York Times op-ed article: "Such a lopsided ratio prevents voters from hearing both sides in an even-handed manner and distorts the terms of the debate."
Indeed. But perhaps Howard, just like our new Senator Gillibrand, has evolved; although in both these cases, mutation is a better word. He should, however, be honest enough to realize that dialogue means conversation between two or more persons; and when the airwaves are flooded with one point of view, the result is a stultifyingly effective monologue. Wolfson himself is the unwitting witness here: "Mr. Wolfson said. “This campaign has begun a conversation with New Yorkers about the economy and the mayor’s plan to create or save 400,000 jobs. As recent polling makes clear, voters are responding favorably when they learn about the mayor’s initiatives, and we are very pleased about that — but we are not taking anything for granted.”
Yes, the one sided multi-million dollar "conversation" is pushing the mayor's poll numbers up; but what about the fact that the term limits over turn was going to bring more competition? That is what Bloomberg said, with barely a smirk visible at the time: "“If anything, the public has more choice because there will be more candidates, at least one more in the mayor’s race,” he said the day after the City Council voted to rewrite the rule. As many feared, it did not turn out that way. Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity, the power of his incumbency and his willingness to spend $80 million of his own fortune to secure re-election have persuaded at least four mayoral hopefuls — two Democrats and two Republicans — to exit the race or sit it out."
So we are faced with an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of politics in NYC. The city's richest man-the incumbent to boot-has spent more money by May of an election year than anyone else in the city has ever spent on an entire campaign. And on top of that, his charitable giving has seeped into the interstices of New York's political bloodstream in ways that further erode the concept of free and open elections.
In the face of this usurpation of the democratic process, every editorial writer and columnist should be devoting their time to exposing all of the shortcomings of Mike Bloomberg's tenure-just so there can be a counter to the propagandistic spending outlay of the mayor. We don't need any wasted column space on how Mark Green's brother has found some arcane loophole to a finance system, especially one that exibits its inherent fallacy with every Mike Bloomberg "five borough" fraud that hits the airwaves.
A final point. If the NY Times endorses this mayor for a third term, it should cease writing editorials on New York City politics forever. It would be the only decent thing left for them to do.
And he's also putting his money to good use-with a smarmy, underhanded, below the radar, negative campaign against Anthony Weiner: "At the same time, his political operatives are busily sending out negative information, especially about Representative Anthony Weiner, even though Mr. Weiner is still not firmly in the race."
Leaving the campaign finance system in tatters: "The mayor is expected to saunter easily into a third term, but the negative track of his campaign belies his claims about taking the high road and running the positive race of an easy front-runner. Meanwhile, the money he is spending and expected to spend undermines the foundations of the city’s model campaign-financing system."
Yah think? So, perhaps the paper should have had a bit more awareness of this expected turn of events when it graciously opened the door for the mayor to run again. Didn't these folks have the slightest prescience that the Blooombucks would rain down in buckets for this unseemly third act? As it said at the time: "Although a majority of New Yorkers, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, oppose changing the term-limits rule, a majority of New Yorkers also strongly approve Mr. Bloomberg’s performance and, more to the point, say they would vote for him given the opportunity. They should be given that opportunity."
Perhaps the paper should have been more circumspect, or at least hedged their support for the extension on the mayor's willingness to abide by some rational limits on his spending. It's a little late in the day to scold the mayor when the paper has been one of his most devoted enablers.
The Times does remark, in passing, that Bloomberg believes in the ethical nature of his spending spree, because he is demonstrating that he isn't beholden to, OMG, the dreaded special interests: "Mr. Bloomberg argues that by spending his own money, he is beholden to just one person — himself." This limited view, however, elides some even greater concerns-the manner in which unprecedented spending like this sucks any oxygen from right out of the room for any other countervailing political perspective.
The NY Daily News, reporting on the Bloomberg spending orgy, highlights this in the comments it elicits from the wily Wolfson: "Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said the mayor is trying to get his message across, not buy votes. "Absolutely not," Wolfson said. "We're engaging in a dialogue with voters. That's what any campaign does." Four years ago, Bloomberg spent $84,565,090 to win - dwarfing the $9,658,247 spent by his Democratic opponent, Fernando Ferrer. Wolfson, who at the time had never worked for a non-Democrat, wrote then in a New York Times op-ed article: "Such a lopsided ratio prevents voters from hearing both sides in an even-handed manner and distorts the terms of the debate."
Indeed. But perhaps Howard, just like our new Senator Gillibrand, has evolved; although in both these cases, mutation is a better word. He should, however, be honest enough to realize that dialogue means conversation between two or more persons; and when the airwaves are flooded with one point of view, the result is a stultifyingly effective monologue. Wolfson himself is the unwitting witness here: "Mr. Wolfson said. “This campaign has begun a conversation with New Yorkers about the economy and the mayor’s plan to create or save 400,000 jobs. As recent polling makes clear, voters are responding favorably when they learn about the mayor’s initiatives, and we are very pleased about that — but we are not taking anything for granted.”
Yes, the one sided multi-million dollar "conversation" is pushing the mayor's poll numbers up; but what about the fact that the term limits over turn was going to bring more competition? That is what Bloomberg said, with barely a smirk visible at the time: "“If anything, the public has more choice because there will be more candidates, at least one more in the mayor’s race,” he said the day after the City Council voted to rewrite the rule. As many feared, it did not turn out that way. Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity, the power of his incumbency and his willingness to spend $80 million of his own fortune to secure re-election have persuaded at least four mayoral hopefuls — two Democrats and two Republicans — to exit the race or sit it out."
So we are faced with an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of politics in NYC. The city's richest man-the incumbent to boot-has spent more money by May of an election year than anyone else in the city has ever spent on an entire campaign. And on top of that, his charitable giving has seeped into the interstices of New York's political bloodstream in ways that further erode the concept of free and open elections.
In the face of this usurpation of the democratic process, every editorial writer and columnist should be devoting their time to exposing all of the shortcomings of Mike Bloomberg's tenure-just so there can be a counter to the propagandistic spending outlay of the mayor. We don't need any wasted column space on how Mark Green's brother has found some arcane loophole to a finance system, especially one that exibits its inherent fallacy with every Mike Bloomberg "five borough" fraud that hits the airwaves.
A final point. If the NY Times endorses this mayor for a third term, it should cease writing editorials on New York City politics forever. It would be the only decent thing left for them to do.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Enviromania
Just as the state is trying to figure out how to manage the mess it has made with the expansion of the bottle bill, along comes the Plague of Conservation Voters (thanks to Liz) to put its five cents in; apparently the group isn't happy with the proposed delay in the Kruger amendment: "One legislative proposal (S.4736A/A.8143) delays the expansion until October 1st, 2009. This delay is unacceptable, particularly since it would bypass the summer months when bottled water consumption is at its highest."
Yet, at the same time, the League states the following-without critical comment: "Lawmakers are examining whether to amend the law in response to concerns that businesses may not be able to comply with the new state-specific UPC labeling requirements in time for the June 1st start date."
Earth to League: the reason for the delay is precisely because the UPC requirement is not possible to comply with by June 1st-or at any time that would make it possible to not, "bypass the summer months when bottled water consumption is at its highest." Which is why these cats shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the legislative process-especially when business interests are at stake.
Yet, at the same time, the League states the following-without critical comment: "Lawmakers are examining whether to amend the law in response to concerns that businesses may not be able to comply with the new state-specific UPC labeling requirements in time for the June 1st start date."
Earth to League: the reason for the delay is precisely because the UPC requirement is not possible to comply with by June 1st-or at any time that would make it possible to not, "bypass the summer months when bottled water consumption is at its highest." Which is why these cats shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the legislative process-especially when business interests are at stake.
Water, Water, Everywhere
The price of water in the city is gonna go up again-a demonstration that the agency in charge of this utility, the Water Board (and the DEP which bears ultimate responsibility), is another venue where the vaunted managerial expertise of our billionaire mayor has been shown to be less than sterling. As Gotham Gazette reports: "Costs for that system are rising as revenue declines, so the price of water is likely about to go up once again. The Water Board will vote on a 14 percent rate hike on Friday. If approved -- as is all but certain -- the new rate will go into effect July 1. Together with past increases, the latest hike means the cost of water in the city will be 60 percent higher than it was four years ago. More increases are also expected."
And the mayor is feeling the heat for an incompetent gang that can't drink straight: "But elected officials and activists argue that the water rate hike isn't fair and that the Water Board, which sets those rates, is in need of reform. They say the board could spend its money more efficiently. Furthermore, its efforts at recouping bills from those who have not paid have been condemned as anti-consumer by some. The board itself is also lambasted as insular and too close to the mayor."
But it all goes back to the DEP, and the agency's need for overhaul. After all, it still is stymied in properly billing-let alone collecting-the city's water bills. So now, the city wants to criminalize home owners and businesses for this: "To further pursue cheats, the Water Board has proposed two regulations to accompany the rate hike. It would impose large fines on customers suspected of stealing or barring access to water meters. But these have not been received kindly in some corners. Hershel Weiss, president of the New York chapter of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers, called the proposals "two of the most anti-consumer documents ever written by the DEP." He says they will punish people with fees that could climb into the millions because the board suspects they are stealing. "There is no requirement for the DEP to prove that any theft is taking place."
But, as Lew Fidler says, all of this malfeasance and nonfeasance at the DEP-like so much else that goes on in the city that falls below high levels of efficiency-never reaches a level where Mike Bloomberg is seen as culpable. So it looks as if we may have four more years of smoke and mirrors-not to mention higher water bills for folks already suffering from the city's confiscatory tax rate.
And the mayor is feeling the heat for an incompetent gang that can't drink straight: "But elected officials and activists argue that the water rate hike isn't fair and that the Water Board, which sets those rates, is in need of reform. They say the board could spend its money more efficiently. Furthermore, its efforts at recouping bills from those who have not paid have been condemned as anti-consumer by some. The board itself is also lambasted as insular and too close to the mayor."
But it all goes back to the DEP, and the agency's need for overhaul. After all, it still is stymied in properly billing-let alone collecting-the city's water bills. So now, the city wants to criminalize home owners and businesses for this: "To further pursue cheats, the Water Board has proposed two regulations to accompany the rate hike. It would impose large fines on customers suspected of stealing or barring access to water meters. But these have not been received kindly in some corners. Hershel Weiss, president of the New York chapter of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers, called the proposals "two of the most anti-consumer documents ever written by the DEP." He says they will punish people with fees that could climb into the millions because the board suspects they are stealing. "There is no requirement for the DEP to prove that any theft is taking place."
But, as Lew Fidler says, all of this malfeasance and nonfeasance at the DEP-like so much else that goes on in the city that falls below high levels of efficiency-never reaches a level where Mike Bloomberg is seen as culpable. So it looks as if we may have four more years of smoke and mirrors-not to mention higher water bills for folks already suffering from the city's confiscatory tax rate.
Hello Dr. Frieden, You Must Be Going
Dr. Tom Frieden is leaving to become the Obama administration's new head of the CDC and, as Shakespeare once said about an executed subject in Macbeth: "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it." For the past seven or so years the good doctor has elevated Nanny Statism to a new level-and at the same time has reduced New Yorkers to childlike status in his pursuit of dubious health goals.
His last foray in ordering us to live healthier lives was the ill-fated green carts initiative-a move that would have placed-before we got involved-1500 fruit and veggie carts in so-called underserved neighborhoods. The experiment was needed, said Frieden, because these folks weren't eating well because they lacked access. So what happened?
As the NY Daily News reported last August, the concept "wilted" when demand for the produce never materialized (as we had predicted)-and only eight carts made it to the street: "Special veggie vendors who city officials hope will help tackle the growing obesity problem have quietly hit the streets. But all is not rosy with the so-called Green Carts. One of the eight approved vendors - who have the right to sell fruits and vegetables on the street in poor neighborhoods with specially designed carts - told the Daily News business is the pits."
Just another bad premise about how to get New Yorkers healthier-similar to the calorie posting concept that forced some fast food restaurants, with absolutely no scientific data to recommend the experiment, to post calorie counts so that we could all know what we are consuming; and we're still awaiting the vaunted study of this expensive and intrusive experiment. In all of this, Frieden has exhibited the most hostile attitude to local small business.
As he said at the time of the calorie posting controversy: "In a statement, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said, “McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts and the other big chains that haven’t yet listed calories as required by the Health Code have run out of stalling tactics. Some chains have worked hard to deny customers information they need to make healthy food choices — but this decision starts to clear the way for people to have ready access to calorie information when they order their food.”
In all of these issues, Frieden came across as an ill-informed scold-with little or no understanding of how local business worked; or of the importance of the health of these establishments to the city's economy. He eschewed education as too slow and ineffective, placing a premium on regulatory edicts that have contributed to the decline in the health of the local economy under this mayor.
Frieden's departure will be a breathe of fresh air for the city's reeling business community; and for New Yorkers who have been treated like children by Mother Tom. Let him now go forth and chase errant microbes. He will not be missed.
His last foray in ordering us to live healthier lives was the ill-fated green carts initiative-a move that would have placed-before we got involved-1500 fruit and veggie carts in so-called underserved neighborhoods. The experiment was needed, said Frieden, because these folks weren't eating well because they lacked access. So what happened?
As the NY Daily News reported last August, the concept "wilted" when demand for the produce never materialized (as we had predicted)-and only eight carts made it to the street: "Special veggie vendors who city officials hope will help tackle the growing obesity problem have quietly hit the streets. But all is not rosy with the so-called Green Carts. One of the eight approved vendors - who have the right to sell fruits and vegetables on the street in poor neighborhoods with specially designed carts - told the Daily News business is the pits."
Just another bad premise about how to get New Yorkers healthier-similar to the calorie posting concept that forced some fast food restaurants, with absolutely no scientific data to recommend the experiment, to post calorie counts so that we could all know what we are consuming; and we're still awaiting the vaunted study of this expensive and intrusive experiment. In all of this, Frieden has exhibited the most hostile attitude to local small business.
As he said at the time of the calorie posting controversy: "In a statement, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said, “McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts and the other big chains that haven’t yet listed calories as required by the Health Code have run out of stalling tactics. Some chains have worked hard to deny customers information they need to make healthy food choices — but this decision starts to clear the way for people to have ready access to calorie information when they order their food.”
In all of these issues, Frieden came across as an ill-informed scold-with little or no understanding of how local business worked; or of the importance of the health of these establishments to the city's economy. He eschewed education as too slow and ineffective, placing a premium on regulatory edicts that have contributed to the decline in the health of the local economy under this mayor.
Frieden's departure will be a breathe of fresh air for the city's reeling business community; and for New Yorkers who have been treated like children by Mother Tom. Let him now go forth and chase errant microbes. He will not be missed.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Money Not For Nothing
The latest polls on the way to the Bloomberg coronation reveal the obvious-money counts in politics; and when you're the richest man in New York, it counts a lot: "Mayor Bloomberg's approval rating, meanwhile, has rebounded to 59% in the latest Marist Poll - up from his 52% rating in February, which was his lowest since June 2005. Poll director Lee Miringoff attributed Bloomberg's rebound to a number of factors, ranging from those polled feeling more upbeat about the economy to Bloomberg spending several millions of dollars in recent weeks on a blizzard of television and other campaign advertising."
Interestingly, Bloomberg still barely scratches passed 50% even with all of his no response advertising; not to mention the fact that a good portion of the local press is actively rooting him on with what's known in the business as free media. The battle over the schools is a case in point.
If you believe what the editorialists at the Daily News and the NY Post have to say on the subject-which probably puts you in the market as a potential bridge buyer-than you would have to feel that the Bloomberg educational regime is nothing short of the "New York Miracle." An Elmer Gantry like moment when the blind woman rises from her knees yelling, "I can see!"
So we get the following-and on such a repetitive basis that you'd think the reporters were being paid by the word out of the coffers of the mayor's re-election campaign: "MIKE'S GRADE GETS A BOOST." In reality, however, the poll on mayoral control isn't all that supportive of the mayor: "The Marist College poll reported that 51 percent of 578 voters questioned approve of the mayor's performance, compared to 41 percent who don't. That's a dramatic swing from February, when 52 percent said he was doing a poor job in managing the schools, while 40 percent backed Bloomberg. But when voters were asked if Bloomberg should continue to run the system or whether that responsibility should be transferred to a citywide panel, 60 percent opted for the panel. "It's a mixed message," pollster Lee Miringoff said of the seemingly contradictory results."
But the Post has a bad habit of trumpeting the good news nugget in its headlines and ledes, while burying the more negative material down in the body of the stories it writes on this key issue; and then there's the editorials, that have been nothing short of both laudatory of the mayor, as well as derisive of his critics: "The Campaign for Better Schools, a teachers-union front that's leading the push to kill mayoral control of public education in New York City, has rolled out its own school-governance scheme. It's a sad joke...The lawmakers would water down the mayor's control -- giving the governor, the Assembly speaker and the Senate majority leader each an appointee on the 17-member panel. Terrific: Albany's infamous "three men in a room" would be making education policy for city kids -- and answering to no one."
Which is precisely what the Marist Poll reveals-the folks don't trust the One Man Rule, and want a system of checks and balances; something that the Post sees as simply a boost for the union laggards: "But the entire point of mayoral control, and the reason it has been so effective, is that voters finally have someone to hold accountable for school performance. Ending that system serves union purposes -- when the big cat's away, the teacher-mice tend to do anything but teach -- but it's not so hot for the kids."
But then the Post, and the Daily News as well, see the system gains through Bloomberg colored glasses: "Speaking of whom, as The Post's Carl Campanile reported yesterday, the districts of city-based senators on the key Education Committee have seen some of the more impressive classroom gains under mayoral control. That bunch includes the above-mentioned Huntley, who's seen her district's fourth-graders' pass rate on state reading and math tests shoot up 17 and 31 percent, respectively, since 2002 -- and its high-school graduation rate rise by fully 25 percent. Sens. Joseph Addabbo, Toby Ann Stavisky and Frank Padavan of Queens; Pedro Espada of The Bronx, and Velmanette Montgomery and Daniel Squadron of Brooklyn have all seen nearly as impressive academic gains in their districts."
All of which ignores-and the Post adds in the tenuous rise in graduation rates here-the fact that these figures mirror the kind of evaluation that the stockbrokers were giving to Enron, right before the company collapsed. They're based on the absolutely flawed-scandalous we would say- state tests. Andy Wolf's previous comments bear repeating here.
"Wolf, writing in the Public Advocate Corner opines: "By the statistics, mayoral control has failed, as Diane Ravitch has previously pointed out in this space. Test results on the most reliable measures are flat, despite an unprecedented influx of funds – a 79% increase in the education budget in just six years." But this failure extends beyond the numbers themselves.As Wolf demonstrates: "But mayoral control has failed in a more profound way. Desperate to show “progress,” a laundry list of structural reforms has been implemented by the gang at the Tweed Courthouse. Most of these have to do with providing incentives to principals, teachers and students. If you want to believe that teachers will only do a good job if we give them the chance to earn an extra $3,000 bonus for higher test scores, than I have a bridge to sell you."
So something funny has happened on the way to the Bloomberg coronation. An third wave of unprecedented spending is underway, accompanied by an editorial and media echo chamber that results-in the absent of any countervailing information-an increase in the mayor's poll numbers. The subornation of the democratic process is well on its way.
Interestingly, Bloomberg still barely scratches passed 50% even with all of his no response advertising; not to mention the fact that a good portion of the local press is actively rooting him on with what's known in the business as free media. The battle over the schools is a case in point.
If you believe what the editorialists at the Daily News and the NY Post have to say on the subject-which probably puts you in the market as a potential bridge buyer-than you would have to feel that the Bloomberg educational regime is nothing short of the "New York Miracle." An Elmer Gantry like moment when the blind woman rises from her knees yelling, "I can see!"
So we get the following-and on such a repetitive basis that you'd think the reporters were being paid by the word out of the coffers of the mayor's re-election campaign: "MIKE'S GRADE GETS A BOOST." In reality, however, the poll on mayoral control isn't all that supportive of the mayor: "The Marist College poll reported that 51 percent of 578 voters questioned approve of the mayor's performance, compared to 41 percent who don't. That's a dramatic swing from February, when 52 percent said he was doing a poor job in managing the schools, while 40 percent backed Bloomberg. But when voters were asked if Bloomberg should continue to run the system or whether that responsibility should be transferred to a citywide panel, 60 percent opted for the panel. "It's a mixed message," pollster Lee Miringoff said of the seemingly contradictory results."
But the Post has a bad habit of trumpeting the good news nugget in its headlines and ledes, while burying the more negative material down in the body of the stories it writes on this key issue; and then there's the editorials, that have been nothing short of both laudatory of the mayor, as well as derisive of his critics: "The Campaign for Better Schools, a teachers-union front that's leading the push to kill mayoral control of public education in New York City, has rolled out its own school-governance scheme. It's a sad joke...The lawmakers would water down the mayor's control -- giving the governor, the Assembly speaker and the Senate majority leader each an appointee on the 17-member panel. Terrific: Albany's infamous "three men in a room" would be making education policy for city kids -- and answering to no one."
Which is precisely what the Marist Poll reveals-the folks don't trust the One Man Rule, and want a system of checks and balances; something that the Post sees as simply a boost for the union laggards: "But the entire point of mayoral control, and the reason it has been so effective, is that voters finally have someone to hold accountable for school performance. Ending that system serves union purposes -- when the big cat's away, the teacher-mice tend to do anything but teach -- but it's not so hot for the kids."
But then the Post, and the Daily News as well, see the system gains through Bloomberg colored glasses: "Speaking of whom, as The Post's Carl Campanile reported yesterday, the districts of city-based senators on the key Education Committee have seen some of the more impressive classroom gains under mayoral control. That bunch includes the above-mentioned Huntley, who's seen her district's fourth-graders' pass rate on state reading and math tests shoot up 17 and 31 percent, respectively, since 2002 -- and its high-school graduation rate rise by fully 25 percent. Sens. Joseph Addabbo, Toby Ann Stavisky and Frank Padavan of Queens; Pedro Espada of The Bronx, and Velmanette Montgomery and Daniel Squadron of Brooklyn have all seen nearly as impressive academic gains in their districts."
All of which ignores-and the Post adds in the tenuous rise in graduation rates here-the fact that these figures mirror the kind of evaluation that the stockbrokers were giving to Enron, right before the company collapsed. They're based on the absolutely flawed-scandalous we would say- state tests. Andy Wolf's previous comments bear repeating here.
"Wolf, writing in the Public Advocate Corner opines: "By the statistics, mayoral control has failed, as Diane Ravitch has previously pointed out in this space. Test results on the most reliable measures are flat, despite an unprecedented influx of funds – a 79% increase in the education budget in just six years." But this failure extends beyond the numbers themselves.As Wolf demonstrates: "But mayoral control has failed in a more profound way. Desperate to show “progress,” a laundry list of structural reforms has been implemented by the gang at the Tweed Courthouse. Most of these have to do with providing incentives to principals, teachers and students. If you want to believe that teachers will only do a good job if we give them the chance to earn an extra $3,000 bonus for higher test scores, than I have a bridge to sell you."
So something funny has happened on the way to the Bloomberg coronation. An third wave of unprecedented spending is underway, accompanied by an editorial and media echo chamber that results-in the absent of any countervailing information-an increase in the mayor's poll numbers. The subornation of the democratic process is well on its way.
Watered Down Résumé
The case that Mike Bloomberg made to over turn term limits rested, in part, on his vaunted record of managerial expertise-and over all competence. Clearly, however, the mayor's stewardship of the city Department of Environmental Protection is that one major exception to his unblemished résumé of accomplishment.
As the Riverdale Press points out (thanks to Liz): "As he campaigns for a third term as mayor, Michael Bloomberg portrays himself as a man above politics and as a savvy businessman who can get us through tough times by his careful management of our dollars. Residents of the Northwest Bronx know better - or should. They have had years of bad news about the huge project that Mr. Bloomberg personally arranged to have dumped in their backyard - the water filtration plant under construction in Van Cortlandt Park."
The filtration plant is emblematic of the DEP's overall malfeasance-and city residents have the water bills to prove it: "Let's turn to the other side of the ledger, to Mike Bloomberg, the CEO of NYC, Inc. Let's observe his Department of Environmental Protection in action. Seldom has there been more comprehensively- documented proof that a city agency is managed by a gang that can't add straight or that its projections and promises are as evanescent as a spring shower that no sooner sprinkles the ground than it evaporates into thin air."
And the Press reminds us that the argument made for the plant's construction-in a park, for God's sake-was gonna lower water rates: "The only question that remains to be answered about the filtration plant is whether the decision-makers were knaves or fools: did they deliberately lie about the cost and consequences of building the plant in the park, or were they too dumb to figure out where to put the decimal points when they estimated the price?"
All of which underscores our argument-where is Bill Thompson?-that the mayor's claims of necessity for returning him for an illegal third term are, charitably, hyperbolic-and the Riverdale Press gets the last word on this multi-million dollar charade: "Is the mayor who boasts of his businesslike approach accountable for the performance of his agencies? Or is the CEO of NYC, Inc. like those other CEOs, of banks and insurance companies and automobile manufacturers, we have come to know recently, reaping the bonus of re-election for presiding over a failed enterprise?"
As the Riverdale Press points out (thanks to Liz): "As he campaigns for a third term as mayor, Michael Bloomberg portrays himself as a man above politics and as a savvy businessman who can get us through tough times by his careful management of our dollars. Residents of the Northwest Bronx know better - or should. They have had years of bad news about the huge project that Mr. Bloomberg personally arranged to have dumped in their backyard - the water filtration plant under construction in Van Cortlandt Park."
The filtration plant is emblematic of the DEP's overall malfeasance-and city residents have the water bills to prove it: "Let's turn to the other side of the ledger, to Mike Bloomberg, the CEO of NYC, Inc. Let's observe his Department of Environmental Protection in action. Seldom has there been more comprehensively- documented proof that a city agency is managed by a gang that can't add straight or that its projections and promises are as evanescent as a spring shower that no sooner sprinkles the ground than it evaporates into thin air."
And the Press reminds us that the argument made for the plant's construction-in a park, for God's sake-was gonna lower water rates: "The only question that remains to be answered about the filtration plant is whether the decision-makers were knaves or fools: did they deliberately lie about the cost and consequences of building the plant in the park, or were they too dumb to figure out where to put the decimal points when they estimated the price?"
All of which underscores our argument-where is Bill Thompson?-that the mayor's claims of necessity for returning him for an illegal third term are, charitably, hyperbolic-and the Riverdale Press gets the last word on this multi-million dollar charade: "Is the mayor who boasts of his businesslike approach accountable for the performance of his agencies? Or is the CEO of NYC, Inc. like those other CEOs, of banks and insurance companies and automobile manufacturers, we have come to know recently, reaping the bonus of re-election for presiding over a failed enterprise?"
Five Borough Fraud
Has anyone else noticed that Mike Bloomberg's "Five Borough Economic Plan" is a retread? That it is a facsimile of the one that he used in the 2005 mayoral run over Freddy Ferrer? And, we ask, just how well did that one work to generate jobs in the city?
Here's what the NY Times wrote four years ago about Bloomberg's first foray into propaganda: "THE SCRIPT -- A male announcer says: ''Through a recession and tough times, Mike Bloomberg's five-borough economic plan has created 62,000 jobs, and there's more to come. Time magazine says Bloomberg has 'spurred a wave of economic development, especially in the four boroughs so often ignored.''' Mr. Bloomberg says: ''To build a business, you have to make smart investments. As mayor, that's what I'm doing for New York City: building infrastructure to bring jobs to long-neglected neighborhoods. A borough-by-borough plan that means jobs, that's our future.''
So, what has happened since. Over reliant on Wall Street, and taxing and regulating small business to ruination, the mayor's stewardship of the local economy has been a disaster-even before the national meltdown made a bad situation worse. And as far as his "smart investments" go, Blomberg has built big but invested unwisely-ignoring the local economies in favor of the proliferation of big box stores.
And we see nothing about the city's record level foreclosures and bankruptcies-and certainly nothing on one of the major variables behind this harmful phenomenon-the mayor's own policies, combined with his neglect of the crisis in small business. Instead we get trotted out the mayor's small business buffoon-Rob Walsh-to tell everyone about another Business Improvement District; as if a policy of doubly taxing local retailers is a substitute for lower taxes and less regulations.
So what we need now is for the local press to examine the crisis in the local economy, and look at the ways in which Mike Bloomberg-either through the sin of omission, or one of commission-is culpable for the mess he now claims he has become indispensable to return to office in order to clean up. But solving the local economic downturn requires an honest appraisal of some of its underlying causes; Bloomberg, however, isn't capable of understanding underlying, he's doing too much up front prevarication to make an honest effort.
Here's what the NY Times wrote four years ago about Bloomberg's first foray into propaganda: "THE SCRIPT -- A male announcer says: ''Through a recession and tough times, Mike Bloomberg's five-borough economic plan has created 62,000 jobs, and there's more to come. Time magazine says Bloomberg has 'spurred a wave of economic development, especially in the four boroughs so often ignored.''' Mr. Bloomberg says: ''To build a business, you have to make smart investments. As mayor, that's what I'm doing for New York City: building infrastructure to bring jobs to long-neglected neighborhoods. A borough-by-borough plan that means jobs, that's our future.''
So, what has happened since. Over reliant on Wall Street, and taxing and regulating small business to ruination, the mayor's stewardship of the local economy has been a disaster-even before the national meltdown made a bad situation worse. And as far as his "smart investments" go, Blomberg has built big but invested unwisely-ignoring the local economies in favor of the proliferation of big box stores.
And we see nothing about the city's record level foreclosures and bankruptcies-and certainly nothing on one of the major variables behind this harmful phenomenon-the mayor's own policies, combined with his neglect of the crisis in small business. Instead we get trotted out the mayor's small business buffoon-Rob Walsh-to tell everyone about another Business Improvement District; as if a policy of doubly taxing local retailers is a substitute for lower taxes and less regulations.
So what we need now is for the local press to examine the crisis in the local economy, and look at the ways in which Mike Bloomberg-either through the sin of omission, or one of commission-is culpable for the mess he now claims he has become indispensable to return to office in order to clean up. But solving the local economic downturn requires an honest appraisal of some of its underlying causes; Bloomberg, however, isn't capable of understanding underlying, he's doing too much up front prevarication to make an honest effort.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Prime Choice, or Recalled Beef?
NYC is really no longer anything but a democracy in name only-not when the city's richest man is literally buying up support (and buying off opposition) with record monetary outlays; those that can be seen as well as those that fly below the radar. Which is why, as the NY Daily News' Michael Goodwin explains, it looks as if Mike Bloomberg is headed for a coronation: "These days, realists are everywhere in New York City. The sense that Bloomberg is headed to an inevitable victory in November is gaining so much steam that in certain quarters, the election is shaping up as a coronation. Is it over? Should, as a friend half-seriously suggested, the city just call the whole thing off and save the money?"
Now this isn't what we were lead to expect when Mayor Mike usurped the popular will in the term limits override. Remember when he told us that this would lead to more choice? No one really believed him then, and certainly there are no true believers left on this score. What Mike the Narcissist meant was that his presence was the only choice New Yorkers really needed.
Which is why we are left with a out of control mayoral election spending excess that is already-even when the opposition is either absent or in quiet retreat-setting new records. As Liz Benjamin points out: "Here's Mayor Bloomberg's latest TV ad, which touts his five-borough economic plan, and features the mayor saying that while he can't fix the national or worldwide economies (no matter how much he might wish he could) he can "take care of the New Yorkers who are here now."
What chutzpah! Here's a guy, whose tax, spend and regulate policies have killed the city's Main Streets, telling New Yorkers that he's Mr. Fix It. As one liberal critic of the mayor underscores: "What we have now is New York's richest citizen, flooding our TV stations with ads that drown out the voice of the opposition, and living in a tragic disconnect from the average citizen of the city. Here is a man with the warmth of a snapping turtle and the charm of an impatient bank teller waiting for his lunch break, offering to work for a dollar a year for the pleasure of holding on to power. And power is the ultimate pleasure for the man who has everything."
But what about his touted expertise? "A frightened population, losing jobs, and seeing so many store windows shuttered, while prices rise as incomes fall, may turn to this Messiah to save them. I can see very little about this man of great wealth that understands the lives of ordinary citizens -- actually extraordinary citizens for having managed to live in New York during the past ten years of unrestricted growth. He may ride the subway from time to time, but it's a tourist ride, not a necessary way to get to a necessary job."
How true, but the liberal critic misses just how much the policies that he agrees with the mayor on are the very ones that have made the city one of the worst places to do business in the entire country. Yes he has done too much big building; but his edifice complex has been concomitant with a disdain for all of the small businesses that really bring a rich diversity and economic well being to New York.
Still, left and right agree that a coronation is on the horizon; and that the prospect is a knife in the back to real democracy: "I keep hoping that the Democrats will get behind a human scale candidate and put up a decent fight against this Mayor -- but I don't see one in sight. The Bloomberg landslide that seems likely to come is one that may well bury the greatest city we have. He brings the smarts of an accountant rather than the wisdom of a philosopher-king to his office -- and right now we need the philosopher-kings to get us through the hard times. But money not only talks, it shouts, and it can be shaped into a club to beat the opposition into submission. The silence in the Democratic field is deafening as the Bloomberg avalanche rolls on."
All of which makes it incumbent for the local press to ratchet up its vigilance. So what is it doing? Putting the local pols under a microscope for various misdeeds. So while Albany may be the "toxic waste dump" that the News labels it, the city is becoming a royal fiefdom and the manner of the usurpation is left unexamined by the pol-hating editorialists.
Which once again reminds us of our favorite aphorism: “The law in all its majesty punishes the thief for stealing the goose from off of the Commons, but lets the greater felon loose who steals
the Commons from the goose.”
Now this isn't what we were lead to expect when Mayor Mike usurped the popular will in the term limits override. Remember when he told us that this would lead to more choice? No one really believed him then, and certainly there are no true believers left on this score. What Mike the Narcissist meant was that his presence was the only choice New Yorkers really needed.
Which is why we are left with a out of control mayoral election spending excess that is already-even when the opposition is either absent or in quiet retreat-setting new records. As Liz Benjamin points out: "Here's Mayor Bloomberg's latest TV ad, which touts his five-borough economic plan, and features the mayor saying that while he can't fix the national or worldwide economies (no matter how much he might wish he could) he can "take care of the New Yorkers who are here now."
What chutzpah! Here's a guy, whose tax, spend and regulate policies have killed the city's Main Streets, telling New Yorkers that he's Mr. Fix It. As one liberal critic of the mayor underscores: "What we have now is New York's richest citizen, flooding our TV stations with ads that drown out the voice of the opposition, and living in a tragic disconnect from the average citizen of the city. Here is a man with the warmth of a snapping turtle and the charm of an impatient bank teller waiting for his lunch break, offering to work for a dollar a year for the pleasure of holding on to power. And power is the ultimate pleasure for the man who has everything."
But what about his touted expertise? "A frightened population, losing jobs, and seeing so many store windows shuttered, while prices rise as incomes fall, may turn to this Messiah to save them. I can see very little about this man of great wealth that understands the lives of ordinary citizens -- actually extraordinary citizens for having managed to live in New York during the past ten years of unrestricted growth. He may ride the subway from time to time, but it's a tourist ride, not a necessary way to get to a necessary job."
How true, but the liberal critic misses just how much the policies that he agrees with the mayor on are the very ones that have made the city one of the worst places to do business in the entire country. Yes he has done too much big building; but his edifice complex has been concomitant with a disdain for all of the small businesses that really bring a rich diversity and economic well being to New York.
Still, left and right agree that a coronation is on the horizon; and that the prospect is a knife in the back to real democracy: "I keep hoping that the Democrats will get behind a human scale candidate and put up a decent fight against this Mayor -- but I don't see one in sight. The Bloomberg landslide that seems likely to come is one that may well bury the greatest city we have. He brings the smarts of an accountant rather than the wisdom of a philosopher-king to his office -- and right now we need the philosopher-kings to get us through the hard times. But money not only talks, it shouts, and it can be shaped into a club to beat the opposition into submission. The silence in the Democratic field is deafening as the Bloomberg avalanche rolls on."
All of which makes it incumbent for the local press to ratchet up its vigilance. So what is it doing? Putting the local pols under a microscope for various misdeeds. So while Albany may be the "toxic waste dump" that the News labels it, the city is becoming a royal fiefdom and the manner of the usurpation is left unexamined by the pol-hating editorialists.
Which once again reminds us of our favorite aphorism: “The law in all its majesty punishes the thief for stealing the goose from off of the Commons, but lets the greater felon loose who steals
the Commons from the goose.”
Nestlé Threatens to Sue New York
The controversy over the implementation of the expansion of the state's bottle law was complicated this week as the Nestlé company circulated a draft complaint that outlined the details of its planned legal challenge of the expansion of deposits to water. The demand that all deposit containers have a "NY" only label and UPC code is the heart of the threatened lawsuit.
The complaint, drafted by Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, states flat ot that the requirement for this type of labeling is a direct violation of the constitution's Commerce Clause: "The most obvious constitutional defect with the amended Bottle Bill is its flatly unconstitutional regulation of commerce occurring in other states. It is well settled that the "dormant" Commerce Clause "precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside the State's borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State." Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989).
How does the amended bill do this? "The direct-indeed intended, intended-effect of this New York-exclusive labeling provision is to control commerce occurring wholly in other states by prohibiting the sales in those states of a product that otherwise lawfully could be sold there."
The threatened legal action goes on to question other aspects of the new bottle law-particularly the inclusion of plain water, but not, "water to which a sugar has been added." But the challenge is both real as well as credible; and yesterday the governor appeared to recognize this as his office began circulating new amendments-one of which is the elimination of this restrictive labeling clause.
This is precisely the crux of the Kruger introduced senate bill that will be moved next week in Albany (Destito is carrying the bill in the Assembly). Still quick action needs to be taken, and next week is the deadline if something is to be done before the June 1st deadline; and that implementation date is also moved in the Kruger bill-to October of this year.
However, the governor has also proposed a two level handling fee change that would give smaller stores-under 10,000 sq. ft.-a 3 and a half cent fee; while reducing the fee to larger stores to only two cents. This measure is designed to reduce costs for bottlers and beer wholesalers who are going to be losing their unredeemed deposits. It's hard to see where the support for this is going to be coming from in the full legislature.
What we predict, is that the proposed Kruger-initiated changes will be enacted so that the state can avoid the Nestlé legal action; which doesn't preclude additional changes before the new October inception date arrives. All in all, a mess has been created that needs to be promptly cleaned up in order to avoid chaos.
The complaint, drafted by Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, states flat ot that the requirement for this type of labeling is a direct violation of the constitution's Commerce Clause: "The most obvious constitutional defect with the amended Bottle Bill is its flatly unconstitutional regulation of commerce occurring in other states. It is well settled that the "dormant" Commerce Clause "precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside the State's borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State." Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989).
How does the amended bill do this? "The direct-indeed intended, intended-effect of this New York-exclusive labeling provision is to control commerce occurring wholly in other states by prohibiting the sales in those states of a product that otherwise lawfully could be sold there."
The threatened legal action goes on to question other aspects of the new bottle law-particularly the inclusion of plain water, but not, "water to which a sugar has been added." But the challenge is both real as well as credible; and yesterday the governor appeared to recognize this as his office began circulating new amendments-one of which is the elimination of this restrictive labeling clause.
This is precisely the crux of the Kruger introduced senate bill that will be moved next week in Albany (Destito is carrying the bill in the Assembly). Still quick action needs to be taken, and next week is the deadline if something is to be done before the June 1st deadline; and that implementation date is also moved in the Kruger bill-to October of this year.
However, the governor has also proposed a two level handling fee change that would give smaller stores-under 10,000 sq. ft.-a 3 and a half cent fee; while reducing the fee to larger stores to only two cents. This measure is designed to reduce costs for bottlers and beer wholesalers who are going to be losing their unredeemed deposits. It's hard to see where the support for this is going to be coming from in the full legislature.
What we predict, is that the proposed Kruger-initiated changes will be enacted so that the state can avoid the Nestlé legal action; which doesn't preclude additional changes before the new October inception date arrives. All in all, a mess has been created that needs to be promptly cleaned up in order to avoid chaos.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Guttersniping
There's nothing wrong with running a hard hitting, even below the belt hitting, campaign in politics. It's often through this kind of forceful advocacy that the public gets to really understand the personalities and the issues in every election cycle. Drama and accusational confrontation grabs the attention and forces contenders to defend themselves-and to counterattack, thereby exposing weaknesses (and policies) that might never come to the surface.
And then there's the Bloomberg campaign; flush with unlimited cash and the ability to dig up unlimited amounts of innuendo, it can function as a stealth attack machine-casting aspersions without having the candidate anywhere near the dirty disclosures. Which is exactly what it has done in its effort to intimidate Congressman Weiner.
As the NY Times underscores this morning: "Like clockwork, the calls from reporters arrive around 4 p.m., sending Representative Anthony D. Weiner’s staff members scurrying to defend their boss. Did Mr. Weiner solicit campaign contributions from foreign fashion models, asked one reporter. Was his fight to save a hospital a political favor for a donor, asked another.“It is just every single day,” Mr. Weiner said. “It’s surreal.”But the last straw, he said, was an article in The New York Post claiming that he had repeatedly skipped votes in Congress to play hockey in New York — a claim that his staff denied."
So what we have here is the worst example of negative campaigning; one that postures-with the mayor literally and figuratively above the fray (on top of buildings, no less) with tens of millions of dollars of ads that flood the airwaves with a rose colored view of Mike Bloomberg's stewardship of the city, while at the same time digging in the dirt to intimidate Weiner into perhaps refraining from running at all.
This, to us, makes the mayor the ultimate guttersnipe-someone who allows his campaign to get as nasty and as dirty as possible, while the candidate himself pretends that he's all about the city's best interests-and is above partisan political fighting. What this is, however, is simply gross -hypocrisy-with the NY Post acting as unindicted co-conspirator: "Mr. Weiner said that despite backing away from plans to run for mayor this year, he remains the target of a well-orchestrated smear campaign that can be traced to the re-election bid of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. The mayor, he said, is running “the most consistently and relentlessly negative campaign that I and many people I know have seen.” Mr. Weiner characterized the research behind critical news articles about him as “daily Dumpster diving.”
So by all means, let's have a brass knuckles style negative campaign; but one where the candidate who has purchased as much support as is humanly possible, comes right out into the arena to hit his opponent with whatever accusation that he feels the public deserves to know about his opponent. Not a campaign where some little hired trollop gets to talk trash while her billionaire political companion smiles somewhere above the fray: "Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the Bloomberg campaign, would not address Mr. Weiner’s claim that the campaign was behind the negative press. “This is an argument between Anthony Weiner and the New York press corps,” she said. “If he chooses to play hockey instead of doing his job in Washington, if he chooses to accept questionable campaign contributions, if he chooses to put press conferences ahead of passing legislation, then it’s no one’s fault but his own when reporters write about those choices.”
Dishonest to the very end! And the Post, which continues to flack for the Bloomberg control of the schools, is losing its reason for existence as an independent voice, there to inform the public and not take sides on behalf of someone with the kind of money Bloomberg has to misinform the folks all on his own. The shilling for Bloomberg in this kind of environment of monetary disparity is a disgrace. It's bad enough that the mayor is doing this; but there's no excuse for the press aiding and abetting him-it's anti-democratic piling on that makes a total mockery of an open electoral process.
And then there's the Bloomberg campaign; flush with unlimited cash and the ability to dig up unlimited amounts of innuendo, it can function as a stealth attack machine-casting aspersions without having the candidate anywhere near the dirty disclosures. Which is exactly what it has done in its effort to intimidate Congressman Weiner.
As the NY Times underscores this morning: "Like clockwork, the calls from reporters arrive around 4 p.m., sending Representative Anthony D. Weiner’s staff members scurrying to defend their boss. Did Mr. Weiner solicit campaign contributions from foreign fashion models, asked one reporter. Was his fight to save a hospital a political favor for a donor, asked another.“It is just every single day,” Mr. Weiner said. “It’s surreal.”But the last straw, he said, was an article in The New York Post claiming that he had repeatedly skipped votes in Congress to play hockey in New York — a claim that his staff denied."
So what we have here is the worst example of negative campaigning; one that postures-with the mayor literally and figuratively above the fray (on top of buildings, no less) with tens of millions of dollars of ads that flood the airwaves with a rose colored view of Mike Bloomberg's stewardship of the city, while at the same time digging in the dirt to intimidate Weiner into perhaps refraining from running at all.
This, to us, makes the mayor the ultimate guttersnipe-someone who allows his campaign to get as nasty and as dirty as possible, while the candidate himself pretends that he's all about the city's best interests-and is above partisan political fighting. What this is, however, is simply gross -hypocrisy-with the NY Post acting as unindicted co-conspirator: "Mr. Weiner said that despite backing away from plans to run for mayor this year, he remains the target of a well-orchestrated smear campaign that can be traced to the re-election bid of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. The mayor, he said, is running “the most consistently and relentlessly negative campaign that I and many people I know have seen.” Mr. Weiner characterized the research behind critical news articles about him as “daily Dumpster diving.”
So by all means, let's have a brass knuckles style negative campaign; but one where the candidate who has purchased as much support as is humanly possible, comes right out into the arena to hit his opponent with whatever accusation that he feels the public deserves to know about his opponent. Not a campaign where some little hired trollop gets to talk trash while her billionaire political companion smiles somewhere above the fray: "Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the Bloomberg campaign, would not address Mr. Weiner’s claim that the campaign was behind the negative press. “This is an argument between Anthony Weiner and the New York press corps,” she said. “If he chooses to play hockey instead of doing his job in Washington, if he chooses to accept questionable campaign contributions, if he chooses to put press conferences ahead of passing legislation, then it’s no one’s fault but his own when reporters write about those choices.”
Dishonest to the very end! And the Post, which continues to flack for the Bloomberg control of the schools, is losing its reason for existence as an independent voice, there to inform the public and not take sides on behalf of someone with the kind of money Bloomberg has to misinform the folks all on his own. The shilling for Bloomberg in this kind of environment of monetary disparity is a disgrace. It's bad enough that the mayor is doing this; but there's no excuse for the press aiding and abetting him-it's anti-democratic piling on that makes a total mockery of an open electoral process.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Free In Last
Steve Malanga spotlights the dubious distinction earned by New York State-dead last in a "freedom" study conducted by George Mason University: "A new study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Freedom in the 50 States, is the most comprehensive effort to date to rank the states on how their public policies influence “individual freedom in the economic, social and personal spheres.” It includes dozens of variables, from social and personal freedoms (such as parents’ right to educate their own children) to regulatory freedom (such as the degree of occupational licensing requirements) to fiscal liberty (as measured, for instance, by states’ debt burdens, which represent a constraint on future generations). Finishing dead last in the study’s freedom index is New York State."
For those who represent businesses in New York, this doesn't come as any great shock; and for us, it underscores what we have been saying in our critique of those, like the Working Families Party and the Drum Major Institute, who promote higher taxes as some perverse idea of what constitutes "fairness." "New York earns that dubious distinction “by a wide margin,” the study reports. Businesses operating in the state won’t be astonished to hear that its economic freedom is poor, thanks to a tentacular bureaucratic regulatory regime, a civil justice system that favors plaintiffs over defendants, and high taxes and crushing per-capita government debt."
And Malanga goes on to dramatize the kind of impact that these policies have, not just on New York State, but also on those others that keep us company at the bottom of the university's ratings ladder: "What are the consequences of New Yorkers’ lack of freedom? The best way to judge is to look at the collective condition of the states with the worst rankings. Joining New York at the bottom of the index is New Jersey, in 49th place, followed by Rhode Island and California. Together, New York, New Jersey, and California face some $65 billion in budget deficits in 2009, amounting to more than two-thirds of the budget gaps faced by all 50 states. These states’ stratospheric spending and taxes have stifled economic growth and left them scarily unprepared for the economic downturn."
Malanga also highlights that our state's ranking includes a low score for personal freedom-and cites confiscatory eminent domain laws as one example. Clearly, this situation is, or should be, a clarion call for reform; and in our view, this reform needs to come from both parties. If it only comes from the Republicans who are out of power, it will mean that the impulse will be shot lived-especially since the state's demographics shift is making it more difficult for Republican rule to be anything but evanescent.
Here's how Malanga sees the need: "Rather, New York suffers from the vise grip that Albany’s politicians have on life in general. Reform, therefore, won’t be as simple as cutting a tax or eliminating a regulation. New York needs fundamental change that makes the state democratic again, and it needs reform candidates willing to push for that change."
With this kind of change needed, the only way it can occur in any meaningful sense, is if it comes from the top. Which is a clear indication that the incumbent CEO needs to find something else to do before our political climate can be cleansed.
For those who represent businesses in New York, this doesn't come as any great shock; and for us, it underscores what we have been saying in our critique of those, like the Working Families Party and the Drum Major Institute, who promote higher taxes as some perverse idea of what constitutes "fairness." "New York earns that dubious distinction “by a wide margin,” the study reports. Businesses operating in the state won’t be astonished to hear that its economic freedom is poor, thanks to a tentacular bureaucratic regulatory regime, a civil justice system that favors plaintiffs over defendants, and high taxes and crushing per-capita government debt."
And Malanga goes on to dramatize the kind of impact that these policies have, not just on New York State, but also on those others that keep us company at the bottom of the university's ratings ladder: "What are the consequences of New Yorkers’ lack of freedom? The best way to judge is to look at the collective condition of the states with the worst rankings. Joining New York at the bottom of the index is New Jersey, in 49th place, followed by Rhode Island and California. Together, New York, New Jersey, and California face some $65 billion in budget deficits in 2009, amounting to more than two-thirds of the budget gaps faced by all 50 states. These states’ stratospheric spending and taxes have stifled economic growth and left them scarily unprepared for the economic downturn."
Malanga also highlights that our state's ranking includes a low score for personal freedom-and cites confiscatory eminent domain laws as one example. Clearly, this situation is, or should be, a clarion call for reform; and in our view, this reform needs to come from both parties. If it only comes from the Republicans who are out of power, it will mean that the impulse will be shot lived-especially since the state's demographics shift is making it more difficult for Republican rule to be anything but evanescent.
Here's how Malanga sees the need: "Rather, New York suffers from the vise grip that Albany’s politicians have on life in general. Reform, therefore, won’t be as simple as cutting a tax or eliminating a regulation. New York needs fundamental change that makes the state democratic again, and it needs reform candidates willing to push for that change."
With this kind of change needed, the only way it can occur in any meaningful sense, is if it comes from the top. Which is a clear indication that the incumbent CEO needs to find something else to do before our political climate can be cleansed.
Force Mayor
Adam Lisberg at the NY Daily News writes a cogent piece on Mike Bloomberg yesterday that tries to evince just why the guy seems to be so popular; even if-and when-his policies are less so: "Labor unions and business groups, liberals and conservatives, politicians and preachers, ethnic groups and interest groups: They are tripping over each other to endorse Mayor Bloomberg, six months before the election."
In examining this rush to embrace the mayor, Lisberg underscores the role that the Bloomberg wealth plays in generating the kind of fan appreciation normally seem over at American Idol-and no one's confusing Mike Bloomberg with Kelly Clarkson: "Why are people supporting you?" he asked himself rhetorically last week. "We wouldn't be doing it right if they didn't." He was answering a question about his enormous generosity - he gave away $235 million last year, more than any other living American - and whether it makes the groups that receive his money more likely to support his policies. "What a sick thing if they didn't," Bloomberg said. "I would hope that people that believe we're going in the right direction would want to continue that."
Finally, we have an issue that we agree with Mike Bloomberg on-people who have been bought should gratefully stay bought! And more and more of the Bloomberg consumers are doing just that; and such loyalty in this modern age needs to be appreciated, even if it appears to be remarkably similar to Karl Marx's observation of good looks and great wealth: "Money is the alienated ability of mankind," and it enables the ugly man, ... Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness-its deterrent power--is nullified."
And so it goes with the $235 million that Bloomberg has bestowed on countless organizations and individuals-and that leaves out the rest of the salivating masses yearning to get a piece of the Bloomberg pie; an undiagnosed tumor festering in the city's body politic. A situation that has led Mike Blomberg to believed that he is universally loved-and that any criticism he receives should be treated just like it was when dissidents in the old Soviet Union expressed it, and were promptly sent over to the psychiatric ward.
So we get the solipsistic Bloomberg, with skin so thin that he must need repeated grafts in order to get through the work day: "Bloomberg has a complicated relationship with criticism. He prides himself on hiring aides who will challenge his thinking and fight with him on policy. He's a numbers guy who demands reams of data about the most mundane city operations, then posts it online to evaluate what works. Yet when outside groups raise legitimate objections to the school test results or graduation rates that he brags about, he waves away their complaints as the cries of people who want to reinstall the old Board of Education."
And, in a similar vein, he morphs into Quinnberg in conflating the speaker and his own personage: "And when angry City Council members mutter that Speaker Christine Quinn always rolls over for Bloomberg's agenda, he seems not to comprehend that reasonable people can disagree with his plans. "Christine Quinn has gotten criticized for helping the city," he said. "There are people who would say, 'Oh, she shouldn't do that. The City Council should be fighting the mayor.' What kind of a stupid argument is that?"
Stupid, or crazy? You get the picture here-we have political roylaty doling out favors as fast as popes used to grant indulgences; and expecting that the granted wishes should inculcate support or, at least, feigned religious devotion. Not the kind of environment where political democracy can easily flourish. And one, where the notion of the mayor being somehow public spirited because he isn't beholden to special interests, becomes absolutely risible.
Lisberg's last observation is the article's money quote: "A popular and successful mayor will naturally have lots of people standing behind him and cheering him on. The challenge is figuring out who supports him because they support his policies - and who supports him because he's popular and successful. After almost eight years in office, with his opponents neutered or bought off or pushed to the fringes, can Bloomberg still figure that out?"
In our view, the challenge is to determine who supports him because they are paid-and cheer him on with the same new found enthusiasm of Howard Wolfson. Lisberg's observations are a good start; but they only begin to scratch the surface of this unseemly situation.
In examining this rush to embrace the mayor, Lisberg underscores the role that the Bloomberg wealth plays in generating the kind of fan appreciation normally seem over at American Idol-and no one's confusing Mike Bloomberg with Kelly Clarkson: "Why are people supporting you?" he asked himself rhetorically last week. "We wouldn't be doing it right if they didn't." He was answering a question about his enormous generosity - he gave away $235 million last year, more than any other living American - and whether it makes the groups that receive his money more likely to support his policies. "What a sick thing if they didn't," Bloomberg said. "I would hope that people that believe we're going in the right direction would want to continue that."
Finally, we have an issue that we agree with Mike Bloomberg on-people who have been bought should gratefully stay bought! And more and more of the Bloomberg consumers are doing just that; and such loyalty in this modern age needs to be appreciated, even if it appears to be remarkably similar to Karl Marx's observation of good looks and great wealth: "Money is the alienated ability of mankind," and it enables the ugly man, ... Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness-its deterrent power--is nullified."
And so it goes with the $235 million that Bloomberg has bestowed on countless organizations and individuals-and that leaves out the rest of the salivating masses yearning to get a piece of the Bloomberg pie; an undiagnosed tumor festering in the city's body politic. A situation that has led Mike Blomberg to believed that he is universally loved-and that any criticism he receives should be treated just like it was when dissidents in the old Soviet Union expressed it, and were promptly sent over to the psychiatric ward.
So we get the solipsistic Bloomberg, with skin so thin that he must need repeated grafts in order to get through the work day: "Bloomberg has a complicated relationship with criticism. He prides himself on hiring aides who will challenge his thinking and fight with him on policy. He's a numbers guy who demands reams of data about the most mundane city operations, then posts it online to evaluate what works. Yet when outside groups raise legitimate objections to the school test results or graduation rates that he brags about, he waves away their complaints as the cries of people who want to reinstall the old Board of Education."
And, in a similar vein, he morphs into Quinnberg in conflating the speaker and his own personage: "And when angry City Council members mutter that Speaker Christine Quinn always rolls over for Bloomberg's agenda, he seems not to comprehend that reasonable people can disagree with his plans. "Christine Quinn has gotten criticized for helping the city," he said. "There are people who would say, 'Oh, she shouldn't do that. The City Council should be fighting the mayor.' What kind of a stupid argument is that?"
Stupid, or crazy? You get the picture here-we have political roylaty doling out favors as fast as popes used to grant indulgences; and expecting that the granted wishes should inculcate support or, at least, feigned religious devotion. Not the kind of environment where political democracy can easily flourish. And one, where the notion of the mayor being somehow public spirited because he isn't beholden to special interests, becomes absolutely risible.
Lisberg's last observation is the article's money quote: "A popular and successful mayor will naturally have lots of people standing behind him and cheering him on. The challenge is figuring out who supports him because they support his policies - and who supports him because he's popular and successful. After almost eight years in office, with his opponents neutered or bought off or pushed to the fringes, can Bloomberg still figure that out?"
In our view, the challenge is to determine who supports him because they are paid-and cheer him on with the same new found enthusiasm of Howard Wolfson. Lisberg's observations are a good start; but they only begin to scratch the surface of this unseemly situation.
Friday, May 08, 2009
The Chancellor's New Clothes
As we have been saying, the rising test scores are a chimera-akin to the sartorial splendor of the fabled emperor;and Juan Gonzales hones in on the charade: "Too unbelievable to be true. That's what some veteran educators say about the huge jump in public school reading scores state and city officials released Thursday. In just one year, average scores for all New York City elementary pupils zoomed by an unheard of 11%. Even more astonishing, fifth graders recorded a 20% increase."
Someone needs a saliva test here-and everyone should be calling for an independent audit of these state tests; and a proper comparison with the more rigorous national (NAEP) exams: ""It's impossible that you would see this kind of change in just one year," said Martha Foote, an education researcher with Time Out From Testing, a group critical of high-stakes testing. "After seven years of these improved test scores, how come the children we're getting in high school aren't reading any better and don't show any greater love of literature?" said a veteran secondary school principal who scoffed when she heard the results."
But that doesn't stop the amen chorus at Mort's Place: "Read 'em and cheer - this year's test results are in, and city kids scored big in reading and writing. Really big. More students in every grade, three through eight, are reading at or above grade level than ever. Black and Latino children are narrowing the achievement gap with their white peers. The middle school dead zone has come to life, with huge gains in proficiency and virtual elimination of the lowest scores."
Stop the presses! But wait, not everyone is ready to bow and scrape before Merlin Klein: "Writing in the City Room, Jennifer Medina questioned some of the department’s bombast. She noted that, while more students meet standards, scores have edged up very slowly, leading skeptics to “wonder whether the state’s tests are simply becoming easier to pass.” And while the mayor — and his cheerleader Carl Campanile at the New York Post — will undoubtedly say the scores have risen because of mayoral control, Medina notes “Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse have all shown larger improvements on the mean scores.”
So let's not get, well, Buffaloed here: "Those cities have done so without the aid of mayoral control Joel Klein or Michael Bloomberg. Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch put it this way. While saying mayoral control did not hurt New York City, she told reporters “Mayoral control is not part of the conversation about the gains across the state.”
Which brings us back to these state (saliva) tests-and the last word belongs to Juan Gonzales: "As for the unprecedented rise in test scores, it couldn't have come at a better time for Bloomberg - just as he's running for reelection and weeks before the Legislature decides whether to extend mayoral control of the schools. As skeptics have noted, the federal government's national assessment tests keep puncturing the claims of local officials that New York tests scores have been rapidly improving. Results of the next national assessment won't be made public until November, so we won't know for sure until then. But I learned a long time ago that when something looks too good to be true, it usually is."
Someone needs a saliva test here-and everyone should be calling for an independent audit of these state tests; and a proper comparison with the more rigorous national (NAEP) exams: ""It's impossible that you would see this kind of change in just one year," said Martha Foote, an education researcher with Time Out From Testing, a group critical of high-stakes testing. "After seven years of these improved test scores, how come the children we're getting in high school aren't reading any better and don't show any greater love of literature?" said a veteran secondary school principal who scoffed when she heard the results."
But that doesn't stop the amen chorus at Mort's Place: "Read 'em and cheer - this year's test results are in, and city kids scored big in reading and writing. Really big. More students in every grade, three through eight, are reading at or above grade level than ever. Black and Latino children are narrowing the achievement gap with their white peers. The middle school dead zone has come to life, with huge gains in proficiency and virtual elimination of the lowest scores."
Stop the presses! But wait, not everyone is ready to bow and scrape before Merlin Klein: "Writing in the City Room, Jennifer Medina questioned some of the department’s bombast. She noted that, while more students meet standards, scores have edged up very slowly, leading skeptics to “wonder whether the state’s tests are simply becoming easier to pass.” And while the mayor — and his cheerleader Carl Campanile at the New York Post — will undoubtedly say the scores have risen because of mayoral control, Medina notes “Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse have all shown larger improvements on the mean scores.”
So let's not get, well, Buffaloed here: "Those cities have done so without the aid of mayoral control Joel Klein or Michael Bloomberg. Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch put it this way. While saying mayoral control did not hurt New York City, she told reporters “Mayoral control is not part of the conversation about the gains across the state.”
Which brings us back to these state (saliva) tests-and the last word belongs to Juan Gonzales: "As for the unprecedented rise in test scores, it couldn't have come at a better time for Bloomberg - just as he's running for reelection and weeks before the Legislature decides whether to extend mayoral control of the schools. As skeptics have noted, the federal government's national assessment tests keep puncturing the claims of local officials that New York tests scores have been rapidly improving. Results of the next national assessment won't be made public until November, so we won't know for sure until then. But I learned a long time ago that when something looks too good to be true, it usually is."
Post Dunce Cap
The NY post is doing its level best to hurt whatever chances Mike Bloomberg has to maintain his version of mayoral control of the schools-particularly with their blitzkrieg of the UFT. In yesterday's paper their editorial went like this: "The best grassroots movement money can buy was up in Albany earlier this week, singing heartily for its supper. And plenty of city-based pols were more than happy to hum along."
The Post was referring to the UFT-backed "Campaign for Better Schools." And not liking what they are seeing: "The Campaign for Better Schools, a veritable alphabet soup of "community" and "children's" outfits, scooted up to the capital Tuesday to make a ruckus over mayoral control of city schools. The idea was to give the impression of broad disquiet over Mayor Bloomberg's education reforms, ahead of Schools Chancellor Joel Klein's testimony to the Senate's Education Committee. Yet it was all a show, bought and paid for by -- who else? -- the state's powerful teachers lobby."
Which is all well and good-and we don't object when any one exposes grass roots efforts that may lack real impetus from the community. Except for the fact that the Post has been stone silent about the Learn NY group; an organization that owes its very existence to the mayor's money and influence.
Now the truth is that both groups consist of many well meaning folks who are truly concerned about what should be done to improve the schools; but it not the duty of the media to dramatize whose ox is being gored when advocates are out in front on any issue. The Post, however, is in full scuba gear alert when it comes to the mayor and the issue of control of the schools-so much so that it is falling down on its essential function of speaking truth to power. And in this case, the power dynamic really lies with the Bloombucks.
And it is one thing to set aside editorial space to skewer the union and those skeptics who believe that Mike Bloomberg isn't Socrates; it's quite another to traduce lawmakers-and the facts on the ground-directly within the body of the newspaper. But that's exactly what they did by attacking mayoral critic, State Senator Bill Perkins: "Harlem state Sen. Bill Perkins claimed this week that mayoral school control has been a "failure," but test data tell the real story: Students in his district have improved significantly under City Hall's watch since 2002. Fourth- and eighth-graders at schools in Perkins' district registered double-digit percentage-point gains on state reading and math exams during Mayor Bloomberg's tenure, according to an analysis obtained by The Post."
Question: Just where do you think this "analysis" came from? But what's missing here, is the fact that Perkins' critique is directly aimed at the statistical sleight-of-hand that comes out of the DOE-and the relative value of state test scores versus the more reliable NAEP exams. The Post, however, trumpets the watered down state results as a major benchmark: "But the percentage of fourth-graders passing the reading test jumped to 50.4 percent in 2008 from 36.7 percent in 2002. On the math exam, the percentage of kids passing shot up to 71.4 percent last year from 39.8 percent in 2002. In the eighth grade, the number of kids meeting the state reading standards increased to 33.6 percent from a measly 23.4 percent. And the number of eighth-graders passing the state math test more than doubled, to 52.8 percent from 21.5 percent."
And then they go to the super questionable graduation rates: "Meanwhile, the number of district pupils graduating high school rose to 65.7 percent in 2007 from 55.6 percent in 2002." Leaving aside, of course, the fact that these rates mask the reality that high numbers of these graduates are unable to perform at anywhere near a college level.
So what does the mayor need to get his way-aside from the cheer leading of the NY Post? Well, how about the support of the governor: "Gov. Paterson endorsed extending mayoral control of the schools -- particularly praising Mike Bloomberg for doing a "good job" on education. "My general feeling is that I like mayoral control," Paterson said this morning while greeting commuters at the Bryant Park subway station at 6th Ave. and 42nd St."
Is this the Kiss of Death, or what? But seriously, even the governor isn't willing to issue any blank check: "But Paterson said there must be revisions to the 2002 school governance law that better address parents' concerns. He said there are a "lot of complaints" from parents and advocates that they can't get grievances addressed. "If we get that cleared up," he said, "I think that will go a long way toward passing mayoral control."
Which is exactly what the critics are saying on this-not that you'd be aware from the misleading headline and lede of the story. This is serious stuff-not grist for tabloid satire. And we need our local media to be vigilant since the mayor has big bucks to spin all of these debates into a direction that hews to his own self interest. What we definitely don't need is a fawning media chorus replicating the mayor's talking point.
The Post was referring to the UFT-backed "Campaign for Better Schools." And not liking what they are seeing: "The Campaign for Better Schools, a veritable alphabet soup of "community" and "children's" outfits, scooted up to the capital Tuesday to make a ruckus over mayoral control of city schools. The idea was to give the impression of broad disquiet over Mayor Bloomberg's education reforms, ahead of Schools Chancellor Joel Klein's testimony to the Senate's Education Committee. Yet it was all a show, bought and paid for by -- who else? -- the state's powerful teachers lobby."
Which is all well and good-and we don't object when any one exposes grass roots efforts that may lack real impetus from the community. Except for the fact that the Post has been stone silent about the Learn NY group; an organization that owes its very existence to the mayor's money and influence.
Now the truth is that both groups consist of many well meaning folks who are truly concerned about what should be done to improve the schools; but it not the duty of the media to dramatize whose ox is being gored when advocates are out in front on any issue. The Post, however, is in full scuba gear alert when it comes to the mayor and the issue of control of the schools-so much so that it is falling down on its essential function of speaking truth to power. And in this case, the power dynamic really lies with the Bloombucks.
And it is one thing to set aside editorial space to skewer the union and those skeptics who believe that Mike Bloomberg isn't Socrates; it's quite another to traduce lawmakers-and the facts on the ground-directly within the body of the newspaper. But that's exactly what they did by attacking mayoral critic, State Senator Bill Perkins: "Harlem state Sen. Bill Perkins claimed this week that mayoral school control has been a "failure," but test data tell the real story: Students in his district have improved significantly under City Hall's watch since 2002. Fourth- and eighth-graders at schools in Perkins' district registered double-digit percentage-point gains on state reading and math exams during Mayor Bloomberg's tenure, according to an analysis obtained by The Post."
Question: Just where do you think this "analysis" came from? But what's missing here, is the fact that Perkins' critique is directly aimed at the statistical sleight-of-hand that comes out of the DOE-and the relative value of state test scores versus the more reliable NAEP exams. The Post, however, trumpets the watered down state results as a major benchmark: "But the percentage of fourth-graders passing the reading test jumped to 50.4 percent in 2008 from 36.7 percent in 2002. On the math exam, the percentage of kids passing shot up to 71.4 percent last year from 39.8 percent in 2002. In the eighth grade, the number of kids meeting the state reading standards increased to 33.6 percent from a measly 23.4 percent. And the number of eighth-graders passing the state math test more than doubled, to 52.8 percent from 21.5 percent."
And then they go to the super questionable graduation rates: "Meanwhile, the number of district pupils graduating high school rose to 65.7 percent in 2007 from 55.6 percent in 2002." Leaving aside, of course, the fact that these rates mask the reality that high numbers of these graduates are unable to perform at anywhere near a college level.
So what does the mayor need to get his way-aside from the cheer leading of the NY Post? Well, how about the support of the governor: "Gov. Paterson endorsed extending mayoral control of the schools -- particularly praising Mike Bloomberg for doing a "good job" on education. "My general feeling is that I like mayoral control," Paterson said this morning while greeting commuters at the Bryant Park subway station at 6th Ave. and 42nd St."
Is this the Kiss of Death, or what? But seriously, even the governor isn't willing to issue any blank check: "But Paterson said there must be revisions to the 2002 school governance law that better address parents' concerns. He said there are a "lot of complaints" from parents and advocates that they can't get grievances addressed. "If we get that cleared up," he said, "I think that will go a long way toward passing mayoral control."
Which is exactly what the critics are saying on this-not that you'd be aware from the misleading headline and lede of the story. This is serious stuff-not grist for tabloid satire. And we need our local media to be vigilant since the mayor has big bucks to spin all of these debates into a direction that hews to his own self interest. What we definitely don't need is a fawning media chorus replicating the mayor's talking point.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
MTA Money Pit
Well, the deal to bail out the MTA was finally struck and voted on yesterday; but the state's unaccountable money pit is till standing-poised for future cash outlays with no relief in sight. In spite of the failure to really reform and revamp the agency, however, city motorists were spared the tolls that one and all claimed was absolutely necessary to save the system: "In December, a state commission appointed by Paterson, and headed by former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch, recommended a payroll tax and tolls on the East and Harlem River bridges to raise transit subsidies. Tolls, however, were opposed by a handful of Senate Democrats."
The MTA did receive a deserved tongue lashing from the senate leader, but no concrete action appears to be part of the deal: "But even as he championed the plan on the Senate floor, Smith blasted the MTA, calling it "bloated," "a black hole" and a "runaway train." "We inherited a mess," he said, promising to bring about an improved authority through a series of reforms." Let's hope so.
But right now, we have a rescue plan that adds additional tax burdens on a struggling New York economy. As Nicole Gelinas points out in the NY Post this morning: "For what taxpayers are giving up here, they should've gotten more in return. Lost in the relief over the averting of MTA bankruptcy is the fact that the $1.5 billion annual payroll tax created to fund the deal is a tax on jobs. New York is already the least business-friendly state -- and Downstate is already hemorrhaging jobs."
Make no mistake here, this rescue is a band aid-and the future of the transit system hasn't received long term resolution: "The numbers that state legislators and the MTA have laid out in the MTA budget leave little room for error. For example, for the seven months left in this year (if all goes perfectly) the budget's higher taxes, fees and fares will bring in $1.3 billion. But the MTA was facing a deficit of at least $1.5 billion, even after making cuts that didn't involve service."
The mayor, for his part, was tepidly supportive of the deal; still chagrined that there are no tolls to keep the riff raff out of Manhattan: "The mayor reminded the press (including DN City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, who kindly provided me with the transcribed quotes) that he had preferred the tax-and-tolls plan proposed by Richard Ravitch because it had the added benefit of being likely to reduce congestion - a pet issue of his."
What's needed now, is for the legislature to take a long hard look at the MTA; and determine whether the authority, as currently constructed, deserves to remain. The deal struck yesterday is simply a stop gap-and if the regional economy doesn't improve, the Moneypit Transit Agency will continue to absorb our tax dollars like a sponge.
The MTA did receive a deserved tongue lashing from the senate leader, but no concrete action appears to be part of the deal: "But even as he championed the plan on the Senate floor, Smith blasted the MTA, calling it "bloated," "a black hole" and a "runaway train." "We inherited a mess," he said, promising to bring about an improved authority through a series of reforms." Let's hope so.
But right now, we have a rescue plan that adds additional tax burdens on a struggling New York economy. As Nicole Gelinas points out in the NY Post this morning: "For what taxpayers are giving up here, they should've gotten more in return. Lost in the relief over the averting of MTA bankruptcy is the fact that the $1.5 billion annual payroll tax created to fund the deal is a tax on jobs. New York is already the least business-friendly state -- and Downstate is already hemorrhaging jobs."
Make no mistake here, this rescue is a band aid-and the future of the transit system hasn't received long term resolution: "The numbers that state legislators and the MTA have laid out in the MTA budget leave little room for error. For example, for the seven months left in this year (if all goes perfectly) the budget's higher taxes, fees and fares will bring in $1.3 billion. But the MTA was facing a deficit of at least $1.5 billion, even after making cuts that didn't involve service."
The mayor, for his part, was tepidly supportive of the deal; still chagrined that there are no tolls to keep the riff raff out of Manhattan: "The mayor reminded the press (including DN City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, who kindly provided me with the transcribed quotes) that he had preferred the tax-and-tolls plan proposed by Richard Ravitch because it had the added benefit of being likely to reduce congestion - a pet issue of his."
What's needed now, is for the legislature to take a long hard look at the MTA; and determine whether the authority, as currently constructed, deserves to remain. The deal struck yesterday is simply a stop gap-and if the regional economy doesn't improve, the Moneypit Transit Agency will continue to absorb our tax dollars like a sponge.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Ticketed Off
Among the things that tick of New Yorkers the most, water rates and parking tickets rank right up there. And in both these areas Mike Bloomberg has distinguished himself. Take water-and yesterday's Crain's Insider (subsc.) does just that: “I am always amazed by his poll numbers, because when I go to civic meetings—and it doesn’t matter whether it’s Irish and Italian families, or black and Caribbean families—they are not voting for him,” says Brooklyn Councilman Lew Fidler. He says that people are especially upset about rapidly increasing water rates, which will be jacked up another 14% this week, and urges Democratic mayoral candidate Bill Thompson to pin the blame on Bloomberg."
In fact under this tax, spend, and over regulate administration, water rates have skyrocketed: "Last week, New York City’s Water Board proposed to raise rates on residents by 14 percent. This comes on top of a 14 percent increase in rates that it imposed on New Yorkers last year. In fact, since 2001, when Mike Bloomberg took office, the Water Board—all members of which are appointed by the mayor— has raised rates by 77 percent. At the same time that it is squeezing money out of residents, the Water Board and the Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the water system, has been largely exempt from the cost cutting that the mayor has asked other city agencies to engage in. The reason: because the DEP is financed by the water rate."
And then there is the expected parking ticket blitz-a staple of Bloomberg's regulatory menu when the city budget is out of whack: "The cash-strapped city hopes to haul in a record $686 million in parking fines next year in what could become the mother of all ticket blitzes, The Post has learned. Documents released last week as part of Mayor Bloomberg's new $59.4 billion budget show that the Finance Department is projecting a $93 million increase in parking-summons revenue over the $593 million expected to come in this fiscal year."
And yet, as Fidler lamented, there appears to be no air for any strong opposition; and he wonders why this is so. The reason lies within our previous post on the Bloomberg blandishment phenomenon. The activists are all on the dole or simply wishing that they were. If any other mayor was sticking these kinds of daggers into middle class voters, he/she would be polling right down there with the governor.
In fact under this tax, spend, and over regulate administration, water rates have skyrocketed: "Last week, New York City’s Water Board proposed to raise rates on residents by 14 percent. This comes on top of a 14 percent increase in rates that it imposed on New Yorkers last year. In fact, since 2001, when Mike Bloomberg took office, the Water Board—all members of which are appointed by the mayor— has raised rates by 77 percent. At the same time that it is squeezing money out of residents, the Water Board and the Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the water system, has been largely exempt from the cost cutting that the mayor has asked other city agencies to engage in. The reason: because the DEP is financed by the water rate."
And then there is the expected parking ticket blitz-a staple of Bloomberg's regulatory menu when the city budget is out of whack: "The cash-strapped city hopes to haul in a record $686 million in parking fines next year in what could become the mother of all ticket blitzes, The Post has learned. Documents released last week as part of Mayor Bloomberg's new $59.4 billion budget show that the Finance Department is projecting a $93 million increase in parking-summons revenue over the $593 million expected to come in this fiscal year."
And yet, as Fidler lamented, there appears to be no air for any strong opposition; and he wonders why this is so. The reason lies within our previous post on the Bloomberg blandishment phenomenon. The activists are all on the dole or simply wishing that they were. If any other mayor was sticking these kinds of daggers into middle class voters, he/she would be polling right down there with the governor.
For Whom the School Bell Tolls
It's getting close to final exam time in Albany for Joel Klein, Mike Bloomberg and the current version of mayoral control of the schools-and this time it won't be any gut take home test for these parvenus. As the NY Times reports: "As state legislators begin to review the landmark state law that gave Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg control over the New York City schools, the question seems not to be whether changes will be made, but how significant they will be."
The state legislature isn't gonna act as the mayor's handmaiden on the renewal of the current governing structure: "The committee members repeated now-familiar complaints that parents have been shut out of the school system and that there is not enough oversight of the Department of Education’s budget. They also voiced skepticism over what Mr. Klein has stressed were some of the administration’s greatest accomplishments, like increases in graduation rates and test scores."
But the NY Post sees yesterday's hearing differently-still issuing Klein press releases in the face of mounting legislative opposition; and from the chancellor's perspective, he's got to feel disappointed that the law won't be evaluated by the Post's editorial board: "Unflappable Schools Chancellor Joel Klein skillfully fended off a firestorm of criticism yesterday from Democratic state senators and other foes of mayoral control."
Yet even the Post sees the handwriting on the wall: "The hostile reception for Klein in a tense Senate committee hearing sent a clear signal that the battle over the school-governance law was near the boiling point. The seven-year-old law expires June 30. For more than an hour, Klein counterpunched and landed blows as he touted accountability amid a flurry of questions.
State lawmakers announced plans to weaken City Hall's oversight over the massive school system in the name of increasing parental involvement."
As the Times points out, the system of carte blanche to one man rule, and statistical finagling, isn't going to stand: "One sign of the hurdle Mr. Klein faces could be seen on Tuesday during a rally near the Capitol, where a parent group, the Campaign for Better Schools, lobbied for changes in the law. Nearly a dozen legislators voiced support for the group, who repeatedly chanted “Hey, hey, ho, ho — one-man rule has got to go!” Micah Z. Kellner, a Democratic assemblyman who represents the East Side of Manhattan, drew loud cheers when he said, “I think we’re all fed up that the Education Department spends a lot of time and money on spin doctoring what we know are problems.”
And it was nice to see that the senators holding yesterday's hearing agreed with us that there has been a phony straw man argument being advanced by the mayor and his minions-either you're for the current system, or you want to revert back to the bad old days: "Near the end of the hearing, Senator Kevin Parker, a Democrat who represents Brooklyn, urged Mr. Klein to present a viable alternative to the current system. “I object to this false dichotomy of total control and going back to the way things were,” he said. “If you come in here and say the system is perfect, you are going to end up with something that you hate.”
So change is gonna come; and if the mayor's re-elected he had better think long and hard about keeping the tone deaf Klein around. That's because any new system of checks and balances that the legislature devices is going to be some kind of hair shirt that the thin skinned Klein will find much too uncomfortable to wear. It will be amusing to watch, however.
The state legislature isn't gonna act as the mayor's handmaiden on the renewal of the current governing structure: "The committee members repeated now-familiar complaints that parents have been shut out of the school system and that there is not enough oversight of the Department of Education’s budget. They also voiced skepticism over what Mr. Klein has stressed were some of the administration’s greatest accomplishments, like increases in graduation rates and test scores."
But the NY Post sees yesterday's hearing differently-still issuing Klein press releases in the face of mounting legislative opposition; and from the chancellor's perspective, he's got to feel disappointed that the law won't be evaluated by the Post's editorial board: "Unflappable Schools Chancellor Joel Klein skillfully fended off a firestorm of criticism yesterday from Democratic state senators and other foes of mayoral control."
Yet even the Post sees the handwriting on the wall: "The hostile reception for Klein in a tense Senate committee hearing sent a clear signal that the battle over the school-governance law was near the boiling point. The seven-year-old law expires June 30. For more than an hour, Klein counterpunched and landed blows as he touted accountability amid a flurry of questions.
State lawmakers announced plans to weaken City Hall's oversight over the massive school system in the name of increasing parental involvement."
As the Times points out, the system of carte blanche to one man rule, and statistical finagling, isn't going to stand: "One sign of the hurdle Mr. Klein faces could be seen on Tuesday during a rally near the Capitol, where a parent group, the Campaign for Better Schools, lobbied for changes in the law. Nearly a dozen legislators voiced support for the group, who repeatedly chanted “Hey, hey, ho, ho — one-man rule has got to go!” Micah Z. Kellner, a Democratic assemblyman who represents the East Side of Manhattan, drew loud cheers when he said, “I think we’re all fed up that the Education Department spends a lot of time and money on spin doctoring what we know are problems.”
And it was nice to see that the senators holding yesterday's hearing agreed with us that there has been a phony straw man argument being advanced by the mayor and his minions-either you're for the current system, or you want to revert back to the bad old days: "Near the end of the hearing, Senator Kevin Parker, a Democrat who represents Brooklyn, urged Mr. Klein to present a viable alternative to the current system. “I object to this false dichotomy of total control and going back to the way things were,” he said. “If you come in here and say the system is perfect, you are going to end up with something that you hate.”
So change is gonna come; and if the mayor's re-elected he had better think long and hard about keeping the tone deaf Klein around. That's because any new system of checks and balances that the legislature devices is going to be some kind of hair shirt that the thin skinned Klein will find much too uncomfortable to wear. It will be amusing to watch, however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
