There's a great deal of dismay in certain quarters around the country over what appears to certain folks as a phony grass roots effort to defeat health care reform; by now, everyone knows the derogatory term, "Astroturfing," as the phrase used to denigrate local protests as somehow ersatz. Our feeling is that the critique is purely sour grapes, and is used by those who object to having grass roots organizing-a tactic that the left has used effectively-employed against them.
But in our view, those who really object to these kind of tactics being used to create false impressions of widespread support, should focus on the slickest purveyor of this tactic we've ever seen-one Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York. Bloomberg, utilizing his vast fortune-as well as his network of super wealthy friends-is able to lavishly fund groups who then are either newly launched, or suddenly cash rich invigorated, to go forth and promote, well, whatever is in the interests of Mike Bloomberg; with nary a finger print smudge.
Such was the case with the Bloomberg congestion tax plan-and scores of groups, seemingly on steroids, took to the streets and airwaves to promote the Bloomberg tax. Given the plan's unpopularity, however, even the mayor's wealth was insufficient to get this tax across the goal line. Not so with mayoral control of the schools.
In the case of the schools, we had a more arcane governance issue rather than a more visceral taxing plan (health care anyone?). And the mayor went ahead to set up a very effective grass roots looking organization called Learn NY. As we opined earlier in the year about the group-citing a good WNYC report: "What the station does is to examine the make up of Learn NY, a supposedly independent group formed to back re-authorization of mayoral control of the schools. As one skeptic points out: "Learn NY is being funded inadvertently, not directly, through the mayor. He’s done great P.R. I think its very sad that he’s using parents in this way, and that the real fact is we have to look to see if the mayor has been successful in what he says that he’s brought to New York City. And if you look at the facts, not the spin, the eighth grade scores in math and English are totally flat."
But what about the money's patrimony? The station went on to point out: "So what about the "funded inadvertently" claim? How inadvertent does anyone who examines the situation think it really is? "Learn NY has filled other assembly hearings with parents, many of them from charter schools. It’s hired the political consulting and polling firm Global Strategy Group, which worked for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Congressman Charles Rangel. Learn NY claims to have raised $3 million. But it won’t say who’s funding its campaign and because it’s a non-profit it doesn’t have to. The group DOES maintain it’s NOT funded by Mayor Bloomberg."
Now, after the battle has been won, we find out about the stealth bankrolling effort-a labor of love among rich friends. As the NY Post reported last week: "America's richest man chipped in to help preserve mayoral control of New York City schools. Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates -- a pal of fellow billionaire Mayor Bloomberg -- has secretly bankrolled Learn-NY, the group that joined the campaign led by The Post to extend mayoral control. Gates funneled about $4 million to the pro-mayoral-control forces during the fierce, dragged-out legislative debate, The Post has learned. A spokesman for Gates confirmed the donation and the approximate size."
Or, as the song says, "That's what friends are for." And we have nothing against Learn NY's head, Greg Canada, who is indubitably a well meaning educator. What we do object to is the way the Bloombucks are injected into the electoral and governance systems in such a way as to corrupt the nature of the debate-and Learn NY's patrimony should have been outed by a skeptical press core; and not just from one single watt radio outlet.
And Gates was not alone: "Another billionaire philanthropist -- Eli Broad, a proponent of charter schools -- also gave millions to Learn-NY." Now, we'd like to know if Gates and Broad bothered to register as lobbyists with the city clerk's office since Learn NY apparently was a wholly owned subsidiary of the two billionaires. Probably not.
But the real issue is Bloomberg. How much more political activity that specifically accrues to the mayor's benefit is being funded by stealth contributions from either the mayor himself, or from his rich friends. The risible comment last week from Woof Ticket Wolfson that the mayor's not beholden to any special interests elides the reality that Mike Bloomberg is a walking special interest all by his lonesome-funding groups to seed the political clouds with the kind of Bloomberg rain that drowns out any effective oppositional message.
When the definitive history of the Bloomberg administration is finally written (step aside Joyce Purnick), the shameful subornation of democracy will finally be made manifest-and the collusion of the media exposed. At this juncture, however, Bloomberg remains the most overrated chief executive in the city's history-a true emperor without clothes.
Monday, August 24, 2009
More Fruits and Nuts
The NY Times had a short piece last week that, once again, attempted to extol the Green Carts program-this time in Jamaica. But the information we glean from the story creates a great deal of unacknowledged skepticism: "It’s not as if there’s nothing to eat along the bustling stretches of Jamaica Avenue: There are street vendors plying candies, nuts and chicken gyros; fast-food chains advertising value meals; and a food hall serving plates of chicken teriyaki. But the question has been where to buy a simple banana. Now fruit lovers have an answer."
But this so-called answer really raises more questions about a program that is, as we have said, a bad idea based on a false premise. Because, in the case of this "bustling" stretch of Jamaica Avenue where Rosa Prieto has plunked her cart, there was always a place to buy bananas; as the Times itself points out: "But not everyone is a fan of Ms. Prieto’s. Her presence has clearly angered Abdul Salam, who has operated a larger fruit stand tucked away across the street in Jamaica’s food hall for the past 10 years. He said that Green Carts like Ms. Prieto’s had hurt his sales and created “too much competition.” “Business is too slow,” he said."
But instead of exploring this avenue of inquiry, the Times simply coos on about Rosa the Rutabaga. But, how well is Rosa doing? And, is the field of dreams theory of the late unlamented Dr. Frieden actually working to generate heretofore unmet demand? Well, not really: "So far, Ms. Prieto’s profits have been modest enough that her brother says the business feels more like a hobby. But the siblings are determined to stick with fruit selling, which is the family business back in Ecuador, where their mother ran a stand in the markets."
Which seems to tell us that Mr. Salam is being forced to compete in a zero/sum environment with a vendor who has few of the same overhead and expenses that all small store owners have. At the end of the day, both produce sellers are likely to fall victim to the neighborhood's finite demand for their wares-and at a time when small retailers are hemorrhaging red ink this potential Green Cart program outcome is indefensible.
So, where is the oversight that the city council promised when this silly, but dangerous initiative was passed? And be forewarned: any evaluation that fails to consider the collateral damages to the city's Abdul Salams isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. We await-probably in vain-an honest accounting.
But this so-called answer really raises more questions about a program that is, as we have said, a bad idea based on a false premise. Because, in the case of this "bustling" stretch of Jamaica Avenue where Rosa Prieto has plunked her cart, there was always a place to buy bananas; as the Times itself points out: "But not everyone is a fan of Ms. Prieto’s. Her presence has clearly angered Abdul Salam, who has operated a larger fruit stand tucked away across the street in Jamaica’s food hall for the past 10 years. He said that Green Carts like Ms. Prieto’s had hurt his sales and created “too much competition.” “Business is too slow,” he said."
But instead of exploring this avenue of inquiry, the Times simply coos on about Rosa the Rutabaga. But, how well is Rosa doing? And, is the field of dreams theory of the late unlamented Dr. Frieden actually working to generate heretofore unmet demand? Well, not really: "So far, Ms. Prieto’s profits have been modest enough that her brother says the business feels more like a hobby. But the siblings are determined to stick with fruit selling, which is the family business back in Ecuador, where their mother ran a stand in the markets."
Which seems to tell us that Mr. Salam is being forced to compete in a zero/sum environment with a vendor who has few of the same overhead and expenses that all small store owners have. At the end of the day, both produce sellers are likely to fall victim to the neighborhood's finite demand for their wares-and at a time when small retailers are hemorrhaging red ink this potential Green Cart program outcome is indefensible.
So, where is the oversight that the city council promised when this silly, but dangerous initiative was passed? And be forewarned: any evaluation that fails to consider the collateral damages to the city's Abdul Salams isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. We await-probably in vain-an honest accounting.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Unanimity in the Bronx
While we were away for a few days, the NY Daily News did a Kingsbridge Armory story that highlighted the fact that Bronx BP Ruben Diaz has joined with the borough's city council delegation to oppose a supermarket in the Armory: "It's unanimous. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz has joined with the entire Bronx City Council delegation in opposing a new supermarket at the Kingsbridge Armory...Bronx members of the City Council, whose November vote will be binding, all signed a letter last week expressing their opposition to a supermarket."
The challenge now is to see how to insure that the unanimous Bronx sentiment is translated into a binding agreement that forecloses the supermarket option in the Armory-something that Maria Baez has pledged to work toward with the city: "This is not a political issue. This is a community issue," Baez said at a rally last Tuesday outside a nearby grocery store. "When everyone else was leaving the Bronx, these businesses stayed here," said Baez. "That shows that these markets are dedicated to our community."
The controversy was escalated when it was discovered that the city's original request for proposal specifically excluded a supermarket-something that Related Company adhered to when bidding, but tossed aside subsequently:
"The inclusion of a 60,000-square-foot supermarket in the project's environmental impact study sparked controversy because the armory is directly across the street from an existing supermarket, and the city's original request for proposals specifically sought projects that would not duplicate or threaten existing local businesses. When the city selected Related as the winning bidder last year, the developer's proposal made no mention of a supermarket. That point is emphasized in a letter to Mayor Bloomberg signed by the entire Bronx City Council delegation. Delegation chairwoman Maria Baez plans to deliver it to City Hall, along with 10,000 petition signatures from neighborhood residents opposed to bringing big-box stores or a supermarket into the armory."
What really burns the local stores is the use of tax payer money to put their businesses at risk: "Luis Salcedo, former head of the National Supermarket Association, warned that when a massive Pathmark opened on E. 125th St. in Manhattan a few years ago, three nearby grocery stores closed within three months. "I don't have any issue if they come in with their own capital to compete with us," he said. "But we shouldn't be giving them our own taxpayer money to subsidize it." The city invested $30 million in repairing the landmark armory, but offered it to Related for only $5million. Combined with $15 million in tax breaks, city taxpayers are subsidizing the project to the tune of $40million."
We expect that this issue will continue to roil the political waters-with a community march scheduled soon after Labor Day. At the same time, we wouldn't be surprised to see Kingsbridge Armory-with its subsidized retail and below living wage jobs-become a key issue in the upcoming mayoral, and other city wide elections.
The challenge now is to see how to insure that the unanimous Bronx sentiment is translated into a binding agreement that forecloses the supermarket option in the Armory-something that Maria Baez has pledged to work toward with the city: "This is not a political issue. This is a community issue," Baez said at a rally last Tuesday outside a nearby grocery store. "When everyone else was leaving the Bronx, these businesses stayed here," said Baez. "That shows that these markets are dedicated to our community."
The controversy was escalated when it was discovered that the city's original request for proposal specifically excluded a supermarket-something that Related Company adhered to when bidding, but tossed aside subsequently:
"The inclusion of a 60,000-square-foot supermarket in the project's environmental impact study sparked controversy because the armory is directly across the street from an existing supermarket, and the city's original request for proposals specifically sought projects that would not duplicate or threaten existing local businesses. When the city selected Related as the winning bidder last year, the developer's proposal made no mention of a supermarket. That point is emphasized in a letter to Mayor Bloomberg signed by the entire Bronx City Council delegation. Delegation chairwoman Maria Baez plans to deliver it to City Hall, along with 10,000 petition signatures from neighborhood residents opposed to bringing big-box stores or a supermarket into the armory."
What really burns the local stores is the use of tax payer money to put their businesses at risk: "Luis Salcedo, former head of the National Supermarket Association, warned that when a massive Pathmark opened on E. 125th St. in Manhattan a few years ago, three nearby grocery stores closed within three months. "I don't have any issue if they come in with their own capital to compete with us," he said. "But we shouldn't be giving them our own taxpayer money to subsidize it." The city invested $30 million in repairing the landmark armory, but offered it to Related for only $5million. Combined with $15 million in tax breaks, city taxpayers are subsidizing the project to the tune of $40million."
We expect that this issue will continue to roil the political waters-with a community march scheduled soon after Labor Day. At the same time, we wouldn't be surprised to see Kingsbridge Armory-with its subsidized retail and below living wage jobs-become a key issue in the upcoming mayoral, and other city wide elections.
LDC: Local Deception Corporation
A number of interesting follow up questions emerge from the NY Times story-and our own post-on the illegal lobbying operation that was set up by the city to push for the Willets Point development. In our view, some of these questions are of a political nature, and should be addressed by the various local and city wide campaigns; but others are of a legal nature-and these should be carefully scrutinized by law enforcement at all levels of government.
(1) Claire Shulman's continued role: If, as Shulman says, she was hired to do lobbying from the get go, and this is allegation is disputed by EDC and the mayor's office, than why is the city continuing to fund someone with money that she is clearly using for lobbying (as her lobbying registration suggests)?
(2) If Shulman failed to register as the lobbyist for the FWPC LDC, why wasn't she fined $59,000, as was the LDC itself?
(3) Was the groups' failure to note that it would be lobbying in its federal tax filing a criminal violation, and/or does this effect its not-for-profit status?
(4) Who are the members of the board of this LDC, and what were they promised to pony up the matching funds?
(5) Does the fact that these companies stand to benefit from the LDC's lobbying activities, mean that each and every one of them should have been listed-under the requirements of the state's lobbying statute-as "third party beneficiaries?"
(6) Does the fact that the city is funding illegal astroturf groups with tax payer money violate any provisions of municipal law?
(7) Can the Willets Point businesses sue these colluding companies-along with the city-under the provisions of the civil RICO laws?
(8) Does the use of an illegal lobbying group to aid and abet the city's Willets Point land grab invalidate the ULURP application that was passed last year by the city council? And should this challenge be added to the existing Article 78 proceeding that will first be heard today in state court?
All of these issues need to be addressed-and we're hopeful that the AG will act expeditiously here. We're also hopeful that the issues raised in the Article 78 proceeding-covered well by the Crain's Insider yesterday-will bear fruit and give further evidence of just how nefarious this entire land grab scheme has been.
As the Insider pointed out yesterday: "Tomorrow, for the first time, opponents of the Bloomberg administration’s Willets Point project will make their case in state court. Their attorneys will say the environmental impact statement for the proposed redevelopment has gaping holes, notably a failure to address the effect on the Van Wyck Expressway.
“This is going to cause traffic problems of unprecedented proportions that will stop emergency response vehicles in their tracks,” says Nelson Johnson, counsel at Arnold & Porter and a specialist in environmental law. “The [impact statement] did not consider it at all.” A comprehensive study is mandated by state law."
Of course, these kinds of issues were effectively being tamped down by Shulman's astro-turfing operation. But no one should be forced out at the point until, and if, the ability of this project to go forward is ascertained. As the Insider makes clear: "The lawyers will tell state Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden that the project requires two new ramps to the Van Wyck, triggering the need for Federal Highway Administration approval, which is far from certain. They’ll also argue that the impact statement should not have been prepared by Deputy Mayor Bob Lieber. The agency compiling the EIS must be the one that carries out, funds or approves the project. “The deputy mayor’s office wasn’t any of those things,” Johnson claims."
All in all, a corrupt process threatens hundreds of businesses and thousands of workers in the worst economic recession since the 1930s. There's no certainty that the approvals will be forthcoming, or that the money for the remediation and development will be available. Until those things are manifest, everyone should keep their dirty hands off Willets Point.
(1) Claire Shulman's continued role: If, as Shulman says, she was hired to do lobbying from the get go, and this is allegation is disputed by EDC and the mayor's office, than why is the city continuing to fund someone with money that she is clearly using for lobbying (as her lobbying registration suggests)?
(2) If Shulman failed to register as the lobbyist for the FWPC LDC, why wasn't she fined $59,000, as was the LDC itself?
(3) Was the groups' failure to note that it would be lobbying in its federal tax filing a criminal violation, and/or does this effect its not-for-profit status?
(4) Who are the members of the board of this LDC, and what were they promised to pony up the matching funds?
(5) Does the fact that these companies stand to benefit from the LDC's lobbying activities, mean that each and every one of them should have been listed-under the requirements of the state's lobbying statute-as "third party beneficiaries?"
(6) Does the fact that the city is funding illegal astroturf groups with tax payer money violate any provisions of municipal law?
(7) Can the Willets Point businesses sue these colluding companies-along with the city-under the provisions of the civil RICO laws?
(8) Does the use of an illegal lobbying group to aid and abet the city's Willets Point land grab invalidate the ULURP application that was passed last year by the city council? And should this challenge be added to the existing Article 78 proceeding that will first be heard today in state court?
All of these issues need to be addressed-and we're hopeful that the AG will act expeditiously here. We're also hopeful that the issues raised in the Article 78 proceeding-covered well by the Crain's Insider yesterday-will bear fruit and give further evidence of just how nefarious this entire land grab scheme has been.
As the Insider pointed out yesterday: "Tomorrow, for the first time, opponents of the Bloomberg administration’s Willets Point project will make their case in state court. Their attorneys will say the environmental impact statement for the proposed redevelopment has gaping holes, notably a failure to address the effect on the Van Wyck Expressway.
“This is going to cause traffic problems of unprecedented proportions that will stop emergency response vehicles in their tracks,” says Nelson Johnson, counsel at Arnold & Porter and a specialist in environmental law. “The [impact statement] did not consider it at all.” A comprehensive study is mandated by state law."
Of course, these kinds of issues were effectively being tamped down by Shulman's astro-turfing operation. But no one should be forced out at the point until, and if, the ability of this project to go forward is ascertained. As the Insider makes clear: "The lawyers will tell state Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden that the project requires two new ramps to the Van Wyck, triggering the need for Federal Highway Administration approval, which is far from certain. They’ll also argue that the impact statement should not have been prepared by Deputy Mayor Bob Lieber. The agency compiling the EIS must be the one that carries out, funds or approves the project. “The deputy mayor’s office wasn’t any of those things,” Johnson claims."
All in all, a corrupt process threatens hundreds of businesses and thousands of workers in the worst economic recession since the 1930s. There's no certainty that the approvals will be forthcoming, or that the money for the remediation and development will be available. Until those things are manifest, everyone should keep their dirty hands off Willets Point.
Wolf Tickets for the Plutocracy
It's really so nice to see how eloquent Howard Wolfson is in defense of, well, what he used to see as indefensible-the attributes of the moneyed class in the personage of Sir Michael Bloomberg. That he can do so with a straight face reminds us of the observation of the sociologist Orrin Klapp who, when commenting on the way in which the revolutionary nature of the counter culture was being marketed, remarked how smoothly it was being transformed into the, "over the counter culture."
So it goes with Wolfson, who seamlessly moves from Democratic principles to Bloomberg principal-the latest foray embodying this transformation being his hearty touting of the ridiculous notion that Mike Bloomberg can somehow be a defender of a newly invigorated campaign finance law; but we digress. First let's examine the satiric campaign initiative for what it is-a humorous interlude meant simply to amuse; and certainly not to be treated with any degree of seriousness.
The NY Daily News' Erin Einhorn gives us the dope-and turns a wonderful phrase that fully captures the fable-like nature of the entire episode: "Like Goliath outlawing slings, Mayor Bloomberg on Wednesday proposed new campaign finance rules that would apply to nearly every candidate - except himself. As a billionaire who bankrolls his own campaigns, Bloomberg doesn't accept contributions and so wouldn't be held to his newly proposed restrictions."
So how does Mikey level the playing field? Well, he simply doesn't; totally avoiding how his own spending-not to mention the over turning of multiple referenda-corrupts the democratic process as much, or even more than, the impact of the nefarious special interests. Here's his scheme: "Bloomberg's proposals include a ban on public matching dollars for funds raised by lobbyists or by people who do business with the city, as well as earlier disclosure of some contributions."
As Gertrude Stein said of Oakland: "There's not much there, there." But it did provoke the following witticism from the Thompson campaign: "They have no credibility doing that," said Eduardo Castell, the campaign manager for William Thompson, Bloomberg's likely Democrat challenger in November. "For Michael Bloomberg, who is going to be spending - it could be as much as $200 million - on this campaign, who does not participate in the campaign finance system, who we don't know if he discloses all the money that he is spending, who plays by his own rules, for him to be talking about campaign finance reform in the middle of a campaign is like Michael Vick talking about animal cruelty."
Which prompts the ideologically peripatetic Wolfson to rejoin: "Mike Bloomberg doesn't take a dime in special interest money," Wolfson said. "No one will ever have to wonder whether contributions influence his decisions....He works only for the taxpayers."
Wolfson, whose paymaster has succeeded in generating a huge memory loss for the formerly astute and populist consultant, now is transformed into the defender of vast wealth and unlimited campaign spending-forgetting his past while looking forward to a post election sojourn at an unnamed Bermuda getaway. And Wolfson manages to maintain a straight face while avoiding just how much Mike Bloomberg has in his tenure bitch slapped tax payers while aggrandizing the public sector work force.
Memo to Howard the Duck: suborning the electoral process is as easily done-and is more effective because of its stealth nature-by paying off the special interests with millions of one's own dollars; as it is by one's accepting of the largess of the special interest bogeymen. See UFT.
When we compile all of this private and public sector spending up-and add on the tens of millions being spent to blow smoke up our collective asses-we have the most aggressive challenge to true democratic principle and practice that we have seen in our lifetime; and we haven't even mentioned yet the collusion of the local press. And, of course, the man of who stands squarely for the tax payer like no other politician can, crafted a, "reform," that managed to exclude labor, an interest that isn't special enough for Mike Bloomberg.
As the News points out: "Dick Dadey, a good government advocate with Citizens Union, also praised the proposals but lamented that they stopped short of limiting the influence of unions in government. New rules implemented last year by Bloomberg and the City Council applied strict limits on contributions from lobbyists and people who do business with the city, but unions were largely exempted from those rules. "He's in the midst of an election with significant union support," Dadey said, "and you don't bite the hand that's helping you."
So here's a guy with unlimited wealth and supposedly beholden to no one, who shucks and ducks when it comes to the most politically significant interest in municipal politics. Why? As Dadey says, because it ain't good for Mike. Even the NY Post is astonished at the Bloomberg hubris: "Mike Bloomberg is an amazement. He spent more than $160 million to become and remain mayor -- not counting the off-the-official-books millions dispatched to strategically situated charities and such. And it's likely he'll have tossed another $100-plus million into the pot before Election Day. But now he's lecturing New York on the need for campaign-finance reform. Simply breathtaking."
Which underscores just how silly this whole proposal-and Wolfson's woof tickets in its defense-really is. Mike Bloomberg's decision making calculus is solipsistic-it begins and ends with his world view; a philosophy of expansive government and a benign outlook on the burdens that this expansion poses for the beleaguered tax payers and small businesses. For these are the folks who are, to borrow from Leona Helmsley, the inconsequential, "little people."
We have had eight years of this kind of noblesse oblige governance, and the city unemployment rate-and its overall costly environment for business-dramatize just what a disaster Mike Bloomberg's standing-up-for-the-tax payer regime has been. That Howard could advance this concept with a straight face-and do so on the heels of a campaign finance reform proposal that would do nothing to level a playing field that Mike Bloomberg has obliterated-means that he will retire forever our Dr. Wernher von Braun award.
This award owes its pedigree to the lyrics of the satirist Tom Lehrer who, when singing about the good doctor's move from Nazi rocket maker to American bomb impresario, remarked that Braun was, "a man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience." As Lehrer went on to say about the former Nazi scientist, "Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's apolitical, "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down, That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun"
So it is with the formerly principled Wolfson. His assumption of the Bloomberg alter ego persona renders him a true citizen of the over-the-counter culture. His selling out for a lucrative fee, however, could well prove to be rather expensive for the hapless little people who he used to so adeptly pretend to champion.
So it goes with Wolfson, who seamlessly moves from Democratic principles to Bloomberg principal-the latest foray embodying this transformation being his hearty touting of the ridiculous notion that Mike Bloomberg can somehow be a defender of a newly invigorated campaign finance law; but we digress. First let's examine the satiric campaign initiative for what it is-a humorous interlude meant simply to amuse; and certainly not to be treated with any degree of seriousness.
The NY Daily News' Erin Einhorn gives us the dope-and turns a wonderful phrase that fully captures the fable-like nature of the entire episode: "Like Goliath outlawing slings, Mayor Bloomberg on Wednesday proposed new campaign finance rules that would apply to nearly every candidate - except himself. As a billionaire who bankrolls his own campaigns, Bloomberg doesn't accept contributions and so wouldn't be held to his newly proposed restrictions."
So how does Mikey level the playing field? Well, he simply doesn't; totally avoiding how his own spending-not to mention the over turning of multiple referenda-corrupts the democratic process as much, or even more than, the impact of the nefarious special interests. Here's his scheme: "Bloomberg's proposals include a ban on public matching dollars for funds raised by lobbyists or by people who do business with the city, as well as earlier disclosure of some contributions."
As Gertrude Stein said of Oakland: "There's not much there, there." But it did provoke the following witticism from the Thompson campaign: "They have no credibility doing that," said Eduardo Castell, the campaign manager for William Thompson, Bloomberg's likely Democrat challenger in November. "For Michael Bloomberg, who is going to be spending - it could be as much as $200 million - on this campaign, who does not participate in the campaign finance system, who we don't know if he discloses all the money that he is spending, who plays by his own rules, for him to be talking about campaign finance reform in the middle of a campaign is like Michael Vick talking about animal cruelty."
Which prompts the ideologically peripatetic Wolfson to rejoin: "Mike Bloomberg doesn't take a dime in special interest money," Wolfson said. "No one will ever have to wonder whether contributions influence his decisions....He works only for the taxpayers."
Wolfson, whose paymaster has succeeded in generating a huge memory loss for the formerly astute and populist consultant, now is transformed into the defender of vast wealth and unlimited campaign spending-forgetting his past while looking forward to a post election sojourn at an unnamed Bermuda getaway. And Wolfson manages to maintain a straight face while avoiding just how much Mike Bloomberg has in his tenure bitch slapped tax payers while aggrandizing the public sector work force.
Memo to Howard the Duck: suborning the electoral process is as easily done-and is more effective because of its stealth nature-by paying off the special interests with millions of one's own dollars; as it is by one's accepting of the largess of the special interest bogeymen. See UFT.
When we compile all of this private and public sector spending up-and add on the tens of millions being spent to blow smoke up our collective asses-we have the most aggressive challenge to true democratic principle and practice that we have seen in our lifetime; and we haven't even mentioned yet the collusion of the local press. And, of course, the man of who stands squarely for the tax payer like no other politician can, crafted a, "reform," that managed to exclude labor, an interest that isn't special enough for Mike Bloomberg.
As the News points out: "Dick Dadey, a good government advocate with Citizens Union, also praised the proposals but lamented that they stopped short of limiting the influence of unions in government. New rules implemented last year by Bloomberg and the City Council applied strict limits on contributions from lobbyists and people who do business with the city, but unions were largely exempted from those rules. "He's in the midst of an election with significant union support," Dadey said, "and you don't bite the hand that's helping you."
So here's a guy with unlimited wealth and supposedly beholden to no one, who shucks and ducks when it comes to the most politically significant interest in municipal politics. Why? As Dadey says, because it ain't good for Mike. Even the NY Post is astonished at the Bloomberg hubris: "Mike Bloomberg is an amazement. He spent more than $160 million to become and remain mayor -- not counting the off-the-official-books millions dispatched to strategically situated charities and such. And it's likely he'll have tossed another $100-plus million into the pot before Election Day. But now he's lecturing New York on the need for campaign-finance reform. Simply breathtaking."
Which underscores just how silly this whole proposal-and Wolfson's woof tickets in its defense-really is. Mike Bloomberg's decision making calculus is solipsistic-it begins and ends with his world view; a philosophy of expansive government and a benign outlook on the burdens that this expansion poses for the beleaguered tax payers and small businesses. For these are the folks who are, to borrow from Leona Helmsley, the inconsequential, "little people."
We have had eight years of this kind of noblesse oblige governance, and the city unemployment rate-and its overall costly environment for business-dramatize just what a disaster Mike Bloomberg's standing-up-for-the-tax payer regime has been. That Howard could advance this concept with a straight face-and do so on the heels of a campaign finance reform proposal that would do nothing to level a playing field that Mike Bloomberg has obliterated-means that he will retire forever our Dr. Wernher von Braun award.
This award owes its pedigree to the lyrics of the satirist Tom Lehrer who, when singing about the good doctor's move from Nazi rocket maker to American bomb impresario, remarked that Braun was, "a man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience." As Lehrer went on to say about the former Nazi scientist, "Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's apolitical, "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down, That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun"
So it is with the formerly principled Wolfson. His assumption of the Bloomberg alter ego persona renders him a true citizen of the over-the-counter culture. His selling out for a lucrative fee, however, could well prove to be rather expensive for the hapless little people who he used to so adeptly pretend to champion.
Pointed Illegality
As the NY Times is reporting this morning, former Queens BP Claire Shulman has been spearheading an illegal but successful Willets Point lobbying effort-initiated and funded by, none other than the City of New York itself; and she failed to properly register her activities as required by the city's supposedly strict lobbying law: "The group, the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation, eventually received hundreds of thousands of dollars in public and private money, and spent much of it to help push through the plan through the City Council."
And Shulman understood what her role was-no mistake about it: "That was the whole idea,” Ms. Shulman said in an interview. “The idea I had with Dan Doctoroff was that we would help the city do what the mayor wanted, to clear Willets Point and develop it in the best interest of the city, and that’s what we’ve been trying to do.” In other words, Ms. Shulman added, “We lobbied the city for the city.”
She did understand her role very well; just not its legal requirements: "Her lobbying for this latest plan became an issue this year when the city clerk’s office, which regulates lobbyists, fined her group a record $59,090 for failing to register her activities with its office. But the issue of whether the group should have been lobbying at all went unaddressed. Even now, Ms. Shulman is not sure her group did anything wrong. In its 2007 federal tax returns, the group claimed it had spent no money on lobbying. The group has hired a lawyer to help it comply with all laws and regulations."
Now hold it one second. Shulman's group was set up to grease the wheels for the redevelopment effort that the Bloombergistas have been proposing for Willets Point-a plan that involves telling 250 businesses and 2500 workers to simply. "Hit the Road Jack!" Shulman, for her part, was all over this effort, hectoring city council members and testifying on behalf of the city's plan before relevant review bodies. Yet this LDC flatly stated in a federal filing that-contrary to its stated charter-that it wouldn't be lobbying at all!
Sounds like a crime was committed here-and what's with the city's own seemingly large fine? The largest lobbying fine in New York City's history and no press release? After all, the fine was levied in April and no one was even aware of the fine for the attempted end run of the law until August? Gee, when we were fined by the City Clerk for a late filling of our lobbying client list, the fact quickly became fodder for Page 2 of the NY Post. Why the silence by the clerk here?
But the silence isn't even the most troubling aspect of this phony grass roots effort to allege that there was greater local support for the Willets Point replacement than there actually was. In the first place while the LDC was fined, Shulman-even though she is the group's lobbyist-apparently wasn't fined at all. Since both the entity (FWPCLDC) and the lobbyist failed to properly file, both should be subject to the penalties that the law provides.
But what exactly is the city doing here with tax payer money-to lobby itself? As the Times points out: "In late 2006, as the Bloomberg administration girded for what promised to be a bruising rezoning fight over the Willets Point section of Queens, it enlisted the help of Claire Shulman, the former Queens borough president. At a meeting in City Hall that December, Ms. Shulman and Daniel L. Doctoroff, then a deputy mayor, agreed to form a nonprofit group with city and private money. Its primary purpose, Ms. Shulman said, would be to lobby on behalf of the mayor’s plan to turn the long-neglected area near the New York Mets stadium into a thriving hub of shops, hotels, condominiums and a convention center."
So what we have here is apparently a collusion between Doctoroff-already burned by his West Side Stadium failure-and Shulman to set up an illegal lobbying effort with city funds. And EDC, which acted as the midwife of this illegal pact, should have known better since all of the LDC's paper work must be vetted by the agency before any funds are remitted: "Local development corporations like Ms. Shulman’s have been around for decades. Ranging from tiny neighborhood groups to giant quasi-public agencies like the city’s Economic Development Corporation, these loosely regulated organizations are designed to encourage businesses and industry to invest in local areas. But one thing they are not supposed to do is lobby. State law says local development corporations are not permitted to “influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise.” Ms. Shulman’s group eventually reported spending $450,000, roughly half its total budget, on lobbying, city records show."
As Jerry Antonacci of Willets Point United tells the Times: “They knew what they were doing,” said Gerald Antonacci, the leader of Willets Point United and the president of Crown Container, one of the area’s more than 250 companies that will be required to move when construction begins. “This was all planned out. They knew she was hiring lobbyists. This wasn’t a mistake.”
But now EDC, caught in this web of illegality, is trying to obfuscate its role: "The administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg says that it never encouraged Ms. Shulman to lobby and that the $450,000 it gave to the group was not used for that purpose. “The city regularly partners with local organizations that promote growth and economic development,” said David Lombino, a spokesman for the Economic Development Corporation. In the case of Ms. Shulman’s group, he added, “we are funding a scope of work that includes public outreach, organizing community support and proposing and advocating for area improvements.”
And Bloomberg's shill chimes in: "Andrew Brent, a Bloomberg spokesman, pointed to a letter Mr. Doctoroff sent Ms. Shulman three weeks after their first meeting. It outlined the goals of her group, including conducting and leading “outreach, public relations and marketing efforts” to support the proposed redevelopment in Willets Point, but it never mentioned lobbying elected officials." So, when Shulman was doing all of this lobbying as the point person for the city's effort, was everyone asleep?
Smell test anyone? Please don't insult our intelligence. And if what EDC is saying has any validity whatsoever, than why hasn't the agency shut down the illegal operation that was misusing the funds it was given? Why is this LDC still in business-with Shulman now registered to lobby on it behalf? Shulman, although no youngster has, in our view, a much better recollection of what she was doing for the city: "Ms. Shulman, borough president from 1986 to 2001, provides a starkly different account. “We hired lobbyists from the time we began, because we were told it was something we were supposed to be doing,” she said."
The whole matter has been referred to the Attorney General's office; and we're waiting patiently to see if the AG will pursue this with the appropriate vigor: "The attorney general’s office is reviewing the complaint. In recent months, the office has been looking into lobbying by local development corporations, and has identified a “small but not insignificant set” of groups that appear to be improperly lobbying, said a person briefed on the attorney general’s initial review."
The entire Willets Point redevelopment effort is revealed for what it is-an illegal heist, the kind that is known in law enforcement parlance as, "an inside job." And the city's own role-not to be diminished at all-was aided and abetted by some of the very firms that stood to benefit from the eviction of the existing companies: "Half the group’s revenues came from the Economic Development Corporation, which is also barred from lobbying. The other half came from corporate sponsors, including the Mets organization, which has long eyed the property, and several developers and construction firms that are expected to vie for lucrative redevelopment contracts when the city puts out requests for proposals in coming months."
Sounds just like what the Supreme Court has cautioned about when it comes to eminent domain proceedings-the use of a public purpose pretext to take away property from private hands and shift it to other private hands. This is beginning to look like one big criminal enterprise-and perhaps Cuomo needs to expand his purview; because if the LDC has been functioning outside the law, there an entire cohort of co-conspirators that need to be brought to justice, beginning with Doctoroff himself.
As the Willets Point plan heads to court, one key issue is whether the city has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the process. To which, we believe should be added-and illegally too! And the proposed taking of the land owned by the Willets Pointers should be stopped in its tracks until all of the partners in crime can be properly identified and appropriately punished for running an illegal conspiracy to steal people's property.
And Shulman understood what her role was-no mistake about it: "That was the whole idea,” Ms. Shulman said in an interview. “The idea I had with Dan Doctoroff was that we would help the city do what the mayor wanted, to clear Willets Point and develop it in the best interest of the city, and that’s what we’ve been trying to do.” In other words, Ms. Shulman added, “We lobbied the city for the city.”
She did understand her role very well; just not its legal requirements: "Her lobbying for this latest plan became an issue this year when the city clerk’s office, which regulates lobbyists, fined her group a record $59,090 for failing to register her activities with its office. But the issue of whether the group should have been lobbying at all went unaddressed. Even now, Ms. Shulman is not sure her group did anything wrong. In its 2007 federal tax returns, the group claimed it had spent no money on lobbying. The group has hired a lawyer to help it comply with all laws and regulations."
Now hold it one second. Shulman's group was set up to grease the wheels for the redevelopment effort that the Bloombergistas have been proposing for Willets Point-a plan that involves telling 250 businesses and 2500 workers to simply. "Hit the Road Jack!" Shulman, for her part, was all over this effort, hectoring city council members and testifying on behalf of the city's plan before relevant review bodies. Yet this LDC flatly stated in a federal filing that-contrary to its stated charter-that it wouldn't be lobbying at all!
Sounds like a crime was committed here-and what's with the city's own seemingly large fine? The largest lobbying fine in New York City's history and no press release? After all, the fine was levied in April and no one was even aware of the fine for the attempted end run of the law until August? Gee, when we were fined by the City Clerk for a late filling of our lobbying client list, the fact quickly became fodder for Page 2 of the NY Post. Why the silence by the clerk here?
But the silence isn't even the most troubling aspect of this phony grass roots effort to allege that there was greater local support for the Willets Point replacement than there actually was. In the first place while the LDC was fined, Shulman-even though she is the group's lobbyist-apparently wasn't fined at all. Since both the entity (FWPCLDC) and the lobbyist failed to properly file, both should be subject to the penalties that the law provides.
But what exactly is the city doing here with tax payer money-to lobby itself? As the Times points out: "In late 2006, as the Bloomberg administration girded for what promised to be a bruising rezoning fight over the Willets Point section of Queens, it enlisted the help of Claire Shulman, the former Queens borough president. At a meeting in City Hall that December, Ms. Shulman and Daniel L. Doctoroff, then a deputy mayor, agreed to form a nonprofit group with city and private money. Its primary purpose, Ms. Shulman said, would be to lobby on behalf of the mayor’s plan to turn the long-neglected area near the New York Mets stadium into a thriving hub of shops, hotels, condominiums and a convention center."
So what we have here is apparently a collusion between Doctoroff-already burned by his West Side Stadium failure-and Shulman to set up an illegal lobbying effort with city funds. And EDC, which acted as the midwife of this illegal pact, should have known better since all of the LDC's paper work must be vetted by the agency before any funds are remitted: "Local development corporations like Ms. Shulman’s have been around for decades. Ranging from tiny neighborhood groups to giant quasi-public agencies like the city’s Economic Development Corporation, these loosely regulated organizations are designed to encourage businesses and industry to invest in local areas. But one thing they are not supposed to do is lobby. State law says local development corporations are not permitted to “influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise.” Ms. Shulman’s group eventually reported spending $450,000, roughly half its total budget, on lobbying, city records show."
As Jerry Antonacci of Willets Point United tells the Times: “They knew what they were doing,” said Gerald Antonacci, the leader of Willets Point United and the president of Crown Container, one of the area’s more than 250 companies that will be required to move when construction begins. “This was all planned out. They knew she was hiring lobbyists. This wasn’t a mistake.”
But now EDC, caught in this web of illegality, is trying to obfuscate its role: "The administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg says that it never encouraged Ms. Shulman to lobby and that the $450,000 it gave to the group was not used for that purpose. “The city regularly partners with local organizations that promote growth and economic development,” said David Lombino, a spokesman for the Economic Development Corporation. In the case of Ms. Shulman’s group, he added, “we are funding a scope of work that includes public outreach, organizing community support and proposing and advocating for area improvements.”
And Bloomberg's shill chimes in: "Andrew Brent, a Bloomberg spokesman, pointed to a letter Mr. Doctoroff sent Ms. Shulman three weeks after their first meeting. It outlined the goals of her group, including conducting and leading “outreach, public relations and marketing efforts” to support the proposed redevelopment in Willets Point, but it never mentioned lobbying elected officials." So, when Shulman was doing all of this lobbying as the point person for the city's effort, was everyone asleep?
Smell test anyone? Please don't insult our intelligence. And if what EDC is saying has any validity whatsoever, than why hasn't the agency shut down the illegal operation that was misusing the funds it was given? Why is this LDC still in business-with Shulman now registered to lobby on it behalf? Shulman, although no youngster has, in our view, a much better recollection of what she was doing for the city: "Ms. Shulman, borough president from 1986 to 2001, provides a starkly different account. “We hired lobbyists from the time we began, because we were told it was something we were supposed to be doing,” she said."
The whole matter has been referred to the Attorney General's office; and we're waiting patiently to see if the AG will pursue this with the appropriate vigor: "The attorney general’s office is reviewing the complaint. In recent months, the office has been looking into lobbying by local development corporations, and has identified a “small but not insignificant set” of groups that appear to be improperly lobbying, said a person briefed on the attorney general’s initial review."
The entire Willets Point redevelopment effort is revealed for what it is-an illegal heist, the kind that is known in law enforcement parlance as, "an inside job." And the city's own role-not to be diminished at all-was aided and abetted by some of the very firms that stood to benefit from the eviction of the existing companies: "Half the group’s revenues came from the Economic Development Corporation, which is also barred from lobbying. The other half came from corporate sponsors, including the Mets organization, which has long eyed the property, and several developers and construction firms that are expected to vie for lucrative redevelopment contracts when the city puts out requests for proposals in coming months."
Sounds just like what the Supreme Court has cautioned about when it comes to eminent domain proceedings-the use of a public purpose pretext to take away property from private hands and shift it to other private hands. This is beginning to look like one big criminal enterprise-and perhaps Cuomo needs to expand his purview; because if the LDC has been functioning outside the law, there an entire cohort of co-conspirators that need to be brought to justice, beginning with Doctoroff himself.
As the Willets Point plan heads to court, one key issue is whether the city has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the process. To which, we believe should be added-and illegally too! And the proposed taking of the land owned by the Willets Pointers should be stopped in its tracks until all of the partners in crime can be properly identified and appropriately punished for running an illegal conspiracy to steal people's property.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Bloomberg Goes Fourth
Mike Bloomberg must be hearing foots steps-he not only has begun to go after Bill Thompson his putative opponent, something he never deigned to do with the hapless Ferrer, he now has forgotten what term he's running for: "Now, how many terms does he want again?
For a guy who made billions keeping track of financial information, Mayor Bloomberg seems to be having a little trouble keeping his numbers straight. During his weekly radio appearance Friday, Bloomberg - who's seeking a third term and has promised to stop there - made a reference to plans for a FOURTH term."
Really we should all forgive the guy, since he has an almost limitless ability to make up his own rules, and the voters will be damned: "Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser - for the second time in as many weeks - insisted the mayor has absolutely no interest in a fourth term, and had simply meant to refer to his hopes to score a third. On the very same radio show two weeks ago, Bloomberg iterated - and reiterated - that he's not interested in 16 years at City Hall...Those denials came a few days after he was asked about a possible fourth run at a news conference and initially replied that the law wouldn't allow it. A third term wasn't permitted until last October, when Bloomberg successfully pushed the City Council to boost the limit from two four-year terms. In January 2008, Bloomberg had insisted he had no interest in keeping his job past this year."
Clearly, Mike is a man whose allegiance to rules and protocol is ruled by expedience-which brings us to his continued amnesia over his own past practices; and the sour grapes attitude over his lost DC-37 endorsement. Thankfully, Wayne Barrett has a better memory.
As Barret reports: "Mike Bloomberg is now boldly declaring that he "will not make irresponsible promises to win an endorsement," the tough-guy-standing-up-for-taxpayers stance he's using to explain why the largest municipal union, 125,000-member District Council 37, endorsed his opponent, Democrat Bill Thompson. Maybe there's even a whiff of truth in the Bloomberg boast. But only in 2009. The last time around, he sold out the taxpayers to win DC 37's endorsement."
Wayne, the only whiff you're smelling here is the stench of opportunism; and the absurd belief that, after eight years of profligacy, Bloomberg believes he can sell the voters on a platform of fiscal responsibility: "In fact, Bloomberg tried to get the endorsement on Wednesday night by reminding the union's leaders of his crass collapse in 2005 (see "Billionaire Buys Union"). The problem in 2005 was that the mayor wasn't using his own money to buy a key endorsement; he was using the public's. "I got the endorsement of this union four years and I didn't promise you anything I didn't deliver," he told the union this week, a pitch he should have been too embarrassed to make."
This, as the lawyers say, speaks to a pattern; and the effort to re-brand Mike Bloomberg as a fiscal conservative should be laughed right out of the room. That he now wants to recast himself because of hard times, elides the fact that his own policies have been major contributors to the budget mess we find ourselves in: "This time around, Bloomberg was actually trying to get the leaders to give him a second endorsement based on the memory of those good old days. Bloomberg campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Voice that the "economic circumstances have changed," so the mayor is not "able to do now what he did four years ago." He did not address the question of whether the mayor's quid pro quo dealings with DC 37 in 2005 were kosher."
And who paid for the previous profligacy? Why, the tax payers and small businesses of the city who were forced to fund NYC's Good Time Mikey. Which is a good reason why New York is one of the worst places to do business in the entire country. But remember, Bloomberg is arguing that the economic tough times demands that this newly minted Al Capone be ushered in to a quasi-legal third term. Which means to us, that we should reward him, not because he;s demonstrated fiscal acumen, because he now sees the light and will be more sober going forward.
Sounds like a thin reed to over turn the will of the people, doesn't it? But all of this means that thin reed or not, the Bloombergistas are developing a thin skin; and when this happens, the sound of foot steps begins to grow louder and the chances of anxiety-provoked error rises in tandem. Which means that Thompson must continue to put on the pressure. Bloomberg, good in blow outs, just might not be able to play as well in a close game when the pressure is really on. Let's hope we get to see if this is true.
For a guy who made billions keeping track of financial information, Mayor Bloomberg seems to be having a little trouble keeping his numbers straight. During his weekly radio appearance Friday, Bloomberg - who's seeking a third term and has promised to stop there - made a reference to plans for a FOURTH term."
Really we should all forgive the guy, since he has an almost limitless ability to make up his own rules, and the voters will be damned: "Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser - for the second time in as many weeks - insisted the mayor has absolutely no interest in a fourth term, and had simply meant to refer to his hopes to score a third. On the very same radio show two weeks ago, Bloomberg iterated - and reiterated - that he's not interested in 16 years at City Hall...Those denials came a few days after he was asked about a possible fourth run at a news conference and initially replied that the law wouldn't allow it. A third term wasn't permitted until last October, when Bloomberg successfully pushed the City Council to boost the limit from two four-year terms. In January 2008, Bloomberg had insisted he had no interest in keeping his job past this year."
Clearly, Mike is a man whose allegiance to rules and protocol is ruled by expedience-which brings us to his continued amnesia over his own past practices; and the sour grapes attitude over his lost DC-37 endorsement. Thankfully, Wayne Barrett has a better memory.
As Barret reports: "Mike Bloomberg is now boldly declaring that he "will not make irresponsible promises to win an endorsement," the tough-guy-standing-up-for-taxpayers stance he's using to explain why the largest municipal union, 125,000-member District Council 37, endorsed his opponent, Democrat Bill Thompson. Maybe there's even a whiff of truth in the Bloomberg boast. But only in 2009. The last time around, he sold out the taxpayers to win DC 37's endorsement."
Wayne, the only whiff you're smelling here is the stench of opportunism; and the absurd belief that, after eight years of profligacy, Bloomberg believes he can sell the voters on a platform of fiscal responsibility: "In fact, Bloomberg tried to get the endorsement on Wednesday night by reminding the union's leaders of his crass collapse in 2005 (see "Billionaire Buys Union"). The problem in 2005 was that the mayor wasn't using his own money to buy a key endorsement; he was using the public's. "I got the endorsement of this union four years and I didn't promise you anything I didn't deliver," he told the union this week, a pitch he should have been too embarrassed to make."
This, as the lawyers say, speaks to a pattern; and the effort to re-brand Mike Bloomberg as a fiscal conservative should be laughed right out of the room. That he now wants to recast himself because of hard times, elides the fact that his own policies have been major contributors to the budget mess we find ourselves in: "This time around, Bloomberg was actually trying to get the leaders to give him a second endorsement based on the memory of those good old days. Bloomberg campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Voice that the "economic circumstances have changed," so the mayor is not "able to do now what he did four years ago." He did not address the question of whether the mayor's quid pro quo dealings with DC 37 in 2005 were kosher."
And who paid for the previous profligacy? Why, the tax payers and small businesses of the city who were forced to fund NYC's Good Time Mikey. Which is a good reason why New York is one of the worst places to do business in the entire country. But remember, Bloomberg is arguing that the economic tough times demands that this newly minted Al Capone be ushered in to a quasi-legal third term. Which means to us, that we should reward him, not because he;s demonstrated fiscal acumen, because he now sees the light and will be more sober going forward.
Sounds like a thin reed to over turn the will of the people, doesn't it? But all of this means that thin reed or not, the Bloombergistas are developing a thin skin; and when this happens, the sound of foot steps begins to grow louder and the chances of anxiety-provoked error rises in tandem. Which means that Thompson must continue to put on the pressure. Bloomberg, good in blow outs, just might not be able to play as well in a close game when the pressure is really on. Let's hope we get to see if this is true.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Making Lemons from Lemonade
The NY Post has a great exposé on the city fining a ten year old for selling lemonade in Riverside Park: "Three sourpuss Parks Department agents put the squeeze on a 10-year-old girl in Riverside Park yesterday, slapping the tyke with a $50 ticket for hawking lemonade without a permit."
And while the city is embarrassed enough to rescind this exercise in stupidity, it does present an object lesson on the regulatory regime pursued by the Bloombergistas. The isolated fines that are exposed and rescinded help to cover up the relentless nature of how this administration has used fines and regulations-on citizens and small businesses alike-to raise money and harass the folks.
What the little girl and her father got a taste of, was what so many mom-and-pop retailers experience every day-and their frustration is felt by all of us: "Business was booming for Clementine and her photographer dad, Richard, 49, for the first 20 minutes at the stand on West 73rd Street and Riverside Drive...But their day turned into the pits at 3 p.m. when the heartless pack of city sticklers iced their operation. "They approached us nonchalantly but then surrounded us," the peeved papa recalled. "They were very hostile as soon as they approached, saying 'Where's your permit? Where's your permit?' "
The epitaph for the Bloomberg administration? We have it: "Where's your permit?"
And while the city is embarrassed enough to rescind this exercise in stupidity, it does present an object lesson on the regulatory regime pursued by the Bloombergistas. The isolated fines that are exposed and rescinded help to cover up the relentless nature of how this administration has used fines and regulations-on citizens and small businesses alike-to raise money and harass the folks.
What the little girl and her father got a taste of, was what so many mom-and-pop retailers experience every day-and their frustration is felt by all of us: "Business was booming for Clementine and her photographer dad, Richard, 49, for the first 20 minutes at the stand on West 73rd Street and Riverside Drive...But their day turned into the pits at 3 p.m. when the heartless pack of city sticklers iced their operation. "They approached us nonchalantly but then surrounded us," the peeved papa recalled. "They were very hostile as soon as they approached, saying 'Where's your permit? Where's your permit?' "
The epitaph for the Bloomberg administration? We have it: "Where's your permit?"
Raising Eyebrows
We can't help saying that we told you so-and the 'volte-face' by the UFT on mayoral control had to have some lucrative strings attached. Here's what we said last month: "Let's be very clear. Mayoral control was effected because it was passed in the Assembly in spite of fairly strong opposition from city assembly members. The assembly has been lavishly funded by the UFT-and the union's thumb on the scale of mayoral control would have been its death knell, So, what happened? Put simply, a deal was made between Bloomberg and the union-something that will be revealed, like the proverbial player to be named later, when the teachers' contract is announced."
And now we have the following confirmation of the underlying deal, according to the NY Post (any change of heart?): "A hard bargain? Hardly. Despite the worst economy in nearly four decades, the Bloomberg administration has allocated money to hike teacher salaries by 8 percent over the next two years, documents show -- even before it sits down for contract negotiation talks."
Now keep in mind that this is the same Mike Blomberg that only a few days ago was crowing about his refusal to knuckle under to the quid pro quo demands by DC-37. His refusal, however, was probably based on the fact that he had already been bled dry by the teachers' deal: "Many labor insiders have been wondering what Randi Weingarten's United Federation of Teachers would get in return for supporting mayoral control of schools and city pension reforms, both major Bloomberg initiatives that the group initially opposed. They think the answer might be the big raises and other concessions."
Yah think? And take a look at what good old generous Mike has done for our educators: "Bloomberg has pointed out that during his time in office, he has raised teachers' salaries by slightly more than 40 percent, with a large part of those hikes tied to educators working longer days. If the allocated money is used as expected, Bloomberg will have raised overall teacher pay by 50 percent."
And the bang for the buck? Well, here's where the use of proper oversight would come in-and the recently passed legislation to re-authorize mayoral control is strangely AWOL on this crucial variable (except for the state senate's belated oversight committee). But a look at the numbers-watered down tests, a budget that has been doubled, and flat performance on the more accurate NAEP exams-indicates to us that the money is only being put to its best use in raising, not the educational standards of our students, but the standard of living of our educators.
But keep in mind that this is the same mayor who has been raising salaries-and commensurate pension obligations-for his entire term: "The potential raises would be nearly double the 2 percent inflation forecast for the next two years and would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions.
An 8 percent boost would be consistent with other union settlements since 2007. But those deals were negotiated before the city's dramatic fiscal crisis. Now the city faces a $5 billion-plus budget gap projected for the next fiscal year, which is expected to be particularly difficult to close."
So, the guy who has been consistently giving away the store-raising the public payroll at the tax payers' expense-is now the man who is best situated to lead us in economic hard times? "It's absolutely the wrong thing to do," said Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. "Inflation in New York is at zero or below. There's really been no cost-of-living gain. The private sector is suffering, not just from job cuts, but from wage cuts, reduction of bonuses, et cetera." He noted that the national unemployment rate in the private sector is 9.5 percent -- but in the public sector, it's 2.3 percent. "There's this incredible disproportion in the burden," Malanga said."
This is a pretty bad hand being dealt to New Yorkers. And the best thing that the voters can do now, is to deal the mayor out.
And now we have the following confirmation of the underlying deal, according to the NY Post (any change of heart?): "A hard bargain? Hardly. Despite the worst economy in nearly four decades, the Bloomberg administration has allocated money to hike teacher salaries by 8 percent over the next two years, documents show -- even before it sits down for contract negotiation talks."
Now keep in mind that this is the same Mike Blomberg that only a few days ago was crowing about his refusal to knuckle under to the quid pro quo demands by DC-37. His refusal, however, was probably based on the fact that he had already been bled dry by the teachers' deal: "Many labor insiders have been wondering what Randi Weingarten's United Federation of Teachers would get in return for supporting mayoral control of schools and city pension reforms, both major Bloomberg initiatives that the group initially opposed. They think the answer might be the big raises and other concessions."
Yah think? And take a look at what good old generous Mike has done for our educators: "Bloomberg has pointed out that during his time in office, he has raised teachers' salaries by slightly more than 40 percent, with a large part of those hikes tied to educators working longer days. If the allocated money is used as expected, Bloomberg will have raised overall teacher pay by 50 percent."
And the bang for the buck? Well, here's where the use of proper oversight would come in-and the recently passed legislation to re-authorize mayoral control is strangely AWOL on this crucial variable (except for the state senate's belated oversight committee). But a look at the numbers-watered down tests, a budget that has been doubled, and flat performance on the more accurate NAEP exams-indicates to us that the money is only being put to its best use in raising, not the educational standards of our students, but the standard of living of our educators.
But keep in mind that this is the same mayor who has been raising salaries-and commensurate pension obligations-for his entire term: "The potential raises would be nearly double the 2 percent inflation forecast for the next two years and would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions.
An 8 percent boost would be consistent with other union settlements since 2007. But those deals were negotiated before the city's dramatic fiscal crisis. Now the city faces a $5 billion-plus budget gap projected for the next fiscal year, which is expected to be particularly difficult to close."
So, the guy who has been consistently giving away the store-raising the public payroll at the tax payers' expense-is now the man who is best situated to lead us in economic hard times? "It's absolutely the wrong thing to do," said Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. "Inflation in New York is at zero or below. There's really been no cost-of-living gain. The private sector is suffering, not just from job cuts, but from wage cuts, reduction of bonuses, et cetera." He noted that the national unemployment rate in the private sector is 9.5 percent -- but in the public sector, it's 2.3 percent. "There's this incredible disproportion in the burden," Malanga said."
This is a pretty bad hand being dealt to New Yorkers. And the best thing that the voters can do now, is to deal the mayor out.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Beverage Tax is Here
The limbo status of the state's expanded bottle bill got somewhat clarified when a federal judge ruled that aspects of the legislation, that had previously been enjoined, could go into effect immediately: "New York State can start collecting tens of millions of dollars in unclaimed bottle and can deposits now that a federal judge has allowed some provisions of a new law to take effect."
Which means get ready for higher beverage prices, as soda and beer distributors jack them up so that they can make up for what the state will escheat; and as soon as the water issues are resolved, the cost of a case of Poland Springs will jump at least three dollars: "On Thursday, Judge Deborah A. Batts of the United States District Court in Manhattan allowed enforcement of some provisions of the law, and she scheduled a hearing for Oct. 22 on the question of deposits on water bottles. Among the restored provisions is a requirement that beverage companies give 80 percent of the nickel deposits that are not claimed by consumers to the state, instead of keeping the money."
And if you think this all stinks-another environmental measure that masquerades as a tax-than the smell wafting through your nostrils should be called, "Eau de Enck," since Judy the Frog is the prime mover of this levy: "Judith Enck, the state’s deputy secretary for the environment, estimated the ruling would amount to at least $86 million in income each year. “We really need it because we have a $2 billion deficit in the state,” she said."
It is, however, unlikely that the water provisions will be implemented immediately after the October hearing-our estimate is by the first of the year. But, considering the cost to beverage consumers, the AG should be leery of taking a victory lap: "The Court's decision yesterday will allow essential, long-overdue updates to the Bottle Bill to finally take effect," Cuomo said in a statement. "Our victory will ensure that the most critical elements of the Bill move forward expeditiously, resulting not only in cleaner communities and new, green jobs but also in over $100 million in added revenue for New York State."
Why do all these pols see pickpocketing the tax payers only in terms of, "revenue to the state?" Make no mistake about it, the expanded bill will be a further burden on city food stores-and another item on the state's deficit ledger that will further contribute to making New York the worst place to do business in the entire country.
Which means get ready for higher beverage prices, as soda and beer distributors jack them up so that they can make up for what the state will escheat; and as soon as the water issues are resolved, the cost of a case of Poland Springs will jump at least three dollars: "On Thursday, Judge Deborah A. Batts of the United States District Court in Manhattan allowed enforcement of some provisions of the law, and she scheduled a hearing for Oct. 22 on the question of deposits on water bottles. Among the restored provisions is a requirement that beverage companies give 80 percent of the nickel deposits that are not claimed by consumers to the state, instead of keeping the money."
And if you think this all stinks-another environmental measure that masquerades as a tax-than the smell wafting through your nostrils should be called, "Eau de Enck," since Judy the Frog is the prime mover of this levy: "Judith Enck, the state’s deputy secretary for the environment, estimated the ruling would amount to at least $86 million in income each year. “We really need it because we have a $2 billion deficit in the state,” she said."
It is, however, unlikely that the water provisions will be implemented immediately after the October hearing-our estimate is by the first of the year. But, considering the cost to beverage consumers, the AG should be leery of taking a victory lap: "The Court's decision yesterday will allow essential, long-overdue updates to the Bottle Bill to finally take effect," Cuomo said in a statement. "Our victory will ensure that the most critical elements of the Bill move forward expeditiously, resulting not only in cleaner communities and new, green jobs but also in over $100 million in added revenue for New York State."
Why do all these pols see pickpocketing the tax payers only in terms of, "revenue to the state?" Make no mistake about it, the expanded bill will be a further burden on city food stores-and another item on the state's deficit ledger that will further contribute to making New York the worst place to do business in the entire country.
Probably Just an Oversight
Unfortunately, when it comes to actually reporting on Mike Bloomberg's school governance regime, the NY Post continues to have some serious blinders-and its latest story on the school oversight panel demonstrates this very clearly: "Mayor Bloomberg announced his eight appointments to the 13-member Panel for Educational Policy yesterday -- a board whose composition was at the heart of the debate over renewing mayoral control of the schools system. The panel is charged with approving school budgets, construction, contracts and other public-school issues. The mayor's proposal this week to abolish the social promotion of students in the fourth and sixth grades, for example, must go before the panel for a vote."
Straight forward so far-but who are these board members? "Newly appointed members were: public-school mom Linda Bryant, director of a family services nonprofit; public-school dad Joe Chan, an urban planner and former teacher; Tomas Morales, president of the College of Staten Island; and Gitte Peng, a former City Hall education policy adviser." So, did they get this gig from the NY Times?
You'd never know by reading the Post-and it's only by going over to the NY Daily News that certain biographical facts are made known: "With school control back in his hands, Mayor Bloomberg reappointed the Panel for Educational Policy, which critics charged will rubber-stamp his policies. State lawmakers required the mayor to appoint two parents to the panel, and the mayor picked those heading organizations with financial ties to his philanthropy or the city.
"The idea they would serve in a serious oversight capacity ... verges on the laughable," said Council for Education Council 15's Jim Devor, who favors curbing mayoral control."
How close are the ties to Bloombucks? "One of the new representatives, Brooklyn parent Linda Lausell Bryant, is head of the Inwood House, which has a $255,0000 competitively bid contract with the city Department of Education and received donations from Bloomberg, by way of the Carnegie Corporation. The other parent, Joe Chan, heads the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, which has millions of dollars in city contracts."
So, while the two tabloids are both engaged in attacking the alleged corrupt nepotism at the state senate-they let the greater felon get off scot-free; because the subornation of government is-at least with New York's richest man-a two-way street. And if we're gonna be real worried about Pedro Espada's son getting a $120,000 state job, than let's start to really worry about how Mike Bloomberg is spending $235 milllion in so-called charitable giving.
In our view, this is the kind of charity that begins at home on 79th Street; and the citizens of New York would really benefit from an aggressive journalistic effort-a true media barium enema-to uncover where all the Bloomberg money is going. Mort, Rupert, no double standards.
Democracy is more substantively corrupted when a leader has the kind of money that can be used to manufacture front groups and faux leaders-and stifle any kind of genuine debate as a result; Bloomberg has managed to create a stealth astroturf operation that has largely gone unreported. Just follow the money. Sunlight please!
Straight forward so far-but who are these board members? "Newly appointed members were: public-school mom Linda Bryant, director of a family services nonprofit; public-school dad Joe Chan, an urban planner and former teacher; Tomas Morales, president of the College of Staten Island; and Gitte Peng, a former City Hall education policy adviser." So, did they get this gig from the NY Times?
You'd never know by reading the Post-and it's only by going over to the NY Daily News that certain biographical facts are made known: "With school control back in his hands, Mayor Bloomberg reappointed the Panel for Educational Policy, which critics charged will rubber-stamp his policies. State lawmakers required the mayor to appoint two parents to the panel, and the mayor picked those heading organizations with financial ties to his philanthropy or the city.
"The idea they would serve in a serious oversight capacity ... verges on the laughable," said Council for Education Council 15's Jim Devor, who favors curbing mayoral control."
How close are the ties to Bloombucks? "One of the new representatives, Brooklyn parent Linda Lausell Bryant, is head of the Inwood House, which has a $255,0000 competitively bid contract with the city Department of Education and received donations from Bloomberg, by way of the Carnegie Corporation. The other parent, Joe Chan, heads the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, which has millions of dollars in city contracts."
So, while the two tabloids are both engaged in attacking the alleged corrupt nepotism at the state senate-they let the greater felon get off scot-free; because the subornation of government is-at least with New York's richest man-a two-way street. And if we're gonna be real worried about Pedro Espada's son getting a $120,000 state job, than let's start to really worry about how Mike Bloomberg is spending $235 milllion in so-called charitable giving.
In our view, this is the kind of charity that begins at home on 79th Street; and the citizens of New York would really benefit from an aggressive journalistic effort-a true media barium enema-to uncover where all the Bloomberg money is going. Mort, Rupert, no double standards.
Democracy is more substantively corrupted when a leader has the kind of money that can be used to manufacture front groups and faux leaders-and stifle any kind of genuine debate as a result; Bloomberg has managed to create a stealth astroturf operation that has largely gone unreported. Just follow the money. Sunlight please!
Friday, August 14, 2009
Mythtakes in Healthcare Debate
There's a lot of confusion surrounding the various health care reforms currently wending their way through the congress-how could there not be when legislation reaches an accumulated 1,600 pages. But amidst all of the confusion, one thing clearly emerges: increasingly the folks don't trust the government to craft a total health care system makeover-Congressman Weiner discovered this for himself yesterday: "Rep. Anthony Weiner got an earful from a room full of rowdy - and hungry - Brooklyn seniors on Thursday demanding answers about health care reform...What he found was about 60 senior citizens fed up with the confusion surrounding the details of the President's plan to provide affordable health care for all Americans - and eager to eat lunch."
So, in spite of all the "clarifications" coming from reform supporters, approval for the direction that reform is taking is itself taking a nosedive. And the responsibility for all of this lies right on the president's door step. The folks can't get a straight answer out of the smooth talking Obama, who more and more is beginning to resemble Chico Marx who, when caught in flagrant delicto, asked the outraged husband, "Who're gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
Trust has evaporated-along with the death panel as well, it appears. The problem is, that when trust erodes, even cash for clunkers would flop-and there's enough ominous stuff embedded in the various bills to lend credence to all of the naysayers. But the primary concern across the board, and the one thing uniting all of the critics is cost.
No one believes Obama's claim that adding folks to the insurance rolls and creating a public option will lead to less expense-and they, along with the CBO, are right. As Charles Krauthammer observes: "In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Sen. Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee's reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion. The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy - yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse."
Once the linchpin of the concept was exposed as fraudulent, the floodgates to escalating skepticism were opened wide-like the proverbial barn door, to mix metaphors; and nothing that the president does can reverse this-especially not with his new argument about prevention. As Krauthammer points out: "Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention. Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money." Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."
Except it really does the opposite: "This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."
So, all of the clarifications and exposés are really for naught-and the only question left is whether the president and the congress will try to muscle an unpalatable plan through; a, "Make my day moment" for Republicans, in our view. If that happens, the tea parties and town halls will seem like garden parties once the public anger mushrooms. Leading to disruption and chaos, one of our favorite things about politics.
So, in spite of all the "clarifications" coming from reform supporters, approval for the direction that reform is taking is itself taking a nosedive. And the responsibility for all of this lies right on the president's door step. The folks can't get a straight answer out of the smooth talking Obama, who more and more is beginning to resemble Chico Marx who, when caught in flagrant delicto, asked the outraged husband, "Who're gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
Trust has evaporated-along with the death panel as well, it appears. The problem is, that when trust erodes, even cash for clunkers would flop-and there's enough ominous stuff embedded in the various bills to lend credence to all of the naysayers. But the primary concern across the board, and the one thing uniting all of the critics is cost.
No one believes Obama's claim that adding folks to the insurance rolls and creating a public option will lead to less expense-and they, along with the CBO, are right. As Charles Krauthammer observes: "In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Sen. Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee's reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion. The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy - yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse."
Once the linchpin of the concept was exposed as fraudulent, the floodgates to escalating skepticism were opened wide-like the proverbial barn door, to mix metaphors; and nothing that the president does can reverse this-especially not with his new argument about prevention. As Krauthammer points out: "Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention. Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money." Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."
Except it really does the opposite: "This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."
So, all of the clarifications and exposés are really for naught-and the only question left is whether the president and the congress will try to muscle an unpalatable plan through; a, "Make my day moment" for Republicans, in our view. If that happens, the tea parties and town halls will seem like garden parties once the public anger mushrooms. Leading to disruption and chaos, one of our favorite things about politics.
Thompson Rises
A small glimmer of hope can be glimpsed as Bill Thompson seeks, what most say, is a quixotic attempt, to beat Mike Bloomberg in this fall's mayoral election. The hopeful boost has come from the endorsement of DC-37, the city's largest union: "The city's largest municipal union voted Wednesday night to endorse Controller William Thompson for mayor over Mayor Bloomberg, a turnaround from four years ago that gives fresh momentum to Thompson's campaign. District Council 37 is scheduled to announce the endorsement at noon on Thursday, which Thompson's campaign hopes will encourage similar support from other large municipal unions like Teamsters Local 237 and the United Federation of Teachers."
The support of the 125,000 member union means that Thompson will begin to see more logistical field help in his uphill fight to beat the incumbent; and the endorsement underscores that the thrill over the mayoral incumbent is gone for many city voters. As the NY Times opines: “Thompson is in a better position — that doesn’t mean he’s in a good position — but he’s in a better position,” said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College. “This gives him a certain level of credibility that will encourage people to take a serious look at him, whereas a month ago it might have been Bill Thompson — who?”
Our old advisor is right. Better, but not yet good. In order for the more total transformation to take place, Thompson needs to find his voice-and the narrative that will resonate with the voters; many of whom who are suffering from Bloomberg fatigue, and are unhappy with his imperious over turning of the term limits law: "“I don’t think it’s a real cause of concern for the mayor unless it’s the start of a pattern,” said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic political consultant, who is not involved in the race but supports the mayor."
Patterns, however, develop when an incumbent evinces some vulnerability; and much of Bloomberg support devolves from his sense of inevitability. If this sense erodes, the pattern will emerge and there will be a real horse race in November. And while Bloomberg's over all popularity remains relatively high, the number of New Yorkers who feel it's time for a change has pushed over 50% in the latest polls.
And we disagree somewhat with Dan Gerstein, a Bloomberg-supporting consultant who gets much too much exposure from the Times: "The biggest variable in this so far is Thompson,” Mr. Gerstein said. “They’ve given people who are on the fence no compelling reason to jump. If Bill Thompson can show a compelling rationale to fire Bloomberg and hire him, then maybe things change. But there would have to be a game-changing event, or a radical political skills upgrade on the part of the challenger, to really make this a serious race.”
In our view, it's not a. "game changer," that's needed, only the strong rationale that Gerstein alludes to. The undercurrent of dissatisfaction-coupled with the incessant advertising spending-is fertile ground for the challenger. In order to really take hold, Thompson must demonstrate that the underlying rationale for the hijacking of the term limits-the idea that Bloomberg was uniquely qualified in these tough economic times-is simply false; and, in fact, the tough situation that the city finds itself in can be traced directly to the mayor's lack of fiscal acumen and his assault on New York's tax payers and small businesses.
To beat Mike Bloomberg, you first must deconstruct the Myth of Mike-and the resulting immanent critique can send the entire jerry-built house of cards toppling quickly to the ground. And a major plus for Thompson-something he needs to exploit-is that he is, unlike the mayor, a truly personable guy. The Bloomberg fatigue has as much to do with a certain degree of overexposure to the mayor's imperious personality, as it does with any particular policy that Bloomberg has advanced.
Ken Sherril captures this: "In 2005, Mr. Bloomberg managed to sway many Democrats who were impressed by his post-9/11 leadership in rebuilding New York, his against-the-grain push to ban smoking from restaurants and his insistence on raising property taxes and even income taxes on the wealthy. But this time, there is a greater wellspring of discontent, Mr. Sherrill and others said; one colorful example is a new anti-Bloomberg newsletter called Fed Up New Yorkers."
But the crucial variable here is Thompson himself. If he can begin to believe that winning is possible, and that optimism can be transposed in the campaign to the voters, than it can become self-fulfilling: "If nothing else, Mr. Thompson seems much more engaged than he was just a month ago. When asked about Mr. Thompson’s mood, Eddy Castell, his campaign manager, said: “He is certainly growing more upbeat every single day. He’s ready for the next couple of months.” Let's hope so.
The support of the 125,000 member union means that Thompson will begin to see more logistical field help in his uphill fight to beat the incumbent; and the endorsement underscores that the thrill over the mayoral incumbent is gone for many city voters. As the NY Times opines: “Thompson is in a better position — that doesn’t mean he’s in a good position — but he’s in a better position,” said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College. “This gives him a certain level of credibility that will encourage people to take a serious look at him, whereas a month ago it might have been Bill Thompson — who?”
Our old advisor is right. Better, but not yet good. In order for the more total transformation to take place, Thompson needs to find his voice-and the narrative that will resonate with the voters; many of whom who are suffering from Bloomberg fatigue, and are unhappy with his imperious over turning of the term limits law: "“I don’t think it’s a real cause of concern for the mayor unless it’s the start of a pattern,” said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic political consultant, who is not involved in the race but supports the mayor."
Patterns, however, develop when an incumbent evinces some vulnerability; and much of Bloomberg support devolves from his sense of inevitability. If this sense erodes, the pattern will emerge and there will be a real horse race in November. And while Bloomberg's over all popularity remains relatively high, the number of New Yorkers who feel it's time for a change has pushed over 50% in the latest polls.
And we disagree somewhat with Dan Gerstein, a Bloomberg-supporting consultant who gets much too much exposure from the Times: "The biggest variable in this so far is Thompson,” Mr. Gerstein said. “They’ve given people who are on the fence no compelling reason to jump. If Bill Thompson can show a compelling rationale to fire Bloomberg and hire him, then maybe things change. But there would have to be a game-changing event, or a radical political skills upgrade on the part of the challenger, to really make this a serious race.”
In our view, it's not a. "game changer," that's needed, only the strong rationale that Gerstein alludes to. The undercurrent of dissatisfaction-coupled with the incessant advertising spending-is fertile ground for the challenger. In order to really take hold, Thompson must demonstrate that the underlying rationale for the hijacking of the term limits-the idea that Bloomberg was uniquely qualified in these tough economic times-is simply false; and, in fact, the tough situation that the city finds itself in can be traced directly to the mayor's lack of fiscal acumen and his assault on New York's tax payers and small businesses.
To beat Mike Bloomberg, you first must deconstruct the Myth of Mike-and the resulting immanent critique can send the entire jerry-built house of cards toppling quickly to the ground. And a major plus for Thompson-something he needs to exploit-is that he is, unlike the mayor, a truly personable guy. The Bloomberg fatigue has as much to do with a certain degree of overexposure to the mayor's imperious personality, as it does with any particular policy that Bloomberg has advanced.
Ken Sherril captures this: "In 2005, Mr. Bloomberg managed to sway many Democrats who were impressed by his post-9/11 leadership in rebuilding New York, his against-the-grain push to ban smoking from restaurants and his insistence on raising property taxes and even income taxes on the wealthy. But this time, there is a greater wellspring of discontent, Mr. Sherrill and others said; one colorful example is a new anti-Bloomberg newsletter called Fed Up New Yorkers."
But the crucial variable here is Thompson himself. If he can begin to believe that winning is possible, and that optimism can be transposed in the campaign to the voters, than it can become self-fulfilling: "If nothing else, Mr. Thompson seems much more engaged than he was just a month ago. When asked about Mr. Thompson’s mood, Eddy Castell, his campaign manager, said: “He is certainly growing more upbeat every single day. He’s ready for the next couple of months.” Let's hope so.
Death Panel Show
In yesterday's NY Daily News Dave Saltonstall writes, what appears to us to be a, "news analysis," piece in the guise of a hard news story. The story concerns the controversy over Section 1233 of the House health care bill-the one that deals with end of life care-and critiques the role of former Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey: "McCaughey, 60, is back as a self-styled expert whose writings on Obama's health care plans are increasingly being cited by agitated conservatives at town hall meetings as proof - falsely, other experts and the President himself say - that he wants to "pull the plug on Grandma."
Now, there have been quite a few observers who have noted the problematic aspects of this particular portion of the House proposal-most notably Charles Lane in the Washington Post, someone who is certainly not a part of the great right wing conspiracy. As we have noted, citing Lane: "Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?"
And Camille Paglia-another Obama disposed observer, agrees: "As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished."
So why all of the demonization of McCaughey? And who does the News use for its expert rebuttal-none other than the AARP; and organization that has a lucrative dog in the Obama hunt and that has been likened to Acorn with dentures: "Betsy McCaughey's recent commentary on health care reform in various media outlets is rife with gross - and even cruel - distortions," AARP Executive Vice President John Rother said recently. In reality, the bill section simply aims to provide Medicare coverage for once-every-five-year conversations with doctors over what life-prolonging measures, if any, a patient wants taken in the event of a terminal illness or injury." (Hint: this isn't news, it's opinion coming from our buddy Dave)
The reality-to borrow a phrase-is that cost cutting, and the influx of millions of new insurees into the health care system, will inevitably lead to rationing; and one needs to be very mindful of the fact the folks are most medically costly in their last years of life. So one's concern over this provision isn't knee-jerk hysteria.
And President Obama's discussion of the hip operation his grandmother received in the last year of her life underscores the end of life care issue: “I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Mr. Obama said in the interview with David Leonhardt of The Times. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement, just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model is a very difficult question.”
Indeed it is-and, even more difficult, is who should be making this decision: "As Mr. Obama tries to translate that experience into policy for the rest of the country, the real issue is who would decide which procedures will be covered for those near the end of life." And, as Paglia's and Lane's endorsement of the McCaughey/Palin position highlights, this can't be so easily dismissed as scaremongering from the Right.
So McCaughey is providing some valuable insights; yet Saltonstall tries to diminish her arguments through an ad hominem attack: "Some critics have suggested that McCaughey is motivated by other interests - in recent years, she has collected some $23,600 per year in board fees and options from a drugmaking company, Genta Inc., although she resigned in 2007."
This path of argumentation, however, would render almost all of the stakeholders suspect in this debate-particularly the members of Congress who will have to eventually vote on any legislation. Even the AARP that is cited to debunk McCaughey's position, has its own dog in the hunt; in the form of the organization's health insurance program.
So let's stick to evaluating the soundness of the arguments being made on this most crucial and personal issue; and by all means, let's also strive for some balance. A full and thorough vetting process is now underway-and, thankfully, the auditors are the folks; and not media partisans.
Now, there have been quite a few observers who have noted the problematic aspects of this particular portion of the House proposal-most notably Charles Lane in the Washington Post, someone who is certainly not a part of the great right wing conspiracy. As we have noted, citing Lane: "Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?"
And Camille Paglia-another Obama disposed observer, agrees: "As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished."
So why all of the demonization of McCaughey? And who does the News use for its expert rebuttal-none other than the AARP; and organization that has a lucrative dog in the Obama hunt and that has been likened to Acorn with dentures: "Betsy McCaughey's recent commentary on health care reform in various media outlets is rife with gross - and even cruel - distortions," AARP Executive Vice President John Rother said recently. In reality, the bill section simply aims to provide Medicare coverage for once-every-five-year conversations with doctors over what life-prolonging measures, if any, a patient wants taken in the event of a terminal illness or injury." (Hint: this isn't news, it's opinion coming from our buddy Dave)
The reality-to borrow a phrase-is that cost cutting, and the influx of millions of new insurees into the health care system, will inevitably lead to rationing; and one needs to be very mindful of the fact the folks are most medically costly in their last years of life. So one's concern over this provision isn't knee-jerk hysteria.
And President Obama's discussion of the hip operation his grandmother received in the last year of her life underscores the end of life care issue: “I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Mr. Obama said in the interview with David Leonhardt of The Times. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement, just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model is a very difficult question.”
Indeed it is-and, even more difficult, is who should be making this decision: "As Mr. Obama tries to translate that experience into policy for the rest of the country, the real issue is who would decide which procedures will be covered for those near the end of life." And, as Paglia's and Lane's endorsement of the McCaughey/Palin position highlights, this can't be so easily dismissed as scaremongering from the Right.
So McCaughey is providing some valuable insights; yet Saltonstall tries to diminish her arguments through an ad hominem attack: "Some critics have suggested that McCaughey is motivated by other interests - in recent years, she has collected some $23,600 per year in board fees and options from a drugmaking company, Genta Inc., although she resigned in 2007."
This path of argumentation, however, would render almost all of the stakeholders suspect in this debate-particularly the members of Congress who will have to eventually vote on any legislation. Even the AARP that is cited to debunk McCaughey's position, has its own dog in the hunt; in the form of the organization's health insurance program.
So let's stick to evaluating the soundness of the arguments being made on this most crucial and personal issue; and by all means, let's also strive for some balance. A full and thorough vetting process is now underway-and, thankfully, the auditors are the folks; and not media partisans.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Need for Re-Testing
Diane Ravitch in, of all places, the Op-ed page of the NY Post, highlights the fraudulent nature of the New York State school tests: "David Steiner, our new state commissioner of education, has a golden opportunity to restore New York's reputation as a national leader in education. One of his first targets should be the state's shoddy testing regime."
Now we need to give the Post a limited shout out here because we have been excoriating the paper's (along with the NY Daily News') crusade on behalf of mayoral control. The linchpin of their awe struck support has been the evidence of rising test scores.
Well, thanks to Ravitich-and others like Andy Wolf who has been on his own crusade on this issue-we now know what the yeast is in all of this rising: "Thus, the phenomenal test-score gains that New York has reported in recent years resulted not from students suddenly becoming smarter -- but from the state lowering standards. In 2006, students in all grades had to earn around 60 percent of the points to reach Level 3 (proficiency) on the math test. But by 2009, they had to get only about half the points on the math test to meet state standards. In 2006, a seventh-grade student needed to get 59.6 percent of the points on the state math test to become proficient (Level 3); by 2009, it was just 44 percent. Remember the old days when 44 percent was a failing mark? Not any more. In baseball, if you bring the outfield fences closer to home plate, you'll produce more home runs. In education, if you drop the number of points that students need to earn on the tests, you'll get more students passing."
Which means that the school tests have as much validity as an Arthur Anderson Enron audit. Lowering the bar is bad enough. But claiming that the bar hopping is deserving of an Olympic medal is scandalous; especially since the phenomenal "success' is being replicated across the state: "The lowering of the bar may explain why the state has seen such phenomenal results on its math tests. In Buffalo, the proportion of students who met state standards leapt from an abysmal 29 percent in 2006 to an incredible 63 percent in 2009, in Syracuse from 30 percent to 58 percent and in New York City from 57 percent to 82 percent."
So, in our view, the new state senate oversight committee has a lot on its plate. This Bloomberg miracle ain't no visit to Lourdes even for the faithful: "In the city, a student who qualifies for Level 2 will be promoted to the next grade. In grades three through eight, the number of New York City students who scored at Level 1 in math fell by an astonishing 80 percent in only three years. Ending social promotion, as the city rightly wants to do, is thus meaningless, because students can reach Level 2 by just guessing. Some of the city's lowest-performing schools have few or no Level 1 students because the state lowered the bar."
The oversight here should be directed at the cost benefit equation. Are we getting our money's worth with a close to $20,000/pupil expenditure? Does the DOE need a fully independent auditor-much like that of the Congressional Budget Office? We certainly think so.
So now maybe the local papers-the NY Times included-can now get on to the task of properly vetting the DOE's claims of success. We're quite sure that, if they do, they will find that these claims are as inflated as the grades our school kids are getting on the state's lowered standards tests.
Now we need to give the Post a limited shout out here because we have been excoriating the paper's (along with the NY Daily News') crusade on behalf of mayoral control. The linchpin of their awe struck support has been the evidence of rising test scores.
Well, thanks to Ravitich-and others like Andy Wolf who has been on his own crusade on this issue-we now know what the yeast is in all of this rising: "Thus, the phenomenal test-score gains that New York has reported in recent years resulted not from students suddenly becoming smarter -- but from the state lowering standards. In 2006, students in all grades had to earn around 60 percent of the points to reach Level 3 (proficiency) on the math test. But by 2009, they had to get only about half the points on the math test to meet state standards. In 2006, a seventh-grade student needed to get 59.6 percent of the points on the state math test to become proficient (Level 3); by 2009, it was just 44 percent. Remember the old days when 44 percent was a failing mark? Not any more. In baseball, if you bring the outfield fences closer to home plate, you'll produce more home runs. In education, if you drop the number of points that students need to earn on the tests, you'll get more students passing."
Which means that the school tests have as much validity as an Arthur Anderson Enron audit. Lowering the bar is bad enough. But claiming that the bar hopping is deserving of an Olympic medal is scandalous; especially since the phenomenal "success' is being replicated across the state: "The lowering of the bar may explain why the state has seen such phenomenal results on its math tests. In Buffalo, the proportion of students who met state standards leapt from an abysmal 29 percent in 2006 to an incredible 63 percent in 2009, in Syracuse from 30 percent to 58 percent and in New York City from 57 percent to 82 percent."
So, in our view, the new state senate oversight committee has a lot on its plate. This Bloomberg miracle ain't no visit to Lourdes even for the faithful: "In the city, a student who qualifies for Level 2 will be promoted to the next grade. In grades three through eight, the number of New York City students who scored at Level 1 in math fell by an astonishing 80 percent in only three years. Ending social promotion, as the city rightly wants to do, is thus meaningless, because students can reach Level 2 by just guessing. Some of the city's lowest-performing schools have few or no Level 1 students because the state lowered the bar."
The oversight here should be directed at the cost benefit equation. Are we getting our money's worth with a close to $20,000/pupil expenditure? Does the DOE need a fully independent auditor-much like that of the Congressional Budget Office? We certainly think so.
So now maybe the local papers-the NY Times included-can now get on to the task of properly vetting the DOE's claims of success. We're quite sure that, if they do, they will find that these claims are as inflated as the grades our school kids are getting on the state's lowered standards tests.
Sour Wine Spilled on Main Street
In an incisive cover story, the Village Voice's Graham Raymond lays bare the phony grass roots campaign by the liquor lobby to prevent the sale of wine in grocery stores: "New York's grocery store wine ban is purely about political power. In the last six months, the state's supermarkets mounted another sustained political campaign to repeal the wine ban—this time, enlisting the help of a supportive governor. But once again, a powerful group of New Yorkers succeeded in blocking the measure. Who was it that blocked wine sales in grocery stores? Our own version of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union? Or some other association of uptight Carrie Nations? No. It was the state's liquor stores and their lobbyists."
At a time when there is much public discussion of what constitutes legitimate grass roots protest, it is instructive to take a look at a real astroturf effort-just so we can clearly distinguish it from the spontaneous out pouring of a genuinely concerned citizenry: "When Governor David Paterson declared his support for supermarkets and added a wine ban repeal to his 2009 budget package, backers of the measure believed they finally had a chance to get it through the state legislature. But on January 28, just as the bill had reached a point of serious consideration in Albany, a previously unknown group calling itself "The Last Store on Main Street" suddenly appeared on the scene, circulating press releases opposing the measure. The coalition showed off a sophisticated website and a large group of supporters that included various local and statewide liquor store associations and distributors. And it had somehow also enlisted some wineries to support its cause."
Quite an impressive array of local support-but everything isn't what it appears to be: ""The Last Store is a coalition of wine retailers from around the state," says Wendi Leggitt, the group's spokeswoman. "These are one of the last remaining independent businesses in the state." Leggitt works for Mercury Public Affairs, a powerful political consultancy partnered by ex–Pataki administration officials. They also employ ex–Democratic pols including former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer. Leggitt was also the contact person for Mercury's political action committee, which doles out tens of thousands of dollars each year in campaign contributions to elected officials and political party organizations."
In other words, the kind of grass roots that needs to have a weed whacker taken to them: "Despite the roster of prominent Albany lobbyists on the payroll, the Last Store isn't a lobbying group, Leggitt says. She calls it a "grassroots coalition of wine retailers from around the state." In fact, the group itself is a registered lobbyist, according to state filings. In all, eight lobbyists are listed in the filing, including Saunders."
Eight lobbyists? The grass roots were never greener: "Not that the supermarkets' own lobbyists didn't spend a lot of money themselves, but the state documents also show that the Last Store group spent $412,000 on lobbying—including $3,875 for a party, $100,000 for an economic study, and more than $200,000 for "consulting services" paid to Mercury—mostly in February and March, right when the wine bill was being considered."
And to insure that the lawn stayed as green as possible-the Last Store brought in the Last Straw-a phony collection of law enforcement groups who were bamboozled to support the liquor lobby's protectionism: "Just a few days after the Last Store showed up, another group also surfaced. On February 2, another organization calling itself a "grassroots" group began circulating press releases opposing the wine ban repeal. This one called itself "Law Enforcement Against Drunk Driving."
LEAD, however, failed to inform its coalition partners what exactly was going on: "By March, the state's Sheriffs' Association was complaining about being included on LEADD's list of supporters. The association had actually decided to stay neutral in the debate over the bill. "While there are many sound arguments advanced by both sides, they seem to be more related to political, practical, and financial policy concerns than specifically related to law enforcement concerns," the association's executive director, Peter Kehoe, noted on March 12. Subsequently, the group was removed from LEADD's list of backers. Other law enforcement officials who also appeared on the LEADD list of supporters admit to the Voice that they had no idea the liquor lobby was underwriting the group's efforts."
And LEAD, ostensibly with a larger drunk driving agenda, was really created out of whole cloth for one purpose: "One of the other prominent names in the law enforcement group was Daniel Sisto, vice president and legislative director of the troopers' union, where Warnock once worked. Sisto says that LEADD was not formed specifically to block the wine bill and that Mercury did not come to him and ask him to form it. Actually, he says, he asked Mercury to get involved. "We had been discussing how to make it more accessible for law enforcement to weigh in on issues that would further enforcement, and we decided to get together and become a cohesive group," Sisto says. "This issue just happened to be a jumping-off point." In other words, Sisto is saying that LEADD wasn't merely created by the liquor lobby to give a law enforcement gloss to its efforts, and will not be dismantled when the wine bill goes away. If that's true, however, why hasn't LEADD taken positions on any other issues?"
All of which indicates the extent to which the successful effort to kill the wine in supermarkets legislation was underwritten by anti-consumer special interests who were understandably ashamed to reveal their true bona fides. With the state facing an even greater budget shortfall-and the legislature probably returning next month to address it-the obstruction of the protectionists needs to be exposed and aggressively overridden.
The state's tax payers and wine consumers need to be treated with deference-and the phony efforts at covering up the interests of some of the state's most retrograde forces needs to be given the kind of disinfectant that only sunlight can bring. Because, in the light of day, there is no public policy reason to prevent the reform of the state's alcoholic beverage laws. Let's get started soon.
At a time when there is much public discussion of what constitutes legitimate grass roots protest, it is instructive to take a look at a real astroturf effort-just so we can clearly distinguish it from the spontaneous out pouring of a genuinely concerned citizenry: "When Governor David Paterson declared his support for supermarkets and added a wine ban repeal to his 2009 budget package, backers of the measure believed they finally had a chance to get it through the state legislature. But on January 28, just as the bill had reached a point of serious consideration in Albany, a previously unknown group calling itself "The Last Store on Main Street" suddenly appeared on the scene, circulating press releases opposing the measure. The coalition showed off a sophisticated website and a large group of supporters that included various local and statewide liquor store associations and distributors. And it had somehow also enlisted some wineries to support its cause."
Quite an impressive array of local support-but everything isn't what it appears to be: ""The Last Store is a coalition of wine retailers from around the state," says Wendi Leggitt, the group's spokeswoman. "These are one of the last remaining independent businesses in the state." Leggitt works for Mercury Public Affairs, a powerful political consultancy partnered by ex–Pataki administration officials. They also employ ex–Democratic pols including former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer. Leggitt was also the contact person for Mercury's political action committee, which doles out tens of thousands of dollars each year in campaign contributions to elected officials and political party organizations."
In other words, the kind of grass roots that needs to have a weed whacker taken to them: "Despite the roster of prominent Albany lobbyists on the payroll, the Last Store isn't a lobbying group, Leggitt says. She calls it a "grassroots coalition of wine retailers from around the state." In fact, the group itself is a registered lobbyist, according to state filings. In all, eight lobbyists are listed in the filing, including Saunders."
Eight lobbyists? The grass roots were never greener: "Not that the supermarkets' own lobbyists didn't spend a lot of money themselves, but the state documents also show that the Last Store group spent $412,000 on lobbying—including $3,875 for a party, $100,000 for an economic study, and more than $200,000 for "consulting services" paid to Mercury—mostly in February and March, right when the wine bill was being considered."
And to insure that the lawn stayed as green as possible-the Last Store brought in the Last Straw-a phony collection of law enforcement groups who were bamboozled to support the liquor lobby's protectionism: "Just a few days after the Last Store showed up, another group also surfaced. On February 2, another organization calling itself a "grassroots" group began circulating press releases opposing the wine ban repeal. This one called itself "Law Enforcement Against Drunk Driving."
LEAD, however, failed to inform its coalition partners what exactly was going on: "By March, the state's Sheriffs' Association was complaining about being included on LEADD's list of supporters. The association had actually decided to stay neutral in the debate over the bill. "While there are many sound arguments advanced by both sides, they seem to be more related to political, practical, and financial policy concerns than specifically related to law enforcement concerns," the association's executive director, Peter Kehoe, noted on March 12. Subsequently, the group was removed from LEADD's list of backers. Other law enforcement officials who also appeared on the LEADD list of supporters admit to the Voice that they had no idea the liquor lobby was underwriting the group's efforts."
And LEAD, ostensibly with a larger drunk driving agenda, was really created out of whole cloth for one purpose: "One of the other prominent names in the law enforcement group was Daniel Sisto, vice president and legislative director of the troopers' union, where Warnock once worked. Sisto says that LEADD was not formed specifically to block the wine bill and that Mercury did not come to him and ask him to form it. Actually, he says, he asked Mercury to get involved. "We had been discussing how to make it more accessible for law enforcement to weigh in on issues that would further enforcement, and we decided to get together and become a cohesive group," Sisto says. "This issue just happened to be a jumping-off point." In other words, Sisto is saying that LEADD wasn't merely created by the liquor lobby to give a law enforcement gloss to its efforts, and will not be dismantled when the wine bill goes away. If that's true, however, why hasn't LEADD taken positions on any other issues?"
All of which indicates the extent to which the successful effort to kill the wine in supermarkets legislation was underwritten by anti-consumer special interests who were understandably ashamed to reveal their true bona fides. With the state facing an even greater budget shortfall-and the legislature probably returning next month to address it-the obstruction of the protectionists needs to be exposed and aggressively overridden.
The state's tax payers and wine consumers need to be treated with deference-and the phony efforts at covering up the interests of some of the state's most retrograde forces needs to be given the kind of disinfectant that only sunlight can bring. Because, in the light of day, there is no public policy reason to prevent the reform of the state's alcoholic beverage laws. Let's get started soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
