With all of the heat that the charter school hearing generated yesterday, what was glaringly absent was any real light-like what has been the charter school record as opposed to the achievements of the public schools. There was, however, at list one person who did testify on this baseline question-school historian Diane Ravitch. But surprisingly, not a single news outlet reported on what she said.
What Ravitch told the Perkins committee was that charter school hoo ha falls far short of the reality: "Charters vary widely in quality. Last year a national evaluation by Margaret Raymond of Stanford University (including data from 2,403 charters and 70 percent of all charter students) found that only 17% outperformed regular public schools; that 46% had learning gains no different from regular public schools; and that 37% had gains that were worse than regular public schools. Raymond concluded, “This study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their TPS [traditional public school] counterparts."
Hold on a moment. Does this mean that the clamor for charters is based more on sizzle than steak? Well, consider this: "Just last month, on March 9, the New York Times described how public schools in Harlem now must market themselves to compete with charter schools for new students. The regular public schools have less than $500 each to create brochures and fliers; the charter firm with which they compete has a marketing budget of $325,000. That’s not fair."
So, perhaps the demand is-at least to some extent-based on irrational exuberance. And then there's the issue of accountability, the main thrust of Senator Perkins' concerns. Ravitch agrees: "We have seen stories about non-profit entrepreneurs who are paid $400,000 a year or more to run charters for 1,000 children. That’s more than the Chancellor of the New York City schools is paid, and more than the U.S. Secretary of Education. That’s not right. The New York Daily News reports today that charter schools, unlike other public schools, are not subject to public audits or to rules prohibiting nepotism and conflicts of interest by their board members or staff. That’s not right.The Legislature must insist that charters act like public institutions and that they are fiscally transparent and accountable."
But, as we have pointed out on a number of occasions, the bottom line issue in all of this controversy is what it says about the state of the public school system. As one parent testified yesterday: "We need parent choice. Our district schools couldn't get any worse. What we're trying to do is open up more opportunities," said Sabrina Williams, 52, whose daughter attends fourth grade at Harlem Success Academy."
So there is obviously a perception of failure at the grass roots level. Whether this is a reality or not-and studies indicate that the charter exploits are exaggerated in the aggregate-doesn't matter. And the clamoring for, "choice," is an indictment of the current system that the media did so much to tout when it was all about mayoral control.
There is, in our view, a need for more choice, but that choice shouldn't be a Hobson's choice. Charters need to become a more integrated part of the public education system-and their successes need to be utilized in ways that will help advance achievement in their public school counterparts; that was the original vision when the charter concept was first forwarded by Al Shanker. We need to transcend the current zero/sum game.
We'll give Ravitch the last word on this-in the hopes that the charter chatter becomes more insightful and less spiteful: "I hope the day comes when charters join with public schools as partners, collaborators, and allies in the shared mission of educating all of our city’s public school students."
Friday, April 23, 2010
Earth Daze
There are more folks following up on the ersatz Bloomberg sustainability mantra-this time an urban planner from Hunter does his own expose at the Gotham Gazette; and what Dr. Paul finds is that the mayor's rhetoric fails to mesh with the reality of his administration's programs: "The unfortunate truth is that many of New York City’s "transit oriented" rezonings instead encourage automobile use by requiring off-street parking. They destroy the mixed-use, walk-to-work character of communities like Long Island City in favor of high-end residential redevelopment. At the same time, the city has missed huge opportunities to cluster new development around transit stations in outer borough neighborhoods like Bay Ridge and Corona, instead reducing development potential to preserve the car-oriented, suburban-like environment."
In more plain English, Bloomberg-and particularly his EDC-have failed to walk the walk, something we have learned first hand from all of the grass roots lobbying we have done over the past three years. And one of the biggest discrepancies is over the issue of parking: "Perhaps the greatest contradiction comes in the city's attitude toward parking. In striking contrast to the stated objective of PlaNYC2030 to reduce the number of cars on the road, the Department of City Planning continues to require most new developments to provide off-street parking - usually garages -- for residents.. In the past two years, studies by the Furman Center and Transportation Alternatives have called attention to the impact this has had on development patterns in the city."
Just a cursory look at the Sorcerer's Apprentice-like development in Queens, underscores the planner's dissatisfaction; as well as those of transit-promoting organization's like Transportation Alternatives. Put plainly, while posturing for all the swells about how green is his valley, Bloomberg has been flooding the boroughs with car dependent retail developments. Obviously, Willets Point and Flushing Commons are some of the more egregious examples of this trend, but the expansion of Gateway Mall in East New York-with an additional 600,000 sq. ft. of retail being added to the 643,000 already there is a further affirmation of Bloomberg's "do as I say" philosophy.
And, as Dr, Paul tells us, the environmental impacts are the opposite of the grand planning scheme's glossy brochures: "With thousands of new cars and drivers entering the city thanks to all this new parking, the impact of these supposedly transit-oriented, sustainable rezonings will be just the opposite of PlaNYC's goals -- a larger carbon footprint, increased dependence on fossil fuels, lower air quality, and increased congestion."
Another critic picks up on Paul's theme, and focuses in on the mayor's failure to provide the transit infrastructure to alleviate auto-dependency: "PlaNYC's original plan was to use funds from Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing pet project to fund mass transit improvements. When that legislation failed, Bloomberg didn't have a back-up plan. Studies have also found that the city administration has done little to encourage New Yorkers in the outer boroughs to pick public transportation over car use."
As a result, the only back up that is found is on the Van Wyck, the Cross Bronx and the LIE-with more congestion to come; bolstering the mayor's legacy of misdirection. What is needed is a really good traffic cop. One who can call the mayor out on all of the damage that he is doing-not to his image, because who really cares about that-but to the quality of life in NYC neighborhoods in all five boroughs. The stoppage of the carnage should begin in Flushing and Willets Point-before Gridlock Sam is forced to relinquish his nom de guerre to Gridlock Mike.
In more plain English, Bloomberg-and particularly his EDC-have failed to walk the walk, something we have learned first hand from all of the grass roots lobbying we have done over the past three years. And one of the biggest discrepancies is over the issue of parking: "Perhaps the greatest contradiction comes in the city's attitude toward parking. In striking contrast to the stated objective of PlaNYC2030 to reduce the number of cars on the road, the Department of City Planning continues to require most new developments to provide off-street parking - usually garages -- for residents.. In the past two years, studies by the Furman Center and Transportation Alternatives have called attention to the impact this has had on development patterns in the city."
Just a cursory look at the Sorcerer's Apprentice-like development in Queens, underscores the planner's dissatisfaction; as well as those of transit-promoting organization's like Transportation Alternatives. Put plainly, while posturing for all the swells about how green is his valley, Bloomberg has been flooding the boroughs with car dependent retail developments. Obviously, Willets Point and Flushing Commons are some of the more egregious examples of this trend, but the expansion of Gateway Mall in East New York-with an additional 600,000 sq. ft. of retail being added to the 643,000 already there is a further affirmation of Bloomberg's "do as I say" philosophy.
And, as Dr, Paul tells us, the environmental impacts are the opposite of the grand planning scheme's glossy brochures: "With thousands of new cars and drivers entering the city thanks to all this new parking, the impact of these supposedly transit-oriented, sustainable rezonings will be just the opposite of PlaNYC's goals -- a larger carbon footprint, increased dependence on fossil fuels, lower air quality, and increased congestion."
Another critic picks up on Paul's theme, and focuses in on the mayor's failure to provide the transit infrastructure to alleviate auto-dependency: "PlaNYC's original plan was to use funds from Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing pet project to fund mass transit improvements. When that legislation failed, Bloomberg didn't have a back-up plan. Studies have also found that the city administration has done little to encourage New Yorkers in the outer boroughs to pick public transportation over car use."
As a result, the only back up that is found is on the Van Wyck, the Cross Bronx and the LIE-with more congestion to come; bolstering the mayor's legacy of misdirection. What is needed is a really good traffic cop. One who can call the mayor out on all of the damage that he is doing-not to his image, because who really cares about that-but to the quality of life in NYC neighborhoods in all five boroughs. The stoppage of the carnage should begin in Flushing and Willets Point-before Gridlock Sam is forced to relinquish his nom de guerre to Gridlock Mike.
Off the Charts
This whole media assault on Bill Perkins is very strange indeed-it's almost as if the NY Post-and the Daily News as well-is suddenly dyslexic and is now unable to read all that it wrote last year about the Bloomberg educational miracle. And the Post reporter with the most severe learning disability is Carl Campanile, the designated hitter against Perkins. Here's his latest snarl: "Even though charters in his Harlem district have greatly outperformed students in nearby traditional schools, Perkins has proposed legislation that would cripple the charter-school movement. Charter advocates describe him as the most anti-charter lawmaker in the state Legislature."
Now we are by no means enthusiastic supporters of the current public school regime-where overspending with little to show for it, and top down misjudgments have stalled educational improvements. But the Post and the News have been the system's (or is it the mayor's?) biggest cheerleaders-touting too good to be true test results that have been proven to be just that. Now, however, they want their readers to simply forget everything that they said in touting the renewal of mayoral control in the most egregious example of an Emily Litella moment: "Never Mind!"
Here's the Post's usually prescient Andrea Peyser's observations about the wonders of one Harlem charter school: "Like all charters, Democracy Prep, which serves 402 students grades six through nine, is funded by tax money, but is run like a private school. It also gets less money per pupil -- $12,500, compared with $16,000 to $18,000 for an ordinary school. Yet it pays teachers more, has longer days, and students consistently outperform next-door neighbors. Last year, 91 percent of eighth-graders there passed the citywide math test, in a district where just 69 percent passed."
Okay, and does this unusually outstanding performance say anything about the larger system that it has siphoned off these kids from? Maybe just a little critique would be in order? But nooo. It's as if-Soviet style-the public record of encomiums to the Bloomberg miracle have been expunged from memory, as the two tabloids go back to bashing their traditional teacher union enemy. The UFT-allied with the mayor as a co-conspirator on governance-is now the anti charter villain and can once again assume its proper role for excoriation.
So, in our view, this charter flight fight is a plague on both their houses. We have a failing public school system run by private school parvenus that gets lavish praise from media sycophants; and a charter school movement with few checks and balances to prevent schemers like Floyd Flake and Greg Meeks from exploiting the process for beaucoup bucks. Some choice.
But until the Post and the News do a much needed confessional over their undeserved praise of the mayoral controlled shortcomings, we believe that they should both maintain silence. The whole episode reeks of hypocrisy.
Now we are by no means enthusiastic supporters of the current public school regime-where overspending with little to show for it, and top down misjudgments have stalled educational improvements. But the Post and the News have been the system's (or is it the mayor's?) biggest cheerleaders-touting too good to be true test results that have been proven to be just that. Now, however, they want their readers to simply forget everything that they said in touting the renewal of mayoral control in the most egregious example of an Emily Litella moment: "Never Mind!"
Here's the Post's usually prescient Andrea Peyser's observations about the wonders of one Harlem charter school: "Like all charters, Democracy Prep, which serves 402 students grades six through nine, is funded by tax money, but is run like a private school. It also gets less money per pupil -- $12,500, compared with $16,000 to $18,000 for an ordinary school. Yet it pays teachers more, has longer days, and students consistently outperform next-door neighbors. Last year, 91 percent of eighth-graders there passed the citywide math test, in a district where just 69 percent passed."
Okay, and does this unusually outstanding performance say anything about the larger system that it has siphoned off these kids from? Maybe just a little critique would be in order? But nooo. It's as if-Soviet style-the public record of encomiums to the Bloomberg miracle have been expunged from memory, as the two tabloids go back to bashing their traditional teacher union enemy. The UFT-allied with the mayor as a co-conspirator on governance-is now the anti charter villain and can once again assume its proper role for excoriation.
So, in our view, this charter flight fight is a plague on both their houses. We have a failing public school system run by private school parvenus that gets lavish praise from media sycophants; and a charter school movement with few checks and balances to prevent schemers like Floyd Flake and Greg Meeks from exploiting the process for beaucoup bucks. Some choice.
But until the Post and the News do a much needed confessional over their undeserved praise of the mayoral controlled shortcomings, we believe that they should both maintain silence. The whole episode reeks of hypocrisy.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
A Chartered Flight of Fancy
The NY Post has unleashed a media barrage in favor of the charter school movement in NYC-to the point of even questioning Merryl Tisch, the one absolutely righteous figure in public education today. But there is something very wrong with this picture-and we're here to tell you just how wrong it is for the paper to be on this wrong way headed white horse.
The Post's charter school campaign has lined up Senator Bill Perkins in its shotgun cross hairs, even going so far as to point out that the senator himself didn't attend a public high school (something never mentioned about Bloomberg or Klein). It has excoriated Perkins in article after article in the effort to paint all opponents of charters as enemies of the school children of New York. But if the Post truly feels that charters are so essential-to the point of demonizing the opposition-then the belief in their efficacy must be juxtaposed to the manifest failure of the public school system. That's the only way that this kind of intense Manichean advocacy can be justified.
But wait, that's certainly not the case-or it sure doesn't seem so. The Post has spent oceans of ink on its last educational crusade; insuring that Mike Bloomberg got to continue his hold over public school governance. In the process, the paper joined with the amen chorus-singing operatic solos in a command performance-in lauding the remarkable achievements that Professor Bloomberg had wrought for the previously downtrodden school population.
As it turned out, the remarkable performance turned out to be remarkably fraudulent-with phony test scores and accompanying teacher/principal bonuses providing the fraudulent foundation for an Enron-like scandal. Did the Post issue any mea culpas to this off key hootenanny? Has it pointed out that the school system budget has skyrocketed without any real commensurate educational gains? Has it highlighted how the mayor bought off the "hated UFT" and saddled the tax payers with huge money for nothing salaries and pensions?
None of the above. But if the paper had any integrity on this issue, it would start by underscoring that, in spite of all of the excess money expended on the Bloomberg miracle, the result has been very Elmer Gantry-like. And in its charter reporting-with stories about frustrating waiting lists and poignant parent narratives-that is the impression one can infer. But inference is no substitute for the Post to call a spade a spade about the current status of the school system under Kleinberg.
One could, and should say, it has been an expensive failure. And if the Post did embark on this path of righteousness, than its charter campaign would be devolving from an honest perspective: the current public system has failed, and we need to do something to save the kids. Without this re-evaluation and recantation, the paper's charter flight should crash and burn-fueled as it is by hypocrisy and a dishonest double standard.
In our view, charters are no panacea-as a NY Daily News article points out today. Can they be part of a reform movement-along with a well supervised voucher experiment? Yes, we believe so. But the Post's hypertensive campaign-not to mention blatant hypocrisy-is not helpful in this regard. If it is to play a salutary role, the paper needs to begin by honestly telling its readers about just how lackluster all of the Bloomberg effort has been. If it does this, than we can begin to take seriously its educational reportage. But not a moment before.
The Post's charter school campaign has lined up Senator Bill Perkins in its shotgun cross hairs, even going so far as to point out that the senator himself didn't attend a public high school (something never mentioned about Bloomberg or Klein). It has excoriated Perkins in article after article in the effort to paint all opponents of charters as enemies of the school children of New York. But if the Post truly feels that charters are so essential-to the point of demonizing the opposition-then the belief in their efficacy must be juxtaposed to the manifest failure of the public school system. That's the only way that this kind of intense Manichean advocacy can be justified.
But wait, that's certainly not the case-or it sure doesn't seem so. The Post has spent oceans of ink on its last educational crusade; insuring that Mike Bloomberg got to continue his hold over public school governance. In the process, the paper joined with the amen chorus-singing operatic solos in a command performance-in lauding the remarkable achievements that Professor Bloomberg had wrought for the previously downtrodden school population.
As it turned out, the remarkable performance turned out to be remarkably fraudulent-with phony test scores and accompanying teacher/principal bonuses providing the fraudulent foundation for an Enron-like scandal. Did the Post issue any mea culpas to this off key hootenanny? Has it pointed out that the school system budget has skyrocketed without any real commensurate educational gains? Has it highlighted how the mayor bought off the "hated UFT" and saddled the tax payers with huge money for nothing salaries and pensions?
None of the above. But if the paper had any integrity on this issue, it would start by underscoring that, in spite of all of the excess money expended on the Bloomberg miracle, the result has been very Elmer Gantry-like. And in its charter reporting-with stories about frustrating waiting lists and poignant parent narratives-that is the impression one can infer. But inference is no substitute for the Post to call a spade a spade about the current status of the school system under Kleinberg.
One could, and should say, it has been an expensive failure. And if the Post did embark on this path of righteousness, than its charter campaign would be devolving from an honest perspective: the current public system has failed, and we need to do something to save the kids. Without this re-evaluation and recantation, the paper's charter flight should crash and burn-fueled as it is by hypocrisy and a dishonest double standard.
In our view, charters are no panacea-as a NY Daily News article points out today. Can they be part of a reform movement-along with a well supervised voucher experiment? Yes, we believe so. But the Post's hypertensive campaign-not to mention blatant hypocrisy-is not helpful in this regard. If it is to play a salutary role, the paper needs to begin by honestly telling its readers about just how lackluster all of the Bloomberg effort has been. If it does this, than we can begin to take seriously its educational reportage. But not a moment before.
Falling Way Short
The NY Daily News reports that the mayor's goals for sustainable development and a greener city have fallen short: "Mayor Bloomberg's ambitious environmental agenda fell victim to the fiscal crisis and political challenges, missing many of its 2009 goals, the Mayor's office announced Tuesday. The city completed just 51 of the 127 milestones Bloomberg laid out in 2007 when he first announced a sweeping plan to plant a million trees, lay hundreds of miles of bike lanes, build housing near mass transit and take other steps to improve the city's climate."
What a cop out! The mayor's, "ambitious environmental agenda," has really fallen short because of a leadening hypocrisy-as he and his EDC continue to pave over the borough of Queens with little apparent concern about the environmental consequences. In one quadrant of the borough alone-where Willets Point, Flushing and College Point intersect-development projects will generate well over 100,000 new car trips a day if all of the proposed developments actually get built. As we have said before-citing the traffic analysis of Brian Ketcham: ..."What I have found in my review for Willets Point United is that the FGEIS for Willets Point failed to fully account for Sky View Parc and ignored the effects of Flushing Commons. In fact, there is little evidence that the FGEIS accounted for many of the 90 new developments surrounding the Willets Point Iron Triangle. You folks approved a project--Willets Point--that vastly understated its traffic impacts and still reported gridlocked traffic conditions. Clearly, adding another 800 to 1,000 car and truck trips from Flushing Commons in the PM peak hour to an already gridlocked Main Street will simply make life for you folks that much worse."
Only 90 new projects? Imagine what the Van Wyck will soon look like-not to mention all of the surrounding streets trying to accommodate the overflow. But Bloomberg continues with the old razzle dazzle: "PlaNYC is a "20-year strategic vision," the mayor wrote in a in a report released Tuesday on the status of his plan."The long-term goals it outlines can be achieved, but they will not be met overnight."
And while we are at it, would someone let us know when this so-called plan was ever presented to the city's 59 community boards-or perhaps to the city's mythical legislative body? It is another example of the authoritarian nature of the mayor's approach to government-as was the congestion tax plan that was proffered minus any environmental review that is generally mandated for even the smallest zoning change.
So, if it's true that the global recession dampened the environmental grandiosity that is Bloomberg, than we must say that an economic downturn can have a therapeutic function. It is high time that Speaker Quinn ask the mayor to present PlaNYC 2030 to the city council for a proper review. If she doesn't, it will be yet another example of the council abdicating its oversight role.
What a cop out! The mayor's, "ambitious environmental agenda," has really fallen short because of a leadening hypocrisy-as he and his EDC continue to pave over the borough of Queens with little apparent concern about the environmental consequences. In one quadrant of the borough alone-where Willets Point, Flushing and College Point intersect-development projects will generate well over 100,000 new car trips a day if all of the proposed developments actually get built. As we have said before-citing the traffic analysis of Brian Ketcham: ..."What I have found in my review for Willets Point United is that the FGEIS for Willets Point failed to fully account for Sky View Parc and ignored the effects of Flushing Commons. In fact, there is little evidence that the FGEIS accounted for many of the 90 new developments surrounding the Willets Point Iron Triangle. You folks approved a project--Willets Point--that vastly understated its traffic impacts and still reported gridlocked traffic conditions. Clearly, adding another 800 to 1,000 car and truck trips from Flushing Commons in the PM peak hour to an already gridlocked Main Street will simply make life for you folks that much worse."
Only 90 new projects? Imagine what the Van Wyck will soon look like-not to mention all of the surrounding streets trying to accommodate the overflow. But Bloomberg continues with the old razzle dazzle: "PlaNYC is a "20-year strategic vision," the mayor wrote in a in a report released Tuesday on the status of his plan."The long-term goals it outlines can be achieved, but they will not be met overnight."
And while we are at it, would someone let us know when this so-called plan was ever presented to the city's 59 community boards-or perhaps to the city's mythical legislative body? It is another example of the authoritarian nature of the mayor's approach to government-as was the congestion tax plan that was proffered minus any environmental review that is generally mandated for even the smallest zoning change.
So, if it's true that the global recession dampened the environmental grandiosity that is Bloomberg, than we must say that an economic downturn can have a therapeutic function. It is high time that Speaker Quinn ask the mayor to present PlaNYC 2030 to the city council for a proper review. If she doesn't, it will be yet another example of the council abdicating its oversight role.
Sugar in the Tank
The NY Daily News has an interesting defense of the fat tax in yesterday's paper from Linda Fried of the Mailman School of Public Health-and is a testament to why public health advocates, like small children and fire, should be kept away from policy making: "Given high rates of obesity (about 60% of New Yorkers are overweight or obese) and diabetes (which afflicts more than a million people in New York City alone), this would seem a logical proposal: one that reduces consumption of sugared drinks, a leading culprit in these conditions, and raises much-needed resources for health care, disease prevention and education."
Well, one woman's logic is...But Fried goes on to explain just why the proposal makes so much sense-from the standpoint of public health ideology: "Does the soda tax pass the public health test? It depends on three key questions. First, to what extent will this tax actually change the drinking habits of New Yorkers, rather than simply making bad habits more expensive? The answer: Studies estimate that a tax of this size will reduce consumption by 10%, and that's a significant start."
Ah, the old, "studies estimate," gambit-but there is no current evidence that indicates with any degree of certainty that there will be this kind of cause and effect relationship between the tax and behavior. And in our experience, when the folks fail to act like Pavlov's dog, the government simply ups the ante-and raises the tax even further, But this template has even more ominous implications.
That's because this public health mentality-once it has the government wind at its sails-will certainly not stop with sugar; fat and salt will be the next items on the menu. And Fried's world view isn't hard to decipher: "Influencing these kinds of behaviors may seem to be a goal that should be beyond government concern. But our nation has an urgent need to control health care costs. The best way to do that, without reducing health care services, is to prevent illness. Obesity is often a preventable condition, and diabetes, as well as heart disease and other illnesses, is directly linked to it."
We like that turn of phrase about the role of government, individual behavior and public health: "...may seem to be a goal that should be beyond government concern." But in the public health Weltanschauung there is literally no individual behavior that is beyond the purview of government meddling.
But Fried, not content to dog paddle in the shallow end of the pool, goes on to butterfly in the deep water with the following stretch: "Second, will the proposed bill help public health sufficiently, if some of the funding winds up going to education? The answer to this is absolutely yes. The quality of education not only prepares our children and young adults to be successful and productive citizens, but it is a key predictor in how healthy they will be in their longer lives."
And if some of the funds go to public safety than that's good for health as well. But what if some of the funds are directed-since all money is fungible-to a corrupt member item? The Fried argument is a a classic example of Reductio ad Absurdum reasoning (if that's true than I'm a monkey's uncle)-and underscores the progressive belief that any money that the government is able to con out of the public is in the public's interest.
Fried, however, elides the possibility that this kind of tax policy writ large will have an unhealthy impact on the economies of neighborhoods where the products in question are distributed and sold. Memo to Fried: Employment is also in the interest of public health because people with jobs...well, you get the picture.
And one other important point that underscores the philosophical fragility of Fried's advocacy. In our view, it is inherently healthy for individuals to be in full charge of how they live their lives. And the corollary of this position, is that when folks are dictated to by tax policies designed to control behavior, they are unable to live their own lives to the fullest and healthiest extent.
So, the public health meddlers need to be told to back off of their intrinsic ideological impulse to coerce. It is a dangerous slippery slope, one that leads to the kind of soft tyranny predicted by Tocqueville-an unhealthy, less democratic, and less productive society where public health managers will all be employed dispensing Soma to comatose subjects.
Well, one woman's logic is...But Fried goes on to explain just why the proposal makes so much sense-from the standpoint of public health ideology: "Does the soda tax pass the public health test? It depends on three key questions. First, to what extent will this tax actually change the drinking habits of New Yorkers, rather than simply making bad habits more expensive? The answer: Studies estimate that a tax of this size will reduce consumption by 10%, and that's a significant start."
Ah, the old, "studies estimate," gambit-but there is no current evidence that indicates with any degree of certainty that there will be this kind of cause and effect relationship between the tax and behavior. And in our experience, when the folks fail to act like Pavlov's dog, the government simply ups the ante-and raises the tax even further, But this template has even more ominous implications.
That's because this public health mentality-once it has the government wind at its sails-will certainly not stop with sugar; fat and salt will be the next items on the menu. And Fried's world view isn't hard to decipher: "Influencing these kinds of behaviors may seem to be a goal that should be beyond government concern. But our nation has an urgent need to control health care costs. The best way to do that, without reducing health care services, is to prevent illness. Obesity is often a preventable condition, and diabetes, as well as heart disease and other illnesses, is directly linked to it."
We like that turn of phrase about the role of government, individual behavior and public health: "...may seem to be a goal that should be beyond government concern." But in the public health Weltanschauung there is literally no individual behavior that is beyond the purview of government meddling.
But Fried, not content to dog paddle in the shallow end of the pool, goes on to butterfly in the deep water with the following stretch: "Second, will the proposed bill help public health sufficiently, if some of the funding winds up going to education? The answer to this is absolutely yes. The quality of education not only prepares our children and young adults to be successful and productive citizens, but it is a key predictor in how healthy they will be in their longer lives."
And if some of the funds go to public safety than that's good for health as well. But what if some of the funds are directed-since all money is fungible-to a corrupt member item? The Fried argument is a a classic example of Reductio ad Absurdum reasoning (if that's true than I'm a monkey's uncle)-and underscores the progressive belief that any money that the government is able to con out of the public is in the public's interest.
Fried, however, elides the possibility that this kind of tax policy writ large will have an unhealthy impact on the economies of neighborhoods where the products in question are distributed and sold. Memo to Fried: Employment is also in the interest of public health because people with jobs...well, you get the picture.
And one other important point that underscores the philosophical fragility of Fried's advocacy. In our view, it is inherently healthy for individuals to be in full charge of how they live their lives. And the corollary of this position, is that when folks are dictated to by tax policies designed to control behavior, they are unable to live their own lives to the fullest and healthiest extent.
So, the public health meddlers need to be told to back off of their intrinsic ideological impulse to coerce. It is a dangerous slippery slope, one that leads to the kind of soft tyranny predicted by Tocqueville-an unhealthy, less democratic, and less productive society where public health managers will all be employed dispensing Soma to comatose subjects.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
More on Kochety Old Man
The other day we had posted on the silly spectacle of Ed Koch posing as a reformer, and calling on Albany to craft a non-partisan redistricting plan. In today's Crain's Insider, the RWDSU's Stuart Appelbaum sees our shot and raises it two or three fold: "Union leader Stu Appelbaum thinks Ed Koch's sudden zeal for cleaning up Albany is better for Republicans than Democrats. In a blistering e-mail yesterday, the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union questioned Koch's motivation for proposing an independent commission to redraw legislative districts. “Where was his voice during the Republicans' outrageous gerrymandering of the state Senate for decades?” Appelbaum wrote."
His previous absence on this issue, points to the overwhelming evidence-his three term Bloomberg dalliance being another example-that Koch is simply a cat's paw for Republicans. Which doesn't bother us if he simply would be up front about his real intentions-instead of camouflaging his motives behind a good government fig leaf. The fact is that Koch burned through all of his reform bona fides in his last scandal ridden term asd NYC mayor.
Appelbaum, however, really bells this cat: “For years the Republican State Senate has controlled the redrawing of the districts and has gerrymandered and retained control,” Appelbaum says. “For the first time [in 2012], the Democrats will be in control of the State Senate as districts are drawn. And … all of a sudden he says we need a neutral system.” Appelbaum points out that Koch's reform group, a political action committee called New York Uprising, has benefited from the noblesse oblige of state Republican Party stalwarts."
To which Koch dissembles: "Koch's group is headquartered at law firm Bryan Cave, whose clients include the Real Estate Board of New York—a major contributor to Senate Republicans. It is being helped by Mayor Bloomberg's campaign manager, Brad Tusk. Koch says the law firm was chosen for Monday's announcement because it happens to be where he works. Tusk says his work is pro bono."
Sure. But in our view there are some really good campaign issues that can legitimately be utilized for those concerned with Albany dysfunction. And no one has made the case convincingly to us that a less partisan redistricting plan would be any kind of even near panacea. So in our view the Koch effort-especially at a time when NY State has become such a miserable place to do business in-amounts to at best a non sequitor, but at worst a misdirection that diverts us from the real compelling issues that the next election cycle needs to address
His previous absence on this issue, points to the overwhelming evidence-his three term Bloomberg dalliance being another example-that Koch is simply a cat's paw for Republicans. Which doesn't bother us if he simply would be up front about his real intentions-instead of camouflaging his motives behind a good government fig leaf. The fact is that Koch burned through all of his reform bona fides in his last scandal ridden term asd NYC mayor.
Appelbaum, however, really bells this cat: “For years the Republican State Senate has controlled the redrawing of the districts and has gerrymandered and retained control,” Appelbaum says. “For the first time [in 2012], the Democrats will be in control of the State Senate as districts are drawn. And … all of a sudden he says we need a neutral system.” Appelbaum points out that Koch's reform group, a political action committee called New York Uprising, has benefited from the noblesse oblige of state Republican Party stalwarts."
To which Koch dissembles: "Koch's group is headquartered at law firm Bryan Cave, whose clients include the Real Estate Board of New York—a major contributor to Senate Republicans. It is being helped by Mayor Bloomberg's campaign manager, Brad Tusk. Koch says the law firm was chosen for Monday's announcement because it happens to be where he works. Tusk says his work is pro bono."
Sure. But in our view there are some really good campaign issues that can legitimately be utilized for those concerned with Albany dysfunction. And no one has made the case convincingly to us that a less partisan redistricting plan would be any kind of even near panacea. So in our view the Koch effort-especially at a time when NY State has become such a miserable place to do business in-amounts to at best a non sequitor, but at worst a misdirection that diverts us from the real compelling issues that the next election cycle needs to address
Stern Warning to Emperor Mike
Sol Stern has written a devastating indictment of the fraudulent NY State school testing regime in the City Journal (forthcoming)-and the way in which the Bloomberg/Klein/Weingarten troika have utilized testing fraud to promote their own selfish interests: "As New York State’s executive and legislative branches sank into a swamp of corruption and political paralysis this winter, something brave, honest, and totally unexpected took place in one Albany office. Pounding the table and refusing to accept any more excuses, the new chancellor of the Board of Regents, Merryl Tisch, forced the state’s notoriously dysfunctional department of education to submit to an outside audit of the reading and math tests, mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act, that it has administered to all students in grades three through eight."
And with the outside audit will come a renewed sense of honesty that has been absent under the tenure of Education Commissioner Richard Mill-puncturing the test balloon that has allowed the Bloombergistas to crow about an educational miracle that, like the Master of the House's instrument of procreation, "ain't much there." As Stern tells it: "A memorandum of understanding between the department and Harvard professor Daniel Koretz—one of the nation’s top testing experts—gives Koretz access to the data that he’ll need to determine whether New York’s test scores have been inflated. And once he does, it’s likely that the state’s claims of spectacular student progress will be revealed as an illusion."
Illusory indeed, and when the reality finally sinks in, the cost benefit analysis of the Bloomberg tenure-billions more expended for flatlining results-will reveal that there hasn't been any educational wizardry, only a fraudulent little man spinning tall tales from behind a curtain of personal wealth. All of this, as Stern points out, comes about because of the NCLB law that predicated federal money on improved test scores-but left the testing to those who stood to benefit from higher results.
Fraud was inevitable as a result: "Unfortunately, when NCLB became law, it left the door wide open to massive test inflation by stipulating that all American students “will be proficient” by the year 2014—and imposing a series of increasingly onerous sanctions on districts and schools not moving toward that goal—yet allowing each state to develop its own tests and set its own standard for “proficiency.” Since men are not angels, it was inevitable that some state education authorities would lower the proficiency bar to make themselves look good to the feds."
But all of this was obvious to folks like Stern, Andy Wolf and the legendary Diane Ravitch as local results contrasted sharply with the national test scores-but not obvious, of course, to those who had a vested interest in perpetuating the fraud. The national tests, unlike the NY State ones, are impervious to gaming: "One reason the federal NAEP tests are the gold standard in student assessment is that they can’t be gamed by teachers or administrators. Every two years, NAEP math and reading tests are given to a statistically valid sample of all fourth- and eighth-grade students in each state; teachers aren't’t able to teach to the test, and school districts can’t offer students practice tests because no one knows ahead of time which students will be tested."
Stern goes on to detail how NYS DOE colluded with this fraudulent lying to the school children and their parents, resisting efforts to insure that the tests had integrity. The result, says Stern is that we were provided with a feel good false positive that camouflaged the grim reality of insufficient progress: "In many districts, the number of students in all grades scoring above the proficiency bar was nearly 100 percent. In City Journal and the New York Daily News, I’ve called results like this the Lake Wobegon Effect, after Garrison Keillor’s tales about a town where “all the children are above average.” More bluntly, the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin called the test results “one of the most destructive frauds in many years.”
As indeed it has been-with Klein and the mayor, joined by the UFT's Weingarten, lying and swearing to the scam. It got so bad that one researcher underscored just how easy it was to become proficient in our Wobegon municipality: "Several researchers analyzed
the 2009 tests and demonstrated that the standards dropped precipitously and arbitrarily. Diana Senechal, a Yale Ph.D. and former New York City teacher, established that in some grades it was possible for a student to attain the “basic” level just by guessing on every multiple-choice question, even while totally disregarding the section of the test that required longer written answers. Senechal’s study is buttressed by the fact that practically no students score below basic any more."
And on the basis of this massive hoodwinking, we got one of the most sophisticated frauds since Enron was perpetrated on an unaware and unschooled public-unaware and unschooled because of the campaign that was instigated by the mayor and his allies-both in the media and outside of it-to permit for the continuation of mayoral control: "For Mayor Bloomberg, test-score inflation has been the gift from Albany that keeps on giving, an elevated platform from which to rejoice over—and take credit for—New York City’s newly successful schools. Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have also found ways to build even higher monuments to their success on top of that platform. Starting in 2005, for instance, the city’s Department of Education (DOE) dissembled to reporters about the magnitude of score increases, appropriating to its column gains that had actually been achieved under the previous education administration."
But perhaps the most egregious nature of this campaign was the role played by the double dippers at the UFT-the one player that could have derailed the mayor's legislative effort. Here's what the union did: "In undermining the integrity of the tests, the Bloomberg administration had many powerful enablers, including the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). At the celebratory press conferences each year, union president Randi Weingarten appeared beside the mayor, nodding in approval as he detailed amazing stories of student improvement. Weingarten told confidants that the test scores were too good to be true. But in public, she maintained the fiction: Didn't the rising scores prove, after all, that teachers had earned their unprecedented raises of 43 percent since Bloomberg took over the schools?"
Never has a finer group of co-conspirators and enablers graced our local political scene-but in the midst of all of this false euphoria, one person stood up for both integrity and the school kids-Merryl Tisch. As Chancellor of the Board of Regents she has been, much like Hans Christian Anderson's incredulous child, someone who believes that when the emperor is naked, he is indeed naked. If there had more just like her over the past few years, we wouldn't have been so badly flim flammed by Kleinberg.
But now comes the deluge-and Tisch, along with new Ed Commissioner Steiner have a golden opportunity to do what's right for all of New York's parents and children; no matter what kind of impact this might have on the prevaricating mayor and chancellor. Stern deserves the last word on this monumental debacle: "But Tisch and Steiner need not wait for the feds to fund better tests. By putting their own house in order, they can make New York a model for the kind of political courage and educational honesty that are desperately needed all over the nation."
And with the outside audit will come a renewed sense of honesty that has been absent under the tenure of Education Commissioner Richard Mill-puncturing the test balloon that has allowed the Bloombergistas to crow about an educational miracle that, like the Master of the House's instrument of procreation, "ain't much there." As Stern tells it: "A memorandum of understanding between the department and Harvard professor Daniel Koretz—one of the nation’s top testing experts—gives Koretz access to the data that he’ll need to determine whether New York’s test scores have been inflated. And once he does, it’s likely that the state’s claims of spectacular student progress will be revealed as an illusion."
Illusory indeed, and when the reality finally sinks in, the cost benefit analysis of the Bloomberg tenure-billions more expended for flatlining results-will reveal that there hasn't been any educational wizardry, only a fraudulent little man spinning tall tales from behind a curtain of personal wealth. All of this, as Stern points out, comes about because of the NCLB law that predicated federal money on improved test scores-but left the testing to those who stood to benefit from higher results.
Fraud was inevitable as a result: "Unfortunately, when NCLB became law, it left the door wide open to massive test inflation by stipulating that all American students “will be proficient” by the year 2014—and imposing a series of increasingly onerous sanctions on districts and schools not moving toward that goal—yet allowing each state to develop its own tests and set its own standard for “proficiency.” Since men are not angels, it was inevitable that some state education authorities would lower the proficiency bar to make themselves look good to the feds."
But all of this was obvious to folks like Stern, Andy Wolf and the legendary Diane Ravitch as local results contrasted sharply with the national test scores-but not obvious, of course, to those who had a vested interest in perpetuating the fraud. The national tests, unlike the NY State ones, are impervious to gaming: "One reason the federal NAEP tests are the gold standard in student assessment is that they can’t be gamed by teachers or administrators. Every two years, NAEP math and reading tests are given to a statistically valid sample of all fourth- and eighth-grade students in each state; teachers aren't’t able to teach to the test, and school districts can’t offer students practice tests because no one knows ahead of time which students will be tested."
Stern goes on to detail how NYS DOE colluded with this fraudulent lying to the school children and their parents, resisting efforts to insure that the tests had integrity. The result, says Stern is that we were provided with a feel good false positive that camouflaged the grim reality of insufficient progress: "In many districts, the number of students in all grades scoring above the proficiency bar was nearly 100 percent. In City Journal and the New York Daily News, I’ve called results like this the Lake Wobegon Effect, after Garrison Keillor’s tales about a town where “all the children are above average.” More bluntly, the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin called the test results “one of the most destructive frauds in many years.”
As indeed it has been-with Klein and the mayor, joined by the UFT's Weingarten, lying and swearing to the scam. It got so bad that one researcher underscored just how easy it was to become proficient in our Wobegon municipality: "Several researchers analyzed
the 2009 tests and demonstrated that the standards dropped precipitously and arbitrarily. Diana Senechal, a Yale Ph.D. and former New York City teacher, established that in some grades it was possible for a student to attain the “basic” level just by guessing on every multiple-choice question, even while totally disregarding the section of the test that required longer written answers. Senechal’s study is buttressed by the fact that practically no students score below basic any more."
And on the basis of this massive hoodwinking, we got one of the most sophisticated frauds since Enron was perpetrated on an unaware and unschooled public-unaware and unschooled because of the campaign that was instigated by the mayor and his allies-both in the media and outside of it-to permit for the continuation of mayoral control: "For Mayor Bloomberg, test-score inflation has been the gift from Albany that keeps on giving, an elevated platform from which to rejoice over—and take credit for—New York City’s newly successful schools. Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have also found ways to build even higher monuments to their success on top of that platform. Starting in 2005, for instance, the city’s Department of Education (DOE) dissembled to reporters about the magnitude of score increases, appropriating to its column gains that had actually been achieved under the previous education administration."
But perhaps the most egregious nature of this campaign was the role played by the double dippers at the UFT-the one player that could have derailed the mayor's legislative effort. Here's what the union did: "In undermining the integrity of the tests, the Bloomberg administration had many powerful enablers, including the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). At the celebratory press conferences each year, union president Randi Weingarten appeared beside the mayor, nodding in approval as he detailed amazing stories of student improvement. Weingarten told confidants that the test scores were too good to be true. But in public, she maintained the fiction: Didn't the rising scores prove, after all, that teachers had earned their unprecedented raises of 43 percent since Bloomberg took over the schools?"
Never has a finer group of co-conspirators and enablers graced our local political scene-but in the midst of all of this false euphoria, one person stood up for both integrity and the school kids-Merryl Tisch. As Chancellor of the Board of Regents she has been, much like Hans Christian Anderson's incredulous child, someone who believes that when the emperor is naked, he is indeed naked. If there had more just like her over the past few years, we wouldn't have been so badly flim flammed by Kleinberg.
But now comes the deluge-and Tisch, along with new Ed Commissioner Steiner have a golden opportunity to do what's right for all of New York's parents and children; no matter what kind of impact this might have on the prevaricating mayor and chancellor. Stern deserves the last word on this monumental debacle: "But Tisch and Steiner need not wait for the feds to fund better tests. By putting their own house in order, they can make New York a model for the kind of political courage and educational honesty that are desperately needed all over the nation."
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Asking the Right Question
According to the Crain's Insider (subs.), Councilmember Brad Lander has polled his constituents and, mirabile dictu!-they'd rather tax other folks than cut "vital services." This demonstrates one thing about polling; a lot depends on how you ask the question: "If Brooklyn City Councilman Brad Lander's role in the formation of the council's Progressive Caucus left any doubt about whether he favors tax hikes or service cuts to balance the city budget, it was erased by a survey he sent constituents yesterday. It asks if the council should “protect vital services like education, police, fire and the social safety net, and ask for a little more from those who can afford to pay,” or, alternatively, “make cuts to essential services in order to avoid raising taxes.”
Gee, how about: Would you rather raise water rates and property taxes, or look for ways to trim the size of government by eliminating wasteful and unnecessary programs? Bet you'd get a different response. Lander should look to approach the issue from other than a narrow ideological perspective-one that sees Leviathan as a good thing rather than a beast to be tamed in the interest of greater productivity from those New Yorkers who already pay their fair share and will, if they are continued to be pushed, set up shop elsewhere.
So, our suggestions, is that the councilmember resist polling that uses false dichotomies and examine the problem of city governance from a less jaundiced perspective. If he does, there may be ways to join those of moderate means with small business owners and homeowners in a united front against waste, high taxes and over regulation. Class warfare, after all-and the belief that you could create a local socialist enclave here in the city-was a main ingredient in the fall of NYC four decades ago.
Gee, how about: Would you rather raise water rates and property taxes, or look for ways to trim the size of government by eliminating wasteful and unnecessary programs? Bet you'd get a different response. Lander should look to approach the issue from other than a narrow ideological perspective-one that sees Leviathan as a good thing rather than a beast to be tamed in the interest of greater productivity from those New Yorkers who already pay their fair share and will, if they are continued to be pushed, set up shop elsewhere.
So, our suggestions, is that the councilmember resist polling that uses false dichotomies and examine the problem of city governance from a less jaundiced perspective. If he does, there may be ways to join those of moderate means with small business owners and homeowners in a united front against waste, high taxes and over regulation. Class warfare, after all-and the belief that you could create a local socialist enclave here in the city-was a main ingredient in the fall of NYC four decades ago.
Ed Koch and His Manes-Esposito Initiative
It's realy nice to see that Ed Koch is active in his dotage-even if his long term memory is, shall we say, a bit faulty. It seems that our former mayor is heading up a reform PAC to clean up Albany. As Daily Politics reports: "Former Mayor Ed Koch and friends are crusading to fix Albany, and DN City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, was on hand for the big presser this morning. Koch's New York Uprising campaign, which also includes Dick Dadey of Citizens Union and former Parks Commissioner Henry Stern, wants "each candidate, if elected, to create an independent, non-partisan Redistricting Commission to draft advisory maps for the legislature to review and approve."
Well, good for Ed. But our own memory is still acute-and we can't help but recall that Easy Ed's third term was, how can we put this, riddled with political corruption-a major reason why he was sent packing by the lovable Dave Dinkins. But it is nice to see Koch reach back to his Tammany Hall fighting days; although we're not sure that nonpartisan redistricting is this year's signature issue. You know what we mean?
In our view, the size and scope of our failing state government is going to be in the voters' crosshairs-along with the dysfunction that has characterized the past three years of unelected office holders. In this vein, the usual suspects are out of the gate in a rush calling for more taxes on the wealthy. As City Room reports: "Gov. David A. Paterson and the Legislature have spent weeks arguing over how to cut enough spending to close the state’s $9 billion budget gap, with little progress. But the Fiscal Policy Institute and the Center for Working Families, two left-leaning research and advocacy groups, have a different plan. Instead of cutting programs for the many, raise taxes on the wealthiest few, particularly those working on Wall Street, the two groups argue in a new proposal. “The governor’s paradigm has been that we need to cut everything in order to match current revenues,” said Sunshine Ludder, a senior policy organizer at the center who helped draft the proposal. “Our take is, we need to raise revenues from those who earned windfall profits thanks to the taxpayer bailout.”
Never mind the fact that the so-called wealthy are an ever expanding class according to our tax and spend fanatics-or that taxing the state's core business might yield some rather unpleasant unintended consequences. In addition, any four corners offense on cutting the size of government means that, once the wealthy are appropriately smacked upside the head-and the golden goose is cooked-we will still be left with an insatiable Leviathan; and the need to perpetually feed the beast with more money gouged from average New York home owners and small business folks.
But banging the Wall Street bogeyman is always good politics-as we can see by the president's efforts at misdirection away from popular obsession with his health care law. On Thursday, Obama will come to New York City to lift his lance against the malefactors of great wealth-the great majority of whom lavished beaucoup bucks on candidate Obama in 2008, and will likely do so again in 2012 after the curtain falls on the current faux outrage. There are no savvier folks than the financiers, who are adroit at identifying a popular Punch and Judy show when they see it-and who better to play an aggressive Punch than Obama.
Where Koch stands on this crucial election issue is anyone's guess-but since he enthusiastically backed the mayor for three terms, it's clear that he's more concerned with process than substance; and it's hard to see Ed Koch enthralled by any Tea Party manifesto. So we hail the octogenerian former mayor for his continued vigor, while at the same time smirking at the thought of Ed Koch as a born again reformer.
Well, good for Ed. But our own memory is still acute-and we can't help but recall that Easy Ed's third term was, how can we put this, riddled with political corruption-a major reason why he was sent packing by the lovable Dave Dinkins. But it is nice to see Koch reach back to his Tammany Hall fighting days; although we're not sure that nonpartisan redistricting is this year's signature issue. You know what we mean?
In our view, the size and scope of our failing state government is going to be in the voters' crosshairs-along with the dysfunction that has characterized the past three years of unelected office holders. In this vein, the usual suspects are out of the gate in a rush calling for more taxes on the wealthy. As City Room reports: "Gov. David A. Paterson and the Legislature have spent weeks arguing over how to cut enough spending to close the state’s $9 billion budget gap, with little progress. But the Fiscal Policy Institute and the Center for Working Families, two left-leaning research and advocacy groups, have a different plan. Instead of cutting programs for the many, raise taxes on the wealthiest few, particularly those working on Wall Street, the two groups argue in a new proposal. “The governor’s paradigm has been that we need to cut everything in order to match current revenues,” said Sunshine Ludder, a senior policy organizer at the center who helped draft the proposal. “Our take is, we need to raise revenues from those who earned windfall profits thanks to the taxpayer bailout.”
Never mind the fact that the so-called wealthy are an ever expanding class according to our tax and spend fanatics-or that taxing the state's core business might yield some rather unpleasant unintended consequences. In addition, any four corners offense on cutting the size of government means that, once the wealthy are appropriately smacked upside the head-and the golden goose is cooked-we will still be left with an insatiable Leviathan; and the need to perpetually feed the beast with more money gouged from average New York home owners and small business folks.
But banging the Wall Street bogeyman is always good politics-as we can see by the president's efforts at misdirection away from popular obsession with his health care law. On Thursday, Obama will come to New York City to lift his lance against the malefactors of great wealth-the great majority of whom lavished beaucoup bucks on candidate Obama in 2008, and will likely do so again in 2012 after the curtain falls on the current faux outrage. There are no savvier folks than the financiers, who are adroit at identifying a popular Punch and Judy show when they see it-and who better to play an aggressive Punch than Obama.
Where Koch stands on this crucial election issue is anyone's guess-but since he enthusiastically backed the mayor for three terms, it's clear that he's more concerned with process than substance; and it's hard to see Ed Koch enthralled by any Tea Party manifesto. So we hail the octogenerian former mayor for his continued vigor, while at the same time smirking at the thought of Ed Koch as a born again reformer.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Fresh Food Fanatsies
The NY post editorializes today against the new Fresh Initiative being proposed by appointed senator Gillibrand: "Gillibrand has discovered so-called "food deserts" -- catchy social-work jargon meant to describe neighborhoods where relatively inexpensive, nutritious food is allegedly scarce.It shouldn't be taken at face value -- facts being such stubborn things. Gillibrand, for example, claims that "75 percent of Bronx neighborhoods do not have access to fresh foods." She has no first-hand knowledge of this, of course, never having actually visited a Bronx neighborhood while incubating her scheme."
And to an extent, the Post is right when it points out: "But a Post reporter made the pilgrimage last week -- and guess what: He discovered leafy greens in even the poorest areas. On one stretch of Third Avenue in Morrisania, he found two C-Town supermarkets in just an eight-block stretch -- both carrying a full selection of produce."
Gee, but aren't there any Green Carts? But seriously, the entire concept of Food Deserts lacks empirical justification, and any survey of the NYC neighborhoods-as the Post did-would discover a different reality, at least when it comes to supermarkets. But when the Post gets to cost, it is on less firm grounds-particularly when it uses Wal-Mart as a benchmark.
Here's their take: "The conventional wisdom is that the poor pay more for basic staples than most everyone else -- in particular, those suburbanites who do their grocery shopping at, say, Wal-Mart. But how much more do they pay? Well, a gallon of skim milk at the C-Town on Third Avenue and 162nd Street cost $3.59. At two Morton Williams locations near the Kingsbridge Armory, it was $3.99 -- or 30 percent higher than the $3.08 it commanded at the closest Wal-Mart store, in White Plains."
But what the Post is missing-and the missing link is the elephant in the boroughs-is just how much more expensive it is to do business in the city-what with the cost of rent, excess taxes and over-regulation. So the differential isn't about the great attraction of Wal-Mart, since the prices at suburban Shoprite and Stop and Shop will also knock your socks off in any comparison.
And the labor issue that the Post raises is a true red herring: "Another barrier: high labor costs -- a function of politically juiced unions throwing their weight around. Indeed, retail-union chief Stuart Appelbaum -- last seen killing thousands of jobs at the crumbling Kingsbridge Armory -- strongly supports Gillibrand's wrong-headed proposal. And why not? According to an aide, her bill explicitly tips the scale toward merchants who provide "quality jobs" and have "community support" -- that is, those who keep Applebaum and the usual array of local shakedown artists happy."
This is what we might charitably call, counter factual-since the aforementioned suburban Shoprites and Stop and Shops, as well as the Pathmarks and King Cullens, are all union shops; which means that labor costs are not the malevolent factor that the Post alleges. Which brings us back to the high cost of doing business in this town-a fact that Steve Malanga underscored right on the Op-Ed pages of the NY Post.
And the Post's view that somehow Wal-Mart would be the white knight for the city's poor? Only if obliterating small neighborhood-minority owned-business is how you envision Sir Galahad. And a study about the new Chicago Wal-Mart dramatizes the way in which the Walmonster will truly create the urban desert (http://www.luc.edu/curl/pdfs/Wal-Mart_Final_Report.pdf.)
What does the study tell us about the mega store's impact? Here it is: "The opening of a Wal-Mart on the West Side of Chicago in 2006 led to the closure of about one-quarter of the businesses within a four-mile radius, according to this study by researchers at Loyola University. They tracked 306 businesses, checking their status before Wal-Mart opened and one and two years after it opened. More than half were also surveyed by phone about employees, work hours, and wages. By the second year, 82 of the businesses had closed. Businesses within close proximity of Wal-Mart had a 40 percent chance of closing."
Oasis in one place, and desert everywhere else. So the introduction of Wal-Mart into NYC wouldn't be any panacea for the poor-and it would be an assault on minority entreprenuership. What the poor need in this city is good jobs with benefits-and the way to get them is to lower the costs of doing business in this town-something that the Post has always championed. By continuing along this path, rather than demonizing local retailers and labor chief Appelbaum-the Post will do New York's workers and the poor a real public service.
Flushing Contretemps
Last week the NY Daily News focused on the ongoing controversy over the building of Flushing Commons-but the info that our friends at Parkside would lead the fight against the project doesn't appear to be correct: "If there's something strange in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call? If you're a merchant about to do battle with a major development known as Flushing Commons, that would be the Parkside Group - one of the most influential consulting firms in the city."
Our own take is that the Parksiders will sit this one out-and given their propinquity to the powers that be in Queens, this is probably a good thing. Taking on the battle against this over development-one that involves a breach of faith by the city and EDC over the original agreement with former council member (and now comptroller) John Liu-will involve bumping ugly with some powerful development proponents; and Parkside's skillful insider status would prove to be as much of a potential drawback as it would be an asset.
Still, the growing opposition to the development is becoming a looming threat to the hoped-for success of developer TDC: "The $800 million plan for a complex of condos, shops and a YMCA set to be built atop a municipal parking lot got a thumbs up on April 5 from Community Board 7. But area business owners aren't raising the white flag just yet in their fight against the controversial project."
The first important obstacle to overcome? Belief in the project's inevitability: "Every week goes by and I hear the developer talk about this great place, but they're killing us little by little," said Ikhwan Rim, a jewelry store owner and president of the Union St. Merchants Association. "I feel very hopeless because nobody is helping us."
Well, perhaps not no one: "The community's efforts don't have potential unless they are able to find traction among the affected Council members," said lobbyist Richard Lipsky, who has met with Flushing merchants but has yet to be retained by them. Because the final vote in the land use review process lies with the Council, opponents of the project must appeal to elected officials across the city if they want the plan to be tweaked, Lipsky said."
And just how will they be able to do this? Gee, isn't this project being built on land that is currently publicly owned? And isn't the sale price below market rate-an indication of a level of public subsidy? Ipso facto, shouldn't the slated 250,000 sq. ft. of retail space be subject to the same living wage requirement that the folks up at the Kingsbridge Armory insisted on? Hmm.
In addition, the way in which this development is being structured, it could well prove to be a knife in the heart to the area's vibrant, but struggling, small businesses. Why? Because as planner Paul Graziano has pointed out, "The developer will introduce a ‘validation’ system – under which local businesses will likely be forced to pay for at least part of their patrons’ parking fees or lose business to other business areas."
And the parking provided-lower than the number agreed to by Liu-is inadequate for the amount of traffic that Flushing Commons will generate in the already gridlocked downtown. As Garaziano goes on to explain in his fact sheet on the project: "Loss of adequate, competitively-priced parking will very likely lead to serious job losses and small-business closings in Downtown Flushing.
• A ‘validation’ system will amount to a new tax imposed on small business in Flushing,
as they will be compelled to subsidize customer/client parking to remain competitive.
• After the sale, as things stand now the developer will legally be entitled to deny parking
to local businesses in favor of his own tenants, or charge non-tenants higher rates."
And then there is the issue of the traffic itself-as WPU's Brian Ketcham warned the CB #7 in the public hearing it held. As we pointed out at the time: "WPU's Brian Ketcham provides this futuristic glimpse in his testimony for tonight-and underscores by doing so how these developments are promoted without really acknowledging all of the companion development that is occurring in the surrounding neighborhoods..."What I have found in my review for Willets Point United is that the FGEIS for Willets Point failed to fully account for Sky View Parc and ignored the effects of Flushing Commons. In fact, there is little evidence that the FGEIS accounted for many of the 90 new developments surrounding the Willets Point Iron Triangle. You folks approved a project--Willets Point--that vastly understated its traffic impacts and still reported gridlocked traffic conditions. Clearly, adding another 800 to 1,000 car and truck trips from Flushing Commons in the PM peak hour to an already gridlocked Main Street will simply make life for you folks that much worse."
But we just know that Bloomberg's own Sadik will have the answer to this gridlock-more bicycle lanes, no doubt! Seriously, though, the mayor's sustainable propaganda just doesn't survive even a cursory look at the kind of development he is promoting. What Queens in particular needs is a moratorium on development and an independent traffic study of the potential cumulative impacts of all of these planned developments.
The result of this kind of study, we believe, would frighten all of the Queens civic groups who are concerned with maintaining the quality of life in, not only their own neighborhoods, but in the borough of Queens as a whole. The mayor needs to be called to account for all his green doublespeak.
Our own take is that the Parksiders will sit this one out-and given their propinquity to the powers that be in Queens, this is probably a good thing. Taking on the battle against this over development-one that involves a breach of faith by the city and EDC over the original agreement with former council member (and now comptroller) John Liu-will involve bumping ugly with some powerful development proponents; and Parkside's skillful insider status would prove to be as much of a potential drawback as it would be an asset.
Still, the growing opposition to the development is becoming a looming threat to the hoped-for success of developer TDC: "The $800 million plan for a complex of condos, shops and a YMCA set to be built atop a municipal parking lot got a thumbs up on April 5 from Community Board 7. But area business owners aren't raising the white flag just yet in their fight against the controversial project."
The first important obstacle to overcome? Belief in the project's inevitability: "Every week goes by and I hear the developer talk about this great place, but they're killing us little by little," said Ikhwan Rim, a jewelry store owner and president of the Union St. Merchants Association. "I feel very hopeless because nobody is helping us."
Well, perhaps not no one: "The community's efforts don't have potential unless they are able to find traction among the affected Council members," said lobbyist Richard Lipsky, who has met with Flushing merchants but has yet to be retained by them. Because the final vote in the land use review process lies with the Council, opponents of the project must appeal to elected officials across the city if they want the plan to be tweaked, Lipsky said."
And just how will they be able to do this? Gee, isn't this project being built on land that is currently publicly owned? And isn't the sale price below market rate-an indication of a level of public subsidy? Ipso facto, shouldn't the slated 250,000 sq. ft. of retail space be subject to the same living wage requirement that the folks up at the Kingsbridge Armory insisted on? Hmm.
In addition, the way in which this development is being structured, it could well prove to be a knife in the heart to the area's vibrant, but struggling, small businesses. Why? Because as planner Paul Graziano has pointed out, "The developer will introduce a ‘validation’ system – under which local businesses will likely be forced to pay for at least part of their patrons’ parking fees or lose business to other business areas."
And the parking provided-lower than the number agreed to by Liu-is inadequate for the amount of traffic that Flushing Commons will generate in the already gridlocked downtown. As Garaziano goes on to explain in his fact sheet on the project: "Loss of adequate, competitively-priced parking will very likely lead to serious job losses and small-business closings in Downtown Flushing.
• A ‘validation’ system will amount to a new tax imposed on small business in Flushing,
as they will be compelled to subsidize customer/client parking to remain competitive.
• After the sale, as things stand now the developer will legally be entitled to deny parking
to local businesses in favor of his own tenants, or charge non-tenants higher rates."
And then there is the issue of the traffic itself-as WPU's Brian Ketcham warned the CB #7 in the public hearing it held. As we pointed out at the time: "WPU's Brian Ketcham provides this futuristic glimpse in his testimony for tonight-and underscores by doing so how these developments are promoted without really acknowledging all of the companion development that is occurring in the surrounding neighborhoods..."What I have found in my review for Willets Point United is that the FGEIS for Willets Point failed to fully account for Sky View Parc and ignored the effects of Flushing Commons. In fact, there is little evidence that the FGEIS accounted for many of the 90 new developments surrounding the Willets Point Iron Triangle. You folks approved a project--Willets Point--that vastly understated its traffic impacts and still reported gridlocked traffic conditions. Clearly, adding another 800 to 1,000 car and truck trips from Flushing Commons in the PM peak hour to an already gridlocked Main Street will simply make life for you folks that much worse."
But we just know that Bloomberg's own Sadik will have the answer to this gridlock-more bicycle lanes, no doubt! Seriously, though, the mayor's sustainable propaganda just doesn't survive even a cursory look at the kind of development he is promoting. What Queens in particular needs is a moratorium on development and an independent traffic study of the potential cumulative impacts of all of these planned developments.
The result of this kind of study, we believe, would frighten all of the Queens civic groups who are concerned with maintaining the quality of life in, not only their own neighborhoods, but in the borough of Queens as a whole. The mayor needs to be called to account for all his green doublespeak.
Not Such a Small Health Problem
The plight of small business during this severe recession is being exacerbated-at both the local and national levels-by ever increasing government mandates and new taxes. As Investors Business Daily points out: "While the stock market has been buoyant over the last several weeks, small businesses, the heart of U.S. job creation, remain extremely gloomy. April's survey of the National Federation of Independent Businesses shows deep pessimism among small-business owners with the "Optimism Index" showing readings under 90 for the 18th consecutive month. The NFIB calls this trend "unprecedented in survey history" and "not the picture of an economic expansion." The roots of this pessimism lie in slow sales, uncertain access to credit, uncertainty about the economy and the impact of increasing government regulations and spending, particularly with respect to health care and finance."
The problem with ObamaCare in particular, is that its mandates begin immediately, while benefits-unclear at best-don't kick in until 2013: "We have never before passed major legislation that both increases taxation substantially next year, while delaying the bulk of its "benefits" for at least four years. Whether or not you think that health care reform will benefit small businesses, what is clear is that for the next four years, as the fight continues, there will be more uncertainty surrounding the actual implementation of the reform, making planning more difficult, especially for resource-constrained small businesses."
And the uncertainty can be directly linked to the following frightening prospect: "It is true Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." Even this was way too optimistic. The fog is here to stay. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates roughly 100 new Washington bureaucracies that in turn will write the roughly 100,000 new regulations that the laws contemplate. Think of an instant replay of the IRS, its code and all its regulations, but happening in 100 days instead of 100 years. It's enough to make a small businessman's brain explode."
Indeed it does-and we haven't even touched upon the additional costs that kick in as soon as a small business owners payroll exceeds 50 workers. As one small businessman tells it: "The 51st employee could mean $100,000 in costs. I’ve been calling it the concrete ceiling,” he said. “No employer is going to hire No. 51 if it brings all these mandates down on you, because they’re pretty onerous.”
And on the local level, the city council is considering a paid sick leave law. It's proponents make the following point: "Between 1.65 and 1.85 million working New Yorkers do not have paid sick leave. (Sick in the City, Oct. 2009). For these New Yorkers, taking time off from work means the loss of a day’s pay, or worse, loss of a good shift, other retaliation, or firing. The New York City Paid Sick Time Act would enable workers in the City to earn up to nine days of paid sick leave per year, while employees of small businesses would be entitled to five paid sick days."
Yet, consider the potential impact that such a law might have on the viability of these already beleaguered small firms. Has the council determined the economic impact that this mandate would have on small businesses? And, if not, is it better to mandate this sick leave provision and thousands of jobs by doing so-as stores go under from the added costs?
We should all keep in mind the following observation from the IBD: "Without a meaningful upturn in the small business jobs picture there will be no real economic recovery." Yet, unmindful of this salient fact, the mandaters continue to wreck havoc on the economy. We'll give the IBD the last word: "For the small-business owner, Washington {and NYC} has become the arsonist pouring gasoline on the fire he is trying to put out."
The problem with ObamaCare in particular, is that its mandates begin immediately, while benefits-unclear at best-don't kick in until 2013: "We have never before passed major legislation that both increases taxation substantially next year, while delaying the bulk of its "benefits" for at least four years. Whether or not you think that health care reform will benefit small businesses, what is clear is that for the next four years, as the fight continues, there will be more uncertainty surrounding the actual implementation of the reform, making planning more difficult, especially for resource-constrained small businesses."
And the uncertainty can be directly linked to the following frightening prospect: "It is true Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." Even this was way too optimistic. The fog is here to stay. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates roughly 100 new Washington bureaucracies that in turn will write the roughly 100,000 new regulations that the laws contemplate. Think of an instant replay of the IRS, its code and all its regulations, but happening in 100 days instead of 100 years. It's enough to make a small businessman's brain explode."
Indeed it does-and we haven't even touched upon the additional costs that kick in as soon as a small business owners payroll exceeds 50 workers. As one small businessman tells it: "The 51st employee could mean $100,000 in costs. I’ve been calling it the concrete ceiling,” he said. “No employer is going to hire No. 51 if it brings all these mandates down on you, because they’re pretty onerous.”
And on the local level, the city council is considering a paid sick leave law. It's proponents make the following point: "Between 1.65 and 1.85 million working New Yorkers do not have paid sick leave. (Sick in the City, Oct. 2009). For these New Yorkers, taking time off from work means the loss of a day’s pay, or worse, loss of a good shift, other retaliation, or firing. The New York City Paid Sick Time Act would enable workers in the City to earn up to nine days of paid sick leave per year, while employees of small businesses would be entitled to five paid sick days."
Yet, consider the potential impact that such a law might have on the viability of these already beleaguered small firms. Has the council determined the economic impact that this mandate would have on small businesses? And, if not, is it better to mandate this sick leave provision and thousands of jobs by doing so-as stores go under from the added costs?
We should all keep in mind the following observation from the IBD: "Without a meaningful upturn in the small business jobs picture there will be no real economic recovery." Yet, unmindful of this salient fact, the mandaters continue to wreck havoc on the economy. We'll give the IBD the last word: "For the small-business owner, Washington {and NYC} has become the arsonist pouring gasoline on the fire he is trying to put out."
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Amazing Race to Nowhere
Andy Wolf has an incisive look In Sunday's NY Daily News at the pointlessness of NY State's, "Race to the Top" effort: "If state officials were smart, they'd walk away from this so-called competition. The loss of local discretion over policy simply isn't worth the meager cash. And if nothing else has been proven here in New York State in recent years, throwing more money at the schools does not lead to better outcomes. New York spends more per student than any other state, yet results on reliable independent measures, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests, and the more familiar SAT exams, show consistently flat results."
What a remarkable observation! Last time we checked, our city schools were on the cusp of greatness-and all of the grandeur that was Klein and Bloomberg was being described in language most hortatory by the scriveners on the editorial pages of our tabloids. We even had a group set up by some of the country's richest philanthropists for the sole purpose of saving the poor school kids from a fate worse than Mayor Mike.
That group, inaptly named, "Learn New York," deserved a more appropriate moniker-how about, "Scam New York?" And in the immediate aftermath of the re-approval of Mayoral control by the legislature, the group disbanded-and are no longer around to hang around the mayor's neck as an albatross. Its presence today would provide a wonderful teaching moment, something along the lines about you can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of supposed savvy New Yorkers.
But who can really blame the put upon polis? After all, all that they've been hearing has been how wondrous the educational achievements have been under the Bloomberg/Klein regime. Ah, but now, as reality begins to intrude and the spinners are slapped silly with test results that silence their false narratives, we find that the money that these free spenders have lavished on the system-and not just for a more robust public relations department-has been, how should we put this, rather ill spent.
Wolf continues the deconstruction: "Tisch and new state Education Commissioner David Steiner, both relatively new to their jobs, are well aware that New York State test results are now so inflated that they may be worthless. They are taking the unprecedented step of allowing a complete research audit of recent tests by Harvard testing expert Daniel Koretz. Koretz will not be paid for his work, and can publish the results without restriction, insuring his independence. While Koretz completes his study, are we to propose linking anything to a testing regimen that is likely to be largely discredited?"
Given the meager output from all of the mayor's excess spending, it is he-and the hapless Klein-who should be afforded the rubber room treatment. And speaking of the rubber rooms, Michael Goodwin has an interesting take in yesterday's NY Post on the mayor's lack of accountability for their continuation: "Mayor Bloomberg is a miracle worker. Not because he got a deal to get rid of the rubber rooms, but because he makes it sound like he wasn't responsible for them in the first place. "The public is not going to stand for this anymore," he said about the pact with the teachers union.'
But the mayor not only is responsible for the rubber rooms, but also for the constant toadying to the teachers union that has left us with, not only these roomy monuments to bureaucratic stupidity, but an out sized budget that adds injury to insult: "The number of teachers in the do-nothing rooms swelled as schools were closed and union rules made it almost impossible to fire them, even though there were no jobs.The problem is that Bloomberg never demanded the union give up those rules. He gave teachers raises of 43 percent in various negotiations, yet failed to get any significant concessions, including ones that would make it easier to chop dead wood."
And, as Goodwin points out, this is all done with an elaborate charade that allows Bloomberg to evade his own responsibility. Imagine if David Dinkins had tried to flim-flam us in this manner? So, while it certainly is welcome to know that the rubber rooms will be history soon, inquiring minds want to know just how much this is going to cost us?
In the educational pas de deux between the mayor and the UFT, it is the tax paying stiffs who get spun around a flipped into the air: "Klein is always at war with the union and paints it as the source of most of his problems. Meanwhile, his boss lavishes on the same union goodies that cost big bucks and hamstring Klein. Bloomy was so close to the union, he even first offered the chancellor's job to its former boss, Randi Weingarten, who turned it down before Klein got it. All of which leads me to believe the rubber-room deal won't come cheap. The city and union are negotiating a new contract, with Bloomberg offering raises of 2 percent, even though most city workers got 4 percent. At settlement, the rubber-room deal likely will be presented as a union concession justifying a 4 percent raise. Taking us for suckers, Bloomy and the union will mug for the cameras and declare it a win-win."
So let's tell the Feds to keep the chump change-and by all means encourage the state legislature to do a thorough cost benefit analysis-after the Harvard prof does his due diligence on these phony tests-of all the money that the mayor has wasted in Horton Hatches a Who fashion. The last thing the NYC DOE needs is more money-especially cash that comes with strings attached from a failed Chicago educator.
What a remarkable observation! Last time we checked, our city schools were on the cusp of greatness-and all of the grandeur that was Klein and Bloomberg was being described in language most hortatory by the scriveners on the editorial pages of our tabloids. We even had a group set up by some of the country's richest philanthropists for the sole purpose of saving the poor school kids from a fate worse than Mayor Mike.
That group, inaptly named, "Learn New York," deserved a more appropriate moniker-how about, "Scam New York?" And in the immediate aftermath of the re-approval of Mayoral control by the legislature, the group disbanded-and are no longer around to hang around the mayor's neck as an albatross. Its presence today would provide a wonderful teaching moment, something along the lines about you can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of supposed savvy New Yorkers.
But who can really blame the put upon polis? After all, all that they've been hearing has been how wondrous the educational achievements have been under the Bloomberg/Klein regime. Ah, but now, as reality begins to intrude and the spinners are slapped silly with test results that silence their false narratives, we find that the money that these free spenders have lavished on the system-and not just for a more robust public relations department-has been, how should we put this, rather ill spent.
Wolf continues the deconstruction: "Tisch and new state Education Commissioner David Steiner, both relatively new to their jobs, are well aware that New York State test results are now so inflated that they may be worthless. They are taking the unprecedented step of allowing a complete research audit of recent tests by Harvard testing expert Daniel Koretz. Koretz will not be paid for his work, and can publish the results without restriction, insuring his independence. While Koretz completes his study, are we to propose linking anything to a testing regimen that is likely to be largely discredited?"
Given the meager output from all of the mayor's excess spending, it is he-and the hapless Klein-who should be afforded the rubber room treatment. And speaking of the rubber rooms, Michael Goodwin has an interesting take in yesterday's NY Post on the mayor's lack of accountability for their continuation: "Mayor Bloomberg is a miracle worker. Not because he got a deal to get rid of the rubber rooms, but because he makes it sound like he wasn't responsible for them in the first place. "The public is not going to stand for this anymore," he said about the pact with the teachers union.'
But the mayor not only is responsible for the rubber rooms, but also for the constant toadying to the teachers union that has left us with, not only these roomy monuments to bureaucratic stupidity, but an out sized budget that adds injury to insult: "The number of teachers in the do-nothing rooms swelled as schools were closed and union rules made it almost impossible to fire them, even though there were no jobs.The problem is that Bloomberg never demanded the union give up those rules. He gave teachers raises of 43 percent in various negotiations, yet failed to get any significant concessions, including ones that would make it easier to chop dead wood."
And, as Goodwin points out, this is all done with an elaborate charade that allows Bloomberg to evade his own responsibility. Imagine if David Dinkins had tried to flim-flam us in this manner? So, while it certainly is welcome to know that the rubber rooms will be history soon, inquiring minds want to know just how much this is going to cost us?
In the educational pas de deux between the mayor and the UFT, it is the tax paying stiffs who get spun around a flipped into the air: "Klein is always at war with the union and paints it as the source of most of his problems. Meanwhile, his boss lavishes on the same union goodies that cost big bucks and hamstring Klein. Bloomy was so close to the union, he even first offered the chancellor's job to its former boss, Randi Weingarten, who turned it down before Klein got it. All of which leads me to believe the rubber-room deal won't come cheap. The city and union are negotiating a new contract, with Bloomberg offering raises of 2 percent, even though most city workers got 4 percent. At settlement, the rubber-room deal likely will be presented as a union concession justifying a 4 percent raise. Taking us for suckers, Bloomy and the union will mug for the cameras and declare it a win-win."
So let's tell the Feds to keep the chump change-and by all means encourage the state legislature to do a thorough cost benefit analysis-after the Harvard prof does his due diligence on these phony tests-of all the money that the mayor has wasted in Horton Hatches a Who fashion. The last thing the NYC DOE needs is more money-especially cash that comes with strings attached from a failed Chicago educator.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Self Promoting Phony Fiscal Probity
Daily Politics has an unintentionally ironic piece on the mayor's railing against the irresponsibility of the state senate's promotion of property tax cuts. In typical Bloomberg fashion, he presents his opposition as a paradigm of fiscal responsibility: "And even one plan in Albany, this is craziness, is to cut property taxes before they figured out where the money to fund the schools was going to come from. These guys can’t figure out how to close the budget gap they’ve got and this would just make it bigger..."
Bloomberg goes on to tell John Gambling that the folks will understand it if the property tax reduction is excluded from the final budget deal: "Some Legislators think it will win votes in the suburbs, but I think voters are smart enough to know that they’re just paying for it on the backend through cuts to the schools and their neighborhood. You know, fiscal responsibility, John, is about tough choices, but keeping teachers in our classrooms and maintaining a State commitment to support education is more important that spending money on just these feel good politics- polices in an election year. This is craziness."
Gee, tell that to Tom Suozzi Mike. Our buddy Austin Shafran makes the point here-albeit in a partisan fashion: "Property taxes are among the highest in the nation. They've jumped 320 percent in Nassau County since Dean Skelos took office and 550 percent in Suffolk County since Ken LaValle took office."
Now we'll hold judgment over whether the Democrats' plan is a worthy one, but the issue of over-taxation is as real as a heart attack for Long Island and Westchester residents-who, if they had Tax and Spend Mike as a county executive, would have booted him in the same fashion that Suozzi and Spano were shown the door (Democrats we believe).
And for Phony Test Scores Bloomberg to use education as his sacred cow-after he jacked up the local school budget to Bloombergian heights-is the acme of misdirection; and New Yorkers should be demanding a similar tax rebate from the mayor for all of this money for nothing. The, "tough choices," that Bloomberg refers to has given the city a bloated and out of control public payroll-and an educational edifice that hasn't advanced the interests of city school kids to any meaningful degree.
For Mike Bloomberg, an expansive government is inherent in his political DNA. For him to chastise property tax cuts after he raised these levies to astronomical levels in 2002, is adding insult to massive injury. He's the last person to lecture others in this sensitive area.
Bloomberg goes on to tell John Gambling that the folks will understand it if the property tax reduction is excluded from the final budget deal: "Some Legislators think it will win votes in the suburbs, but I think voters are smart enough to know that they’re just paying for it on the backend through cuts to the schools and their neighborhood. You know, fiscal responsibility, John, is about tough choices, but keeping teachers in our classrooms and maintaining a State commitment to support education is more important that spending money on just these feel good politics- polices in an election year. This is craziness."
Gee, tell that to Tom Suozzi Mike. Our buddy Austin Shafran makes the point here-albeit in a partisan fashion: "Property taxes are among the highest in the nation. They've jumped 320 percent in Nassau County since Dean Skelos took office and 550 percent in Suffolk County since Ken LaValle took office."
Now we'll hold judgment over whether the Democrats' plan is a worthy one, but the issue of over-taxation is as real as a heart attack for Long Island and Westchester residents-who, if they had Tax and Spend Mike as a county executive, would have booted him in the same fashion that Suozzi and Spano were shown the door (Democrats we believe).
And for Phony Test Scores Bloomberg to use education as his sacred cow-after he jacked up the local school budget to Bloombergian heights-is the acme of misdirection; and New Yorkers should be demanding a similar tax rebate from the mayor for all of this money for nothing. The, "tough choices," that Bloomberg refers to has given the city a bloated and out of control public payroll-and an educational edifice that hasn't advanced the interests of city school kids to any meaningful degree.
For Mike Bloomberg, an expansive government is inherent in his political DNA. For him to chastise property tax cuts after he raised these levies to astronomical levels in 2002, is adding insult to massive injury. He's the last person to lecture others in this sensitive area.
Popping Off Against Populism
Peter Beinart, an obvious autodidact, takes issue with the idea that the current Tea Party movement in any way resembles what he understands as populism: "But historically, the standards for what constitutes populism have been a little higher. In American history, populism has a specific meaning: It’s our non-Marxist way of talking about class. Being a populist means standing up for the little guy against ruling elites. Hating Washington isn’t enough, or else J.P. Morgan would have been a populist when he fumed that Theodore Roosevelt was busting his trusts. You have to be angry on behalf of the underdog."
Now keep in mind that the erudite Beinart begins the quote above by chastising the press for labeling as, "populist," anyone who accuses Barack Obama as a Marxist-thereby underscoring the limited parameters and prejudices of his own worldview. What needs to be pointed out is just how predictable the Beinart whine is-and it followed swiftly the main stream media debunking of the previous shallow bias that saw the "teabaggers" as racist homophobes.
So now, with the NY Times/CBS polling observations that the TP folks are a bit richer and better educated than the average American, the line of attack of the herd of independent minds needs to be adjusted: "The Tea Partiers aren’t standing up for the little guy; they’re standing up to the little guy. Which is why we now have scientific proof that Tea Partiers don’t deserve the label. According to a survey in Thursday’s New York Times, Tea Partiers are wealthier and better-educated than average Americans. They’re not today’s version of the Nebraska dirt farmers who rose up against the railroads and the banks more than a century ago."
Now we would agree that the current populist incarnation is quite different from that of the agrarian revolt depicted by Richard Hofstadter-it has been transvaluated to a degree to fit into the current political matrix. But maybe, just maybe, there is a need to bring a more open mind to the way in which the current TP deserves the populist moniker.
Let's start by deconstructing the fallacy of the Beinart premise-that the current movement is somehow standing up to the little guy: "They’re today’s version of the California suburbanites who rose up against their property tax bills in the late 1970s rather than pay for decent schools for the Golden State’s black and Hispanic kids. They’re the second coming of what Robert Kuttner called “the revolt of the haves.”
This is rather breathtaking in its stupidity; especially at the exact moment of California's insolvency-a bankruptcy that has come about by ignoring the wisdom of the original tax revolt in that state. The fact that the Golden State is tapped out derives from the same misguided belief that in order to help the little guy you need to spend the state into the ground. How's that working out for those small folks?
And notice too how Beinart can't miss the opportunity to sneak in a racial motivation for the tax revolters of an earlier era-people who might have been skeptical about the continued spending orgy on a public education system that, in spite of all the dough thrown at it, can't seem to lift up the educational levels of all of those poor kids that Beinart has such faux rachmones for. And are the progressives in the forefront of the DC voucher promotion? Must have missed that.
Which brings us to a crucial point. Beinart truly believes that his progressive philosophy is looking out for the little guy. What he misses in this kind of unreflective and self congratulatory pontificating is that the populist mindset was contrapuntal to that of the progressives-folks who believed, as all good elitists do, that they knew best what was good for the less fortunate among us. And it is precisely this progressive mindset today that has provoked the uprising that Bienart so inaptly derides.
And there's a further fallacy embedded in this progressive elitism. It is the fact that the entire progressive approach-undertaken with the public assertion that the efforts are all for the downtrodden-ends up being not for the little guy, but to the little guy. Its endgame is to create an overweening governmental structure that insures that those little folks will be forever enthralled to their betters.
It is precisely this Leviathan-a monster machine run for the benefit of its over paid public employees, an unaccountable nomenclatura-that the Tea Party organizes against. It is an unrelenting and insatiable structure whose driving imperative is the pursuit of a never ending lebensraum.
But the revolt is, as Bienart says, to some extent an uprising of the haves-but the implications in his sneering sentenceseiaricatures the group as fat cats, when the truth is something quite different. These rebels are the same folks that the Alliance has represented for over twenty five years. They are the hard working home owners fighting for the quality of life in their neighborhoods; and they are the small business men and woman fighting to preserve the unique set of opportunities that allow one to succeed in this country-as they couldn't in any other.
It is this uniqueness, and the liberty that nourishes it, that is under assault by the ObamaNation-and the faithful scriveners like Beinart that look to toady for the New Class. Hence, we get this puerile sarcasm: "Now we learn that what the Tea Partiers dislike about Barack Obama’s economic policies is that they don’t do enough for the rich. According to the Times, Tea Partiers are more likely than other Americans to think Barack Obama’s policies favor the poor, and they’re mad as heck about it. Not exactly William Jennings Bryan stuff."
On the contrary, the disdain for the Obama agenda is that it is an assault on the conditions that have allowed these folks to succeed in this great country-and if that agenda is successfully implemented, it will surely close off opportunities for, not only the children of this productive class, but for all the current little guys who believe that they too can succeed through hard work and ingenuity (and without the crippling "help" that is offered by the statists).
But Beinart's resort to sarcasm is the facile way that the smug always proceed when the wind is at the other guy's sail-and the arguments can't be deconstructed honestly. What makes this country great, Peter, is the opportunities it offers. It is this unique culture, one that generates, "the lion's share of innovation, world-changing entrepreneurship, patents, pharmaceutical drugs, etc.," that progressives have always derided in their persistent effort to take control over the lives of others so that, in the end, they can ascend to their rightful ruling perch-high above all of the dependent little guys.
Now keep in mind that the erudite Beinart begins the quote above by chastising the press for labeling as, "populist," anyone who accuses Barack Obama as a Marxist-thereby underscoring the limited parameters and prejudices of his own worldview. What needs to be pointed out is just how predictable the Beinart whine is-and it followed swiftly the main stream media debunking of the previous shallow bias that saw the "teabaggers" as racist homophobes.
So now, with the NY Times/CBS polling observations that the TP folks are a bit richer and better educated than the average American, the line of attack of the herd of independent minds needs to be adjusted: "The Tea Partiers aren’t standing up for the little guy; they’re standing up to the little guy. Which is why we now have scientific proof that Tea Partiers don’t deserve the label. According to a survey in Thursday’s New York Times, Tea Partiers are wealthier and better-educated than average Americans. They’re not today’s version of the Nebraska dirt farmers who rose up against the railroads and the banks more than a century ago."
Now we would agree that the current populist incarnation is quite different from that of the agrarian revolt depicted by Richard Hofstadter-it has been transvaluated to a degree to fit into the current political matrix. But maybe, just maybe, there is a need to bring a more open mind to the way in which the current TP deserves the populist moniker.
Let's start by deconstructing the fallacy of the Beinart premise-that the current movement is somehow standing up to the little guy: "They’re today’s version of the California suburbanites who rose up against their property tax bills in the late 1970s rather than pay for decent schools for the Golden State’s black and Hispanic kids. They’re the second coming of what Robert Kuttner called “the revolt of the haves.”
This is rather breathtaking in its stupidity; especially at the exact moment of California's insolvency-a bankruptcy that has come about by ignoring the wisdom of the original tax revolt in that state. The fact that the Golden State is tapped out derives from the same misguided belief that in order to help the little guy you need to spend the state into the ground. How's that working out for those small folks?
And notice too how Beinart can't miss the opportunity to sneak in a racial motivation for the tax revolters of an earlier era-people who might have been skeptical about the continued spending orgy on a public education system that, in spite of all the dough thrown at it, can't seem to lift up the educational levels of all of those poor kids that Beinart has such faux rachmones for. And are the progressives in the forefront of the DC voucher promotion? Must have missed that.
Which brings us to a crucial point. Beinart truly believes that his progressive philosophy is looking out for the little guy. What he misses in this kind of unreflective and self congratulatory pontificating is that the populist mindset was contrapuntal to that of the progressives-folks who believed, as all good elitists do, that they knew best what was good for the less fortunate among us. And it is precisely this progressive mindset today that has provoked the uprising that Bienart so inaptly derides.
And there's a further fallacy embedded in this progressive elitism. It is the fact that the entire progressive approach-undertaken with the public assertion that the efforts are all for the downtrodden-ends up being not for the little guy, but to the little guy. Its endgame is to create an overweening governmental structure that insures that those little folks will be forever enthralled to their betters.
It is precisely this Leviathan-a monster machine run for the benefit of its over paid public employees, an unaccountable nomenclatura-that the Tea Party organizes against. It is an unrelenting and insatiable structure whose driving imperative is the pursuit of a never ending lebensraum.
But the revolt is, as Bienart says, to some extent an uprising of the haves-but the implications in his sneering sentenceseiaricatures the group as fat cats, when the truth is something quite different. These rebels are the same folks that the Alliance has represented for over twenty five years. They are the hard working home owners fighting for the quality of life in their neighborhoods; and they are the small business men and woman fighting to preserve the unique set of opportunities that allow one to succeed in this country-as they couldn't in any other.
It is this uniqueness, and the liberty that nourishes it, that is under assault by the ObamaNation-and the faithful scriveners like Beinart that look to toady for the New Class. Hence, we get this puerile sarcasm: "Now we learn that what the Tea Partiers dislike about Barack Obama’s economic policies is that they don’t do enough for the rich. According to the Times, Tea Partiers are more likely than other Americans to think Barack Obama’s policies favor the poor, and they’re mad as heck about it. Not exactly William Jennings Bryan stuff."
On the contrary, the disdain for the Obama agenda is that it is an assault on the conditions that have allowed these folks to succeed in this great country-and if that agenda is successfully implemented, it will surely close off opportunities for, not only the children of this productive class, but for all the current little guys who believe that they too can succeed through hard work and ingenuity (and without the crippling "help" that is offered by the statists).
But Beinart's resort to sarcasm is the facile way that the smug always proceed when the wind is at the other guy's sail-and the arguments can't be deconstructed honestly. What makes this country great, Peter, is the opportunities it offers. It is this unique culture, one that generates, "the lion's share of innovation, world-changing entrepreneurship, patents, pharmaceutical drugs, etc.," that progressives have always derided in their persistent effort to take control over the lives of others so that, in the end, they can ascend to their rightful ruling perch-high above all of the dependent little guys.
Kelo and Stevens: Hello, We're Glad He's Going
The Economist takes a look at the retiring Supreme Court Justice Stevens and his role in the controversial Kelo decision on eminent domain-a decision it sees as the justice's "worst." "But his opinion in Kelo v New London (2005) was simply terrible. The case was about a private developer in New London, Connecticut, who wanted to raze some waterfront homes to build an office block and some posh apartments. The owners didn't want to sell. The city decided to force them to, calculating that the new development would create jobs and yield more taxes."
Of course, what makes the decision so shady is the redefinition of the public use clause of the constitution: "Under the 5th amendment, the government may seize private property only in exceptional circumstances. The land seized must be put to “public use”, and “just compensation” must be paid. “Public use” has traditionally been taken to mean something like a public highway. Roads would obviously be much harder to build if a single homeowner could hold out forever or for excessive compensation. The government's powers of “eminent domain” have also been used to clean up blighted slums. In this case, however, the area was not blighted, and the land was not going to be put to a public use, so the seizure was plainly unlawful. Amazingly, Justice Stevens--and a slim majority of the court--said it was fine. Rejecting “any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ...public”, he said it was enough that the seizure should serve some vaguely defined “public purpose”—such as those new taxes."
The consequence of this logic is to create an, "anything goes," scenario-and the constitutional protection is rendered null and void: "This massively expanded the government's power of eminent domain. “The spectre of condemnation hangs over all property,” fumed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in dissent. “Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”
But the Kelo decision did generate a backlash: "Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: New Jersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins. Only two ballot initiatives failed, in California and Idaho, and that because they clearly went too far. Re-worded, they could easily pass."
New York, alas, is way behind the trend with Senators Perkins and Flanagan-as well as Assemblyman Brodsky-swimming upstream against the powerful forces looking to protect condemnation rights at all costs. Still, Nick Sprayregen has opened up a small window of hope with his recent court success against Columbia U's efforts to run off with his property, and our crew at Willets Point is also still standing against the same forces who believe that it is the state's unalienable right to seize your property on a whim.
And, as we have found out at civic meeting after civic meeting, public opinion is on our side: "Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities."
And this revulsion is continuing across the country: "The backlash may end up strengthening property rights.... Just as the courts keep tabs on Congress and the executive, striking down unconstitutional laws and constantly reminding the president that he is subject to the rest, so too can Congress, the states and ultimately the people curb the excesses of the Supreme Court. Kelo v New London was a terrible decision. But most states have now neutered it, and more will doubtless follow."
Justice Stevens is being remembered fondly for his, "empathy," for the less fortunate. Unfortunately, this newly discovered judicial principle that the current administration is using as one of its guiding principles doesn't extend to the less than rich and famous-such as Susette Kelo-as Sonya Sotomayor has already demonstrated in her reaction to the Port Chester, New York ED case. Let's hope that whoever the president chooses, she or he will view property rights as a bedrock constitutional principle. It would be an upgrade for sure over John Paul Stevens.
Of course, what makes the decision so shady is the redefinition of the public use clause of the constitution: "Under the 5th amendment, the government may seize private property only in exceptional circumstances. The land seized must be put to “public use”, and “just compensation” must be paid. “Public use” has traditionally been taken to mean something like a public highway. Roads would obviously be much harder to build if a single homeowner could hold out forever or for excessive compensation. The government's powers of “eminent domain” have also been used to clean up blighted slums. In this case, however, the area was not blighted, and the land was not going to be put to a public use, so the seizure was plainly unlawful. Amazingly, Justice Stevens--and a slim majority of the court--said it was fine. Rejecting “any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ...public”, he said it was enough that the seizure should serve some vaguely defined “public purpose”—such as those new taxes."
The consequence of this logic is to create an, "anything goes," scenario-and the constitutional protection is rendered null and void: "This massively expanded the government's power of eminent domain. “The spectre of condemnation hangs over all property,” fumed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in dissent. “Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”
But the Kelo decision did generate a backlash: "Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: New Jersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins. Only two ballot initiatives failed, in California and Idaho, and that because they clearly went too far. Re-worded, they could easily pass."
New York, alas, is way behind the trend with Senators Perkins and Flanagan-as well as Assemblyman Brodsky-swimming upstream against the powerful forces looking to protect condemnation rights at all costs. Still, Nick Sprayregen has opened up a small window of hope with his recent court success against Columbia U's efforts to run off with his property, and our crew at Willets Point is also still standing against the same forces who believe that it is the state's unalienable right to seize your property on a whim.
And, as we have found out at civic meeting after civic meeting, public opinion is on our side: "Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities."
And this revulsion is continuing across the country: "The backlash may end up strengthening property rights.... Just as the courts keep tabs on Congress and the executive, striking down unconstitutional laws and constantly reminding the president that he is subject to the rest, so too can Congress, the states and ultimately the people curb the excesses of the Supreme Court. Kelo v New London was a terrible decision. But most states have now neutered it, and more will doubtless follow."
Justice Stevens is being remembered fondly for his, "empathy," for the less fortunate. Unfortunately, this newly discovered judicial principle that the current administration is using as one of its guiding principles doesn't extend to the less than rich and famous-such as Susette Kelo-as Sonya Sotomayor has already demonstrated in her reaction to the Port Chester, New York ED case. Let's hope that whoever the president chooses, she or he will view property rights as a bedrock constitutional principle. It would be an upgrade for sure over John Paul Stevens.
Willets Point's Listing
According to the Observer, EDC has a list of potential bidders for property at Willets Point that is currently owned by other folks: "World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein, Queens developer Jeff Levine and Related Cos. chairman Stephen Ross are among those seeking to develop Willets Point, the polluted, 62-acre auto repair district next to Citi Field, according to city records."
A little premature exuberance perhaps, since there are still some unresolved outstanding issues-especially over traffic and certain ramps to nowhere, an issue that the Observer neglects to emphasize in its story-but does mention, along with the illegal machinations of one Claire Shulman: "Since, the opposition from the main landowners has died down—many of them cut their own deals with the city—while the smaller business owners have tried to raise concerns about traffic issues and the legality of a local development corporation that was established to lobby for the project. That organization, the Flushing/Willets Point/Corona LDC, was funded in part by the Bloomberg administration, which effectively directed funds to lobby the City Council and community board. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo began investigating this issue last summer after the business owners questioned its legality, although he has yet to issue any findings."
But the website does recognize that cost could become a prohibitive factor: "The Bloomberg administration insists it has enough money in its budget to proceed with the project, although some bidders and onlookers are skeptical of this claim given the high cost of acquisitions. The Bloomberg administration has also said that the bidders would pay for the remediation of the development site, although a firm price tag has not been established."
So, it appears that there aren't any firm prices because the Bloombergistas are afraid that the folks-reeling from budget cuts and layoffs-will develop a bad case of sticker shock. It seems to us, however, that the administration should strive for some degree of transparency on the cost question.
That being said, it seems that the ramp approvals are far from a done deal-and a federal environmental assessment could take some time (with a green light certainly not a given). As more and more community folks begin to see just how fraudulent the city's traffic studies really are-and that includes Flushing Commons as well-they're beginning to understand that Kermit the Mayor is more like the Wizard of Oz on the issue of greening the city; he's full of bluster but, like Oakland, there's not much there there.
The pushback is just beginning for our city's richest man. Stay tuned.
A little premature exuberance perhaps, since there are still some unresolved outstanding issues-especially over traffic and certain ramps to nowhere, an issue that the Observer neglects to emphasize in its story-but does mention, along with the illegal machinations of one Claire Shulman: "Since, the opposition from the main landowners has died down—many of them cut their own deals with the city—while the smaller business owners have tried to raise concerns about traffic issues and the legality of a local development corporation that was established to lobby for the project. That organization, the Flushing/Willets Point/Corona LDC, was funded in part by the Bloomberg administration, which effectively directed funds to lobby the City Council and community board. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo began investigating this issue last summer after the business owners questioned its legality, although he has yet to issue any findings."
But the website does recognize that cost could become a prohibitive factor: "The Bloomberg administration insists it has enough money in its budget to proceed with the project, although some bidders and onlookers are skeptical of this claim given the high cost of acquisitions. The Bloomberg administration has also said that the bidders would pay for the remediation of the development site, although a firm price tag has not been established."
So, it appears that there aren't any firm prices because the Bloombergistas are afraid that the folks-reeling from budget cuts and layoffs-will develop a bad case of sticker shock. It seems to us, however, that the administration should strive for some degree of transparency on the cost question.
That being said, it seems that the ramp approvals are far from a done deal-and a federal environmental assessment could take some time (with a green light certainly not a given). As more and more community folks begin to see just how fraudulent the city's traffic studies really are-and that includes Flushing Commons as well-they're beginning to understand that Kermit the Mayor is more like the Wizard of Oz on the issue of greening the city; he's full of bluster but, like Oakland, there's not much there there.
The pushback is just beginning for our city's richest man. Stay tuned.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Who'll Regulate the Regulators?
Michael Daley has an instructive piece in this morning's NY Daily News about the importance of Wall Street to the city's economy-and he cautions our good folks in Washington about too heavy handed a regulatory scheme being imposed on our own Golden Goose: "We all get indignant about those unconscionable Wall Street bonuses, and rightfully so, but those bonuses have produced billions in taxes over the years. And those taxes pay for teachers and cops and firefighters."
But, as Daley points out, Wall Streeters make a useful political piñata: "And by all appearances, Wall Street has learned precious little from the experience. Left on their own, the bankers are sure to lead us once more to the edge of a cliff, maybe next time right over it. They need to be regulated, but in a way that will ultimately benefit them, that will keep them prudently prosperous, guarding against bust without precluding boom. Only politicians get a lot more mileage out of pillorying and punishing Wall Street."
Which is, of course, the goal of the ObamaNation-misdirect so that the fall election cycle won't become Democrats' Armageddon: "Only politicians get a lot more mileage out of pillorying and punishing Wall Street. The Democrats have a new 60-second TV spot in which a Main Street-style voice intones: "2008. Trillions in savings wiped out. Millions of jobs lost. Homes and businesses foreclosed on. Wall Street's risk and greed cost us trillions. The result? The worst recession since the Great Depression." Then comes the warning, "It could all happen again if we don't pass President Obama's plan to reform Wall Street."
But, of course, any beating given to Wall Street would cause hemorrhaging all over the city: "The problem is that if you hit them with punishing taxes and regulations, they might simply depart for another world financial center such as London or Hong Kong. The people left behind will be just like those who made up a considerable majority of the people I saw coming and going from Goldman Sachs. These folks looked more Main Street than Wall Street - office workers and custodians and security guys."
Which gets us right to the crux of the Democrats' scheme-and the idea that the same political class in charge of regulating Fannie and Freddie will watch out for us is, well, simply ludicrous. It was the great Chris Dodd and the loquacious Barney Frank who were asleep at the switch during the subprime mortgage boom; and it is our belief that any new regulatory scheme will-aside from creating an expensive and cumbersome additional bureaucratic structure-be totally ineffective.
The simple fact-as Murray Edelman pointed out over forty years ago-is that the regulators and the regulated will form a symbiotic relationship that will be to their mutual benefit (how much dough has Chuck Schumer culled from the Street in the past 12 years?). But the public certainly won't be seeing the benefits-and another expensive waste of tax dollars will be foisted in the name of looking out for the little guy. As Edelman would say, the words and the symbols will soothe the masses, but the policy will never protect their interests.
Daley concludes his musings with an indirect paean to Mayor Mike's Wall Street advocacy: "As our mayor likes to note, the top 100 tax filers pay 13.2% of the personal income tax revenue the city collects. He will also tell you the top 5,000 pay 38.7% of those taxes.Many of those people are in the financial industry, and if we drive a significant number of them away, we might as well start calling our city Detroit-on-Hudson. Mayor Bloomberg has been making it hard enough to hate the rich. Now it turns out we need them, along with the banks. Like it or not."
Well, the stopped clock chief executive of our city is right about this issue-we just wish that he'd find real Main Street tax and regulatory issues that would promote similar stuck pig squealing. But since in those cases it is the mayor himself doing the sticking, it's unlikely that he'll pick up on the analogy any time soon.
Our view is that we need to beware of the unintended consequences of the red meat legislation that the Dems are promoting. Another $50 billion slush fund that will be used to bail out the co-conspiring bankers and pols one more time if anything bad does happen. We need this like a loch im kopf.
But, as Daley points out, Wall Streeters make a useful political piñata: "And by all appearances, Wall Street has learned precious little from the experience. Left on their own, the bankers are sure to lead us once more to the edge of a cliff, maybe next time right over it. They need to be regulated, but in a way that will ultimately benefit them, that will keep them prudently prosperous, guarding against bust without precluding boom. Only politicians get a lot more mileage out of pillorying and punishing Wall Street."
Which is, of course, the goal of the ObamaNation-misdirect so that the fall election cycle won't become Democrats' Armageddon: "Only politicians get a lot more mileage out of pillorying and punishing Wall Street. The Democrats have a new 60-second TV spot in which a Main Street-style voice intones: "2008. Trillions in savings wiped out. Millions of jobs lost. Homes and businesses foreclosed on. Wall Street's risk and greed cost us trillions. The result? The worst recession since the Great Depression." Then comes the warning, "It could all happen again if we don't pass President Obama's plan to reform Wall Street."
But, of course, any beating given to Wall Street would cause hemorrhaging all over the city: "The problem is that if you hit them with punishing taxes and regulations, they might simply depart for another world financial center such as London or Hong Kong. The people left behind will be just like those who made up a considerable majority of the people I saw coming and going from Goldman Sachs. These folks looked more Main Street than Wall Street - office workers and custodians and security guys."
Which gets us right to the crux of the Democrats' scheme-and the idea that the same political class in charge of regulating Fannie and Freddie will watch out for us is, well, simply ludicrous. It was the great Chris Dodd and the loquacious Barney Frank who were asleep at the switch during the subprime mortgage boom; and it is our belief that any new regulatory scheme will-aside from creating an expensive and cumbersome additional bureaucratic structure-be totally ineffective.
The simple fact-as Murray Edelman pointed out over forty years ago-is that the regulators and the regulated will form a symbiotic relationship that will be to their mutual benefit (how much dough has Chuck Schumer culled from the Street in the past 12 years?). But the public certainly won't be seeing the benefits-and another expensive waste of tax dollars will be foisted in the name of looking out for the little guy. As Edelman would say, the words and the symbols will soothe the masses, but the policy will never protect their interests.
Daley concludes his musings with an indirect paean to Mayor Mike's Wall Street advocacy: "As our mayor likes to note, the top 100 tax filers pay 13.2% of the personal income tax revenue the city collects. He will also tell you the top 5,000 pay 38.7% of those taxes.Many of those people are in the financial industry, and if we drive a significant number of them away, we might as well start calling our city Detroit-on-Hudson. Mayor Bloomberg has been making it hard enough to hate the rich. Now it turns out we need them, along with the banks. Like it or not."
Well, the stopped clock chief executive of our city is right about this issue-we just wish that he'd find real Main Street tax and regulatory issues that would promote similar stuck pig squealing. But since in those cases it is the mayor himself doing the sticking, it's unlikely that he'll pick up on the analogy any time soon.
Our view is that we need to beware of the unintended consequences of the red meat legislation that the Dems are promoting. Another $50 billion slush fund that will be used to bail out the co-conspiring bankers and pols one more time if anything bad does happen. We need this like a loch im kopf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
