The tyranny of federal judgships is on disgraceful display in the courtoom of Nicholas Garaufis-a jurist that should be held up for public ridicule for his perverse view of what constitutes discrimination. Fighting the city because of its reluctance to enforce quotas on the FDNY, this poor excuse for a judge is drawing a line in the sand: "A Brooklyn federal judge has drawn a new line in the sand in his battle with the Bloomberg administration over Fire Department hiring. Judge Nicholas Garaufis today handed down a new ultimatum to the city: find an unbiased way to hire firefighters by next month or wait a year until a new, nondiscriminatory test is developed. Garaufis also barred the city from hiring any probationary firefighters until October 31 — extending his previous injunction by one month — after he ruled that the current FDNY test discriminates against blacks and Hispanics. The action came as the result of an ongoing lawsuit against the city."
But what exactly is biased about the previous written test for the department? Aside from the fact that Blacks and Hispanics score lower than white applicants, there is little that can be shown as discriminatory-but apparently that is enough for this quota king. And he is playing my way or the highway with the public safety: "The city agreed to develop a new test, but had argued that it needed to hire at least 300 more probies immediately to keep a lid on the millions of dollars being spent on over time every month. The administration, however, refused to pick one of five hiring methods proposed by Garaufis, because all depended on racial quotas, according to city lawyers. If officials do not come up with a solution for hiring firefighters that the judge believes is lawful, he threatened today to permanently bar the city from hiring until a new non-discriminatory test has been drafted."
If we go back to the roots of all this-in the Civil Rights Law of 1964-we recall how a certain civil rights crusader furiously argued that the law would not lead to the imposition of quotas: "The reality is, unfortunately, that racial quotas are the inevitable by-products of our anti-discrimination laws. When Barry Goldwater explained how the 1964 Civil Rights Act would lead to quotas, Hubert Humphrey famously promised to eat a printed copy of the law if it ever happened. But merely a half-decade later, quotas were commonplace."
But it is we, the citizens of NYC, who are unfortunately bequeathed Judge Garaufis; a man who sees the city's upholding of nondiscriminatory standards as an act of blatant racism simply because not enough minority applicants are scoring high enough. Well, judge, too bad. These tests are well known, in both style and content, and all that any applicant needs to do is study harder. As Coach Lombardi once said, "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
Update
Michael Goodwin weighs in on Garaufis and makes the following telling point about the judge's constitutional scholarship: "Judges usually reject quotas, not encourage them. But federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis is acting like a diva in search of a soap opera.The former Queens Democratic political hack—nine years as general counsel to the borough president—shows the dangers of judges imposing their politics on society."
So, all he learned about the constitution must have been at the knee of Claire Shulman? This is beyond an outrage, and this piece of judicial drek should be removed from the bench. But we need to give a major shout out to the mayor-and you all know that does pain us to have to do; but fair is fair, and here's why we think Mike Bloomberg deserves a major pat on the back: "Mayor Bloomberg, on the John Gambling radio show, forcefully hit the two most important points at stake. “If my kids are in that building, I want the best-trained, smartest firefighter that we can possibly have come in through that door,” he said. Later, he added, “We’re playing with what, I think, is one of the basic tenets of America: that everybody has equal opportunity and it’s not a system where we demand equal results.”
And for saying that, the mayor deserves-and gets-the last word.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
NARAL's Late Term Ethics
We're wondering if the media will pick up on the latest Wayne Barrett expose on the questionable ethics of AG candidate Eric Schneiderman? What has gotten our attention this time is the underhanded nature of the relationship between Schneiderman and NARAL-a group that is apparently a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Schneiderman campaign:
"NARAL New York just produced a video and hosted a press conference for Eric Schneiderman, the Democratic candidate for attorney general. NARAL has yet to even endorse Andrew Cuomo, the sitting attorney general who is running for governor. Yet it is governors who shape abortion policy; New York attorney generals have virtually no effect on it.To compound the paradox, Schneiderman is running against a moderate Republican, Dan Donovan, who is pro-life except in cases of incest and rape and vows to "take the appropriate action against anyone who tries to interfere with a woman's right to choose." Cuomo is opposed by Carl Paladino, who is against abortion even in cases of incest and rape, vows to cut funding for abortion groups and calls abortion a "fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life." Why?
As always in politics, it's about the Benjamins: "Irwin Schneiderman, the candidate's wealthy father, has been a board member of NARAL for at least a decade, was once its chair, and also served as the treasurer of its political action committee, stepping down from his NARAL posts in April, according to Samantha Levine, the abortion rights league's spokeswoman. Levine concedes that the senior Schneiderman has been the single largest donor to its political action committee, giving at least $75,000 in the last 6 years. In fact, Schneiderman was the only donor to each NARAL PAC through different two-year cycles, and has accounted for 50 percent of its Women's Health PAC's funding since 2004 and 47 percent of the total raised by the second PAC."
This is-pay attention all you Espada attack dogs-a corrupt bargain; and is reminiscent for us of the relationship between certain environmental groups and our Carbon Big Foot mayor. Put simply, by being on the Schneiderman pad, NARAL has, in our view, forfeited any right to speak on behalf of this issue during the current election cycle. And as far as its hose pet Schneiderman is concerned, we now know why Sir Eric is trying to make abortion a center piece of his AG campaign-we certainly know it isn't aggressive law enforcement; apparently an anathema to the very liberal senator.
But this goes beyond the appearance of impropriety in its quid pro quo nature: "Asked why Schneiderman resigned from his NARAL positions this spring, Levine said: "Because he was not going to be on the board when we made our endorsement in the attorney general race." NARAL endorsed Schneiderman in July, bypassing a pro-choice woman, Kathleen Rice, who was backed by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other pro-choice groups."
NARAL, in getting into the Schneiderman bed is exposing the hypocrisy of some of these so-called good government groups that inveigh against special interest corruption. By its action, the group encourages us to look closely at the Republican candidate whose father apparently hasn't bought off anyone.
But, as the NY Post reports this morning, NARAL isn't the only spacial interest that Schneiderman has jumped between the sheets for-the trial lawyers are making the confines of the political bed narrow indeed: "Eric Schneiderman, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, is pushing legislation that would be a gift to trial lawyers and an attack on Wall Street, critics charge. The state senator from the Upper West Side has introduced a bill that would let private lawyers file securities-fraud lawsuits against New York firms on behalf of investors in mutual funds or the state pension fund."
What all of this means to us is that our view of our own state senator remains a jaundiced one-precisely because we can't find a single instance where Eric has supported any business interest-not a single one. With NY State in the throes of real economic hard times, we don't need a litigious anti-business zealot in the top law enforcement position. Protecting the reproductive rights of New York women is fine to do; but not when it is, at the same time, done at the expense of the state's tax payers and small businesses.
"NARAL New York just produced a video and hosted a press conference for Eric Schneiderman, the Democratic candidate for attorney general. NARAL has yet to even endorse Andrew Cuomo, the sitting attorney general who is running for governor. Yet it is governors who shape abortion policy; New York attorney generals have virtually no effect on it.To compound the paradox, Schneiderman is running against a moderate Republican, Dan Donovan, who is pro-life except in cases of incest and rape and vows to "take the appropriate action against anyone who tries to interfere with a woman's right to choose." Cuomo is opposed by Carl Paladino, who is against abortion even in cases of incest and rape, vows to cut funding for abortion groups and calls abortion a "fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life." Why?
As always in politics, it's about the Benjamins: "Irwin Schneiderman, the candidate's wealthy father, has been a board member of NARAL for at least a decade, was once its chair, and also served as the treasurer of its political action committee, stepping down from his NARAL posts in April, according to Samantha Levine, the abortion rights league's spokeswoman. Levine concedes that the senior Schneiderman has been the single largest donor to its political action committee, giving at least $75,000 in the last 6 years. In fact, Schneiderman was the only donor to each NARAL PAC through different two-year cycles, and has accounted for 50 percent of its Women's Health PAC's funding since 2004 and 47 percent of the total raised by the second PAC."
This is-pay attention all you Espada attack dogs-a corrupt bargain; and is reminiscent for us of the relationship between certain environmental groups and our Carbon Big Foot mayor. Put simply, by being on the Schneiderman pad, NARAL has, in our view, forfeited any right to speak on behalf of this issue during the current election cycle. And as far as its hose pet Schneiderman is concerned, we now know why Sir Eric is trying to make abortion a center piece of his AG campaign-we certainly know it isn't aggressive law enforcement; apparently an anathema to the very liberal senator.
But this goes beyond the appearance of impropriety in its quid pro quo nature: "Asked why Schneiderman resigned from his NARAL positions this spring, Levine said: "Because he was not going to be on the board when we made our endorsement in the attorney general race." NARAL endorsed Schneiderman in July, bypassing a pro-choice woman, Kathleen Rice, who was backed by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other pro-choice groups."
NARAL, in getting into the Schneiderman bed is exposing the hypocrisy of some of these so-called good government groups that inveigh against special interest corruption. By its action, the group encourages us to look closely at the Republican candidate whose father apparently hasn't bought off anyone.
But, as the NY Post reports this morning, NARAL isn't the only spacial interest that Schneiderman has jumped between the sheets for-the trial lawyers are making the confines of the political bed narrow indeed: "Eric Schneiderman, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, is pushing legislation that would be a gift to trial lawyers and an attack on Wall Street, critics charge. The state senator from the Upper West Side has introduced a bill that would let private lawyers file securities-fraud lawsuits against New York firms on behalf of investors in mutual funds or the state pension fund."
What all of this means to us is that our view of our own state senator remains a jaundiced one-precisely because we can't find a single instance where Eric has supported any business interest-not a single one. With NY State in the throes of real economic hard times, we don't need a litigious anti-business zealot in the top law enforcement position. Protecting the reproductive rights of New York women is fine to do; but not when it is, at the same time, done at the expense of the state's tax payers and small businesses.
The Caricaturization of Saul Alinsky
The libertarian Jesse Walker has an interesting review of Nicholas Von Hoffman's book on his friend Saul Alinsky-and in it we get a much more nuanced view of the radical organizer than can be gleaned from the demonizations of Sean Hannity. Understanding Alinsky's philosophy informs us of the dangers of political and economic centralization-and can be seen as a primer for those on both the left and right who are concerned with the growth of statism and corporate power.
We have commented before that Alinsky has been some what of a theoretical guru for the work of the alliance-and for us, unlike the president, community organizing in the Alinsky model has been more than an affectation. And, as Walker points out, Alinsky's success-much like our own-has not been in poor neighborhoods, but in white working class communities like Chicago's Back of the Yards: "The founders of the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, by contrast, appreciated all the self-directed activity taking place in the district. The group’s first meeting, held on July 14, 1939, featured 350 residents from 76 organizations: parish clubs, ethnic lodges, women’s groups, athletic clubs, unions, the chamber of commerce, a community newspaper. The council was a federation of those local groups rather than a mass organization of individuals; its structure, in Slayton’s words, was designed so as to “not challenge the private order of segmentation and nationalism, but instead create a public realm in which the individual pieces could join,” working together on areas of shared interest."
Here we see glimpses of the thought of Paul Goodman and others who saw the dangers in the overweening power of the state-and protection and sanctuary in neighborhood vitality: "And work together they did. In the ’30s and ’40s, among many other activities, the council built a playground, established a credit union, did strike support work, acquired and lent out a portable bug exterminator, brought an infant health clinic to the neighborhood, helped young people find jobs, sprayed weedkiller in vacant lots, sold garbage cans to the community at a fraction of the market cost, and funded a softball league organized by some of the local gangs."
And like Jane Jacobs, Alinsky shunned the social workers and do-gooding elites who saw slums where real vibrant communities were living and breathing: "When sociologists started studying such areas, they thought they were looking at human wastelands. In his 1986 book Back of the Yards, the historian Robert Slayton noted that such scholars were familiar with the sorts of social ties that were forged in small towns but were “blind to similar bonds of community among immigrant workers”; in 1929 one sociologist wrote bluntly that the slums were places where “local life breaks down.” Social workers and other outsiders often adopted similar attitudes, seeing the rich ecology of neighborhood institutions as something to be overcome, not strengthened. Social improvement would be provided by professionals with scientific training, not by a bunch of bohunks acting on their own behalf."
Here we can see the possible intersection of libertarian thought on both ends of the political spectrum-and why the work of the Neighborhood Retail Alliance in opposition to Wal-Mart has been able to meld progressive labor forces with small business and neighborhood groups. Alinsky pioneered this train of thought and to see him as some sort of communist-compared to, of all people, Antonio Gramsci-is absurd.
Walker lays this out: "But in the days of the New Deal, a time when the American Left was increasingly centralist and statist, this was a different approach: social change driven by intermediary institutions at the most local level, not by experts erecting bureaucracies in Washington. In 1945, in a book called Reveille for Radicals, one of the council’s founders argued that such “People’s Organizations” could be the building blocks of a new, more participatory sort of citizenship."
But those on the right who are learning from Alinsky are, in Walker's view, limiting the value of this lesson by confining themselves purely to the real of tactics: "Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals has been studied closely by conservatives convinced that they’ve found the White House’s secret playbook. Smarter folks on the right, such as the Tea Party champions at FreedomWorks, have been reading Rules for Radicals as well, not to decode Obama’s occult intentions but in hopes of adapting Alinsky’s tactics to the fight for freer markets. It isn’t a bad idea, but it only scratches the surface of what the foes of taxes and bailouts can learn from Alinsky. In all his successes, mistakes, and contradictions, Alinsky represents the dormant decentralist wing of the left. His life is full of lessons for anyone, left or right, who demands a devolution of power."
Alinsky detested elites, and particularly their condescension towards the abilities of the folks-and in this sense we can see how Alinsky would have disdained the government-growing elitism of President Obama. And to his everlasting credit, he hated policy advancing social workers: "By the time Lyndon Johnson was in the White House, the old radical had grown even more caustic. Always hostile to social workers, Alinsky attacked the entire Great Society in a 1965 article for the Journal of Social Issues. “The anti-poverty program may well be recorded as history’s greatest relief program for the benefit of the welfare industry,” he wrote."
Makes it kind of difficult to tar Obama with an Alinsky brush-the two men couldn't be more diametrically opposed: "This was the Alinsky that his Machiavellian reputation sometimes concealed: a humanist radical who distrusted large institutions and put his faith in concrete local affiliations. In von Hoffman’s words, Alinsky wanted little platoons like the Back of the Yards Council to form a “countervailing power” against “the gigantism of government, corporation and even labor union.”
So, in Walker's view, the Tea Party folks can learn a great deal from the man who has been caricatured by simplifiers on the right: "There’s a lesson there for the Tea Partiers who have been studying Alinsky’s tactics, should they care to explore the rest of his legacy. If they’re serious about building a real alternative to the Bush/Obama megastate, as opposed to merely being used by the Republicans and discarded as soon as the GOP is in a position to relaunch the K Street Project, the activists need to build countervailing power of their own, rooted not merely in talk radio and the Internet but in the indigenous institutions that shape people’s everyday lives."
For us, Alinsky, Jacobs and Paul Goodman are exemplars of individual liberty-and real heirs to the intermediary institutions legacy of Tocqueville. They are the real anti-progressives-and have more in common with the Tea Party wave than the Hannitys and Limbaughs do. With the rise of Leviathan, and the elitism that stokes its perpetuation, there is a need to find ways to tap into-and coalesce-those forces on opposite ends of the political dial that want to enhance personal freedom, and who rightly understand that the expanding state is its natural enemy.
We have commented before that Alinsky has been some what of a theoretical guru for the work of the alliance-and for us, unlike the president, community organizing in the Alinsky model has been more than an affectation. And, as Walker points out, Alinsky's success-much like our own-has not been in poor neighborhoods, but in white working class communities like Chicago's Back of the Yards: "The founders of the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, by contrast, appreciated all the self-directed activity taking place in the district. The group’s first meeting, held on July 14, 1939, featured 350 residents from 76 organizations: parish clubs, ethnic lodges, women’s groups, athletic clubs, unions, the chamber of commerce, a community newspaper. The council was a federation of those local groups rather than a mass organization of individuals; its structure, in Slayton’s words, was designed so as to “not challenge the private order of segmentation and nationalism, but instead create a public realm in which the individual pieces could join,” working together on areas of shared interest."
Here we see glimpses of the thought of Paul Goodman and others who saw the dangers in the overweening power of the state-and protection and sanctuary in neighborhood vitality: "And work together they did. In the ’30s and ’40s, among many other activities, the council built a playground, established a credit union, did strike support work, acquired and lent out a portable bug exterminator, brought an infant health clinic to the neighborhood, helped young people find jobs, sprayed weedkiller in vacant lots, sold garbage cans to the community at a fraction of the market cost, and funded a softball league organized by some of the local gangs."
And like Jane Jacobs, Alinsky shunned the social workers and do-gooding elites who saw slums where real vibrant communities were living and breathing: "When sociologists started studying such areas, they thought they were looking at human wastelands. In his 1986 book Back of the Yards, the historian Robert Slayton noted that such scholars were familiar with the sorts of social ties that were forged in small towns but were “blind to similar bonds of community among immigrant workers”; in 1929 one sociologist wrote bluntly that the slums were places where “local life breaks down.” Social workers and other outsiders often adopted similar attitudes, seeing the rich ecology of neighborhood institutions as something to be overcome, not strengthened. Social improvement would be provided by professionals with scientific training, not by a bunch of bohunks acting on their own behalf."
Here we can see the possible intersection of libertarian thought on both ends of the political spectrum-and why the work of the Neighborhood Retail Alliance in opposition to Wal-Mart has been able to meld progressive labor forces with small business and neighborhood groups. Alinsky pioneered this train of thought and to see him as some sort of communist-compared to, of all people, Antonio Gramsci-is absurd.
Walker lays this out: "But in the days of the New Deal, a time when the American Left was increasingly centralist and statist, this was a different approach: social change driven by intermediary institutions at the most local level, not by experts erecting bureaucracies in Washington. In 1945, in a book called Reveille for Radicals, one of the council’s founders argued that such “People’s Organizations” could be the building blocks of a new, more participatory sort of citizenship."
But those on the right who are learning from Alinsky are, in Walker's view, limiting the value of this lesson by confining themselves purely to the real of tactics: "Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals has been studied closely by conservatives convinced that they’ve found the White House’s secret playbook. Smarter folks on the right, such as the Tea Party champions at FreedomWorks, have been reading Rules for Radicals as well, not to decode Obama’s occult intentions but in hopes of adapting Alinsky’s tactics to the fight for freer markets. It isn’t a bad idea, but it only scratches the surface of what the foes of taxes and bailouts can learn from Alinsky. In all his successes, mistakes, and contradictions, Alinsky represents the dormant decentralist wing of the left. His life is full of lessons for anyone, left or right, who demands a devolution of power."
Alinsky detested elites, and particularly their condescension towards the abilities of the folks-and in this sense we can see how Alinsky would have disdained the government-growing elitism of President Obama. And to his everlasting credit, he hated policy advancing social workers: "By the time Lyndon Johnson was in the White House, the old radical had grown even more caustic. Always hostile to social workers, Alinsky attacked the entire Great Society in a 1965 article for the Journal of Social Issues. “The anti-poverty program may well be recorded as history’s greatest relief program for the benefit of the welfare industry,” he wrote."
Makes it kind of difficult to tar Obama with an Alinsky brush-the two men couldn't be more diametrically opposed: "This was the Alinsky that his Machiavellian reputation sometimes concealed: a humanist radical who distrusted large institutions and put his faith in concrete local affiliations. In von Hoffman’s words, Alinsky wanted little platoons like the Back of the Yards Council to form a “countervailing power” against “the gigantism of government, corporation and even labor union.”
So, in Walker's view, the Tea Party folks can learn a great deal from the man who has been caricatured by simplifiers on the right: "There’s a lesson there for the Tea Partiers who have been studying Alinsky’s tactics, should they care to explore the rest of his legacy. If they’re serious about building a real alternative to the Bush/Obama megastate, as opposed to merely being used by the Republicans and discarded as soon as the GOP is in a position to relaunch the K Street Project, the activists need to build countervailing power of their own, rooted not merely in talk radio and the Internet but in the indigenous institutions that shape people’s everyday lives."
For us, Alinsky, Jacobs and Paul Goodman are exemplars of individual liberty-and real heirs to the intermediary institutions legacy of Tocqueville. They are the real anti-progressives-and have more in common with the Tea Party wave than the Hannitys and Limbaughs do. With the rise of Leviathan, and the elitism that stokes its perpetuation, there is a need to find ways to tap into-and coalesce-those forces on opposite ends of the political dial that want to enhance personal freedom, and who rightly understand that the expanding state is its natural enemy.
Wal-Mart's Small World
According to Crain's, Wal-Mart is looking to roll out a smaller urban store model in the coming months: "Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is planning an aggressive push into urban markets with a new small format that's a fraction of the size of its supercenters. The expansion, expected to be spelled out next month at the retailer's meeting with analysts at its headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., is aimed to pump up sluggish U.S. sales. Real estate executives said that over this past summer, the world's largest retailer has been scouring for small locations, around 20,000 square feet, in urban areas including New York City, San Francisco and other cities. That size is larger than a typical drugstore but smaller than a supermarket."
So, while the more virulent manifestation of the Wal-Mart disease may rear its ugly head-in the form of a supercenter-at the Gateway Mall in East New York, the generalized illness appears ready to metastasize into NYC's neighborhoods: "I see this as a smart move, instead of coming into a market as a 900-pound gorilla," said Faith Hope Consolo, chairwoman of real estate firm Prudential Douglas Elliman's retail leasing division. She noted that Wal-Mart has been talking to landlords and brokers. "They're on an aggressive roll," she added. "This is a creative time. Everyone is thinking out of the box." She noted that in New York City, Wal-Mart has been looking in Queens and the lower part of Manhattan."
And irony of ironies, the Walmonster is sharply trending in the direction first paved by supermarket unions-fresh food in underserviced neighborhoods: "Since 2008, Wal-Mart has been testing smaller stores called Marketside. They now total four and average 15,000 square feet. The format focuses on fresh food. And the discounter now has almost 200 Neighborhood Market by Walmart stores, which offer a mix of fresh food, pharmacy, beauty, stationary and pet supplies and are about 42,000 square feet. Wal-Mart has been shrinking its supercenters, which carry a wide assortment of food and general merchandise, to about 150,000 square feet from 195,000 square feet. But the company has maintained that it plans to use smaller formats in urban markets."
Those of us who aren't fans of the Wal-Mart business model better be prepared for the onslaught: "Bill Simon, the new president and CEO of Wal-Mart's U.S. business, told investors last week at a Goldman Sachs retail conference, said that "we will have a healthy mix of supercenters and small formats, including our grocery format, Neighborhood Market and smaller formats," he continued."
We expect that our cohort of Wal-Mart opponents will be gearing up shortly to take on the retail giant-with the belief that, however the Walmonster configures itself, it will be bad news for small business and labor. Let the games begin.
So, while the more virulent manifestation of the Wal-Mart disease may rear its ugly head-in the form of a supercenter-at the Gateway Mall in East New York, the generalized illness appears ready to metastasize into NYC's neighborhoods: "I see this as a smart move, instead of coming into a market as a 900-pound gorilla," said Faith Hope Consolo, chairwoman of real estate firm Prudential Douglas Elliman's retail leasing division. She noted that Wal-Mart has been talking to landlords and brokers. "They're on an aggressive roll," she added. "This is a creative time. Everyone is thinking out of the box." She noted that in New York City, Wal-Mart has been looking in Queens and the lower part of Manhattan."
And irony of ironies, the Walmonster is sharply trending in the direction first paved by supermarket unions-fresh food in underserviced neighborhoods: "Since 2008, Wal-Mart has been testing smaller stores called Marketside. They now total four and average 15,000 square feet. The format focuses on fresh food. And the discounter now has almost 200 Neighborhood Market by Walmart stores, which offer a mix of fresh food, pharmacy, beauty, stationary and pet supplies and are about 42,000 square feet. Wal-Mart has been shrinking its supercenters, which carry a wide assortment of food and general merchandise, to about 150,000 square feet from 195,000 square feet. But the company has maintained that it plans to use smaller formats in urban markets."
Those of us who aren't fans of the Wal-Mart business model better be prepared for the onslaught: "Bill Simon, the new president and CEO of Wal-Mart's U.S. business, told investors last week at a Goldman Sachs retail conference, said that "we will have a healthy mix of supercenters and small formats, including our grocery format, Neighborhood Market and smaller formats," he continued."
We expect that our cohort of Wal-Mart opponents will be gearing up shortly to take on the retail giant-with the belief that, however the Walmonster configures itself, it will be bad news for small business and labor. Let the games begin.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Fighting Fire With Fire
Give the Bloombergistas credit where credit is due-and their decision to tell Judge Garaufis to take his firefighter diversity ultimatum and shove it was spot on. The NY Times has the details: "The City of New York said Friday that it would not hire a new class of firefighters using proposals laid out by a federal judge, who had ruled that the test used to screen Fire Department applicants discriminated against African-Americans and Hispanics. In a letter to the judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, Michael A. Cardoza, the city’s corporation counsel, said all of the judge’s five hiring methods involved race-based quotas that were “both illegal and unwise public policy.”
What's going on here? Why is it that the FDNY's written test is viewed as discriminatory-can it be because the results don't conform to a politically correct standard? Now we were involved in this slippery slope diversity stuff two decades ago when the Dinkins administration tried to rig both the written and the physical test used to get into the fire department. At a city council hearing at the time, some academic actually testified about the unfair fact that some folks tested worse than others. When we got the opportunity to rebut, we wondered aloud whether the professor was looking to create a new class of disadvantaged-the, "examinationally challenged."
But the real question here-especially since the FDNY is universally seen as the class of the field when it comes to fire and rescue-is why we would want to water down standards and hence threaten public safety? And since it is usually Black and Hispanic citizens who are more likely to need firefighter help, wouldn't we be threatening the safety of those groups by not insuring that the firefighting class was the cream of the crop?
The NY Post captures the essence of the problem: "Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis doubtless thought he was being clever in allowing City Hall to choose among five options for hiring new firefighters — each of which incorporates race-based quotas. But Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo has informed the judge that the city will take a pass on his scheme, rather than acquiesce to what it rightly considers “illegal and unwise public policy.” Good for him. Garaufis, of course, has been on a years-long campaign to remake the FDNY in his preferred racial image. Nothing the city does to increase diversity among its firefighters will ever be good enough — until it embraces quotas."
And the NY Daily News agrees (but not the Times? Just kidding): "Mayor Bloomberg has taken a principled stand in refusing to adopt race-based hiring as a way to increase minority representation in the Fire Department."
But for the grievance mongers, the only thing that matters are the test results-and getting more minority firefighters by whatever method, even if it means a quote system. As the WSJ reports: "Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which was representing the Vulcan Society of black firefighters, said he was surprised by the city's decision because it had argued it wanted the new class. But he said the society was sticking by its position that the FDNY needs to diversify. "The Vulcan Society's interest here is that the fire department has to be more diverse," he said. "If they aren't going to hire a diverse group right now, then they shouldn't hire anyone."
The public interest be damned! But the city is right to stick to its guns-even if it means forgoing the new class, no matter what hardship that will inevitably cause those who took the test and scored highest. The NY Daily News makes this point: "Every one of the five proposals from which the court is allowing the city to select involves some form of race-based quota," Michael Cardozo, the city's top lawyer, wrote in a letter to the judge. "The city respectfully believes that using race-based quotas to select firefighters is both illegal and unwise public policy." Cardozo acknowledged the city may not be permitted to hire a new class, even though the FDNY has warned it will soon be short-handed."
So there you have it. One group of aggrieved applicants is actiually holding up the city-and the tax payers: aided and abetted by a woolly headed federal judge. In our view, public safety trumps political correctness-and everyone has the same opportunity to study the test material. If some don't do as well as others-and the same disparity is found on the city and state educational tests at all levels-no federal judge should be allowed to make decision that compromises the well being of all New Yorkers.
What's going on here? Why is it that the FDNY's written test is viewed as discriminatory-can it be because the results don't conform to a politically correct standard? Now we were involved in this slippery slope diversity stuff two decades ago when the Dinkins administration tried to rig both the written and the physical test used to get into the fire department. At a city council hearing at the time, some academic actually testified about the unfair fact that some folks tested worse than others. When we got the opportunity to rebut, we wondered aloud whether the professor was looking to create a new class of disadvantaged-the, "examinationally challenged."
But the real question here-especially since the FDNY is universally seen as the class of the field when it comes to fire and rescue-is why we would want to water down standards and hence threaten public safety? And since it is usually Black and Hispanic citizens who are more likely to need firefighter help, wouldn't we be threatening the safety of those groups by not insuring that the firefighting class was the cream of the crop?
The NY Post captures the essence of the problem: "Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis doubtless thought he was being clever in allowing City Hall to choose among five options for hiring new firefighters — each of which incorporates race-based quotas. But Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo has informed the judge that the city will take a pass on his scheme, rather than acquiesce to what it rightly considers “illegal and unwise public policy.” Good for him. Garaufis, of course, has been on a years-long campaign to remake the FDNY in his preferred racial image. Nothing the city does to increase diversity among its firefighters will ever be good enough — until it embraces quotas."
And the NY Daily News agrees (but not the Times? Just kidding): "Mayor Bloomberg has taken a principled stand in refusing to adopt race-based hiring as a way to increase minority representation in the Fire Department."
But for the grievance mongers, the only thing that matters are the test results-and getting more minority firefighters by whatever method, even if it means a quote system. As the WSJ reports: "Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which was representing the Vulcan Society of black firefighters, said he was surprised by the city's decision because it had argued it wanted the new class. But he said the society was sticking by its position that the FDNY needs to diversify. "The Vulcan Society's interest here is that the fire department has to be more diverse," he said. "If they aren't going to hire a diverse group right now, then they shouldn't hire anyone."
The public interest be damned! But the city is right to stick to its guns-even if it means forgoing the new class, no matter what hardship that will inevitably cause those who took the test and scored highest. The NY Daily News makes this point: "Every one of the five proposals from which the court is allowing the city to select involves some form of race-based quota," Michael Cardozo, the city's top lawyer, wrote in a letter to the judge. "The city respectfully believes that using race-based quotas to select firefighters is both illegal and unwise public policy." Cardozo acknowledged the city may not be permitted to hire a new class, even though the FDNY has warned it will soon be short-handed."
So there you have it. One group of aggrieved applicants is actiually holding up the city-and the tax payers: aided and abetted by a woolly headed federal judge. In our view, public safety trumps political correctness-and everyone has the same opportunity to study the test material. If some don't do as well as others-and the same disparity is found on the city and state educational tests at all levels-no federal judge should be allowed to make decision that compromises the well being of all New Yorkers.
Stop Quoting Al D'Amato
In the aftermath of last Tuesday's primary, a number of political observer's were quoted on what the results meant for the general election-but one man's comments, former senator Al D'Amato, struck us as glaringly inappropriate. Not for what he said, mind you, but for the way in which the press went to him for his perspective and failed to characterize his current political status accurately. Here's a taste of what we're talking about from Saturday's NY Times: "Alfonse M. D’Amato, a Republican who was a United States senator, said Mr. Cuomo was “viewed as a slam dunk” while Mr. Paladino was “viewed as an eccentric — and I’m saying that kindly — businessman.” Mr. D’Amato said he was not supporting any Republican for governor. “I have great respect for the attorney general,” he said. “I think he’s done an outstanding job.”
Unsurprisingly, at least for those of us who know the former senator's traits, D'Amato is lying through his teeth-and, as is his right, supporting Cuomo with gusto. But what most egregious in this sham, is the fact that Big Al is nothing more today than another Albany/Washington lobbyist-and to not identify him as such is to mislead.
As the NY Times has reported: "The undisputed king of New York’s Republican Party until his 1998 defeat, Mr. D’Amato became a lobbyist during the administration of his protégé, Gov. George Pataki. Then, even deals that spawned negative publicity - Mr. D’Amato was famously paid $500,000 for making a single telephone call that helped a client win a lucrative lease from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority — only bolstered his reputation for getting results."
Make no mistake about it, D'Amato is no grey eminence-unlike the garrulous former mayor Koch who has gone way past his sell by date, but at least is more or less speaking from his heart. That is why, however, it was a mistake for Koch, and former state comptroller McCall, to co-sign a letter attacking Paladino's qualifications: "The victory of Carl Paladino in the Republican Primary was a disappointing day for all New Yorkers. This state has a long history of electing highly qualified, forward-looking statewide candidates - both Democrats and Republicans. Yesterday, however, anger overcame reason and enabled a fringe element to choose the Republican nominee. The end result was the selection of Mr. Paladino, a divisive figure simply not fit to lead this great state."
Of the three co-signers, it is D'Amato who will be in a position to personal gain from the Paladino trashing-and Ed Koch who claims he is seeking to clean up Albany should know better than to get in bed with someone like Pothole Al. And we were flabbergasted by the following comments from the Three Amigos' letter: "We need a governor who can take on the special interests, not one who is a special interest. We also need a governor who will bring New Yorkers together to take on our common challenges, not drive us apart. Through his own words and actions Carl Paladino has proven himself unfit to serve as Governor - he is exactly the wrong person to lead our state."
Now, one can argue over whether Cuomo's embrace of the WFP is a more intimate embrace of special interests than the actions of developer Paladino-and it's an argument worth having; but to have Mr. Special Interests co-sign a letter attacking someone for being beholden to them, is a violent disregard for truth in advertising statues. And the press should have been all over this fraud-but weren't because of a possible animus against a seemingly course outsider.
There is much to question about both candidates in the upcoming six weeks-but little light will be shed on the qualifications of the candidates by asking for the opinion of insider Al D'Amato. Al should only be a source for opprobrium..
Unsurprisingly, at least for those of us who know the former senator's traits, D'Amato is lying through his teeth-and, as is his right, supporting Cuomo with gusto. But what most egregious in this sham, is the fact that Big Al is nothing more today than another Albany/Washington lobbyist-and to not identify him as such is to mislead.
As the NY Times has reported: "The undisputed king of New York’s Republican Party until his 1998 defeat, Mr. D’Amato became a lobbyist during the administration of his protégé, Gov. George Pataki. Then, even deals that spawned negative publicity - Mr. D’Amato was famously paid $500,000 for making a single telephone call that helped a client win a lucrative lease from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority — only bolstered his reputation for getting results."
Make no mistake about it, D'Amato is no grey eminence-unlike the garrulous former mayor Koch who has gone way past his sell by date, but at least is more or less speaking from his heart. That is why, however, it was a mistake for Koch, and former state comptroller McCall, to co-sign a letter attacking Paladino's qualifications: "The victory of Carl Paladino in the Republican Primary was a disappointing day for all New Yorkers. This state has a long history of electing highly qualified, forward-looking statewide candidates - both Democrats and Republicans. Yesterday, however, anger overcame reason and enabled a fringe element to choose the Republican nominee. The end result was the selection of Mr. Paladino, a divisive figure simply not fit to lead this great state."
Of the three co-signers, it is D'Amato who will be in a position to personal gain from the Paladino trashing-and Ed Koch who claims he is seeking to clean up Albany should know better than to get in bed with someone like Pothole Al. And we were flabbergasted by the following comments from the Three Amigos' letter: "We need a governor who can take on the special interests, not one who is a special interest. We also need a governor who will bring New Yorkers together to take on our common challenges, not drive us apart. Through his own words and actions Carl Paladino has proven himself unfit to serve as Governor - he is exactly the wrong person to lead our state."
Now, one can argue over whether Cuomo's embrace of the WFP is a more intimate embrace of special interests than the actions of developer Paladino-and it's an argument worth having; but to have Mr. Special Interests co-sign a letter attacking someone for being beholden to them, is a violent disregard for truth in advertising statues. And the press should have been all over this fraud-but weren't because of a possible animus against a seemingly course outsider.
There is much to question about both candidates in the upcoming six weeks-but little light will be shed on the qualifications of the candidates by asking for the opinion of insider Al D'Amato. Al should only be a source for opprobrium..
The Center Won't Hold
The NY Times once again is focusing in on Mike Bloomberg's national ambitions, however whimsical they might be. And Bloomberg, lacking any real ideological governing philosophy, is trying to tack upstream in this election cycle in order to mobilize the radical middle. In the process, his efforts border on the irrational and smack of political onanism: "In an election year when anger and mistrust have upended races across the country, toppling moderates and elevating white-hot partisans, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is trying to pull politics back to the middle, injecting himself into marquee contests and helping candidates fend off the Tea Party."
Could anyone be more detached from the national mood-or more clueless about what it means? Certainly, the Bloomberg effort underscores the mayor's isolation from the country's concerns and passions-not surprising for someone who spends most of his weekends at a Bermuda estate: "Mr. Bloomberg described the Tea Party movement as a fad, comparing it to the short-lived burst of support for Ross Perot in 1992. The mayor suggested that the fury it had unleashed was not a foundation for leadership. “Look, people are angry,” he said. “Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. Government seems to be paralyzed and unable to solve all of our problems. Anger, however, is not a government strategy,” he said. “It’s not a way to govern.”
We can just hear Richard Dawson's Family Feud buzzer going off-ehhh, you're wrong Mike. First of all, the comparison to the Perot, "boomlet," is inapt-Ross was an eccentric political figure trying to harness the public's mood. The Tea Party-and doesn't all popular sentiment frighten the likes of Bloomberg?-is a mass movement with a particular set of grievances and positive prescriptions; and since the rising growth of government and taxes is right in the Tea Party cross hairs, we can see why the big government mayor would be alarmed. Bloomberg is in many ways the poster child for what the Tea Party folks are arguing against.
Just as Ed Koch misreads this mass mood-thinking that it's all about government corruption and dysfunction-so too does out of touch Mike. A corollary to the big government alarm that has been raised, is a growing fear of the regulatory reach of the public sector-to wit the virulent antagonism to national health care. This isn't an inchoate public anger, but Bloomberg isn't an isolated figure, and he comfortably fits into the liberal Eugene Robinson, "temper tantrum," critique of the voters' anger. (or, alternately, the voters are, "clueless." or "bewildered")
Bloomberg, of course, would miss this side of the Tea Party critique because he is the ubber-regulator and Nanny in chief; and is now going forward to restrict outdoor smoking. Talk about tacking against the political winds-this guy is, to mix a metaphor, pure salmon.
And Bloomberg's poli sci 101 view of the Tea Party misses the extent to which it is a movement of ideas designed to move the debate back to a more traditional American comfort zone-and away from the Obama democratic socialist perspective. All of this is over the little guy's head: "But during a week in which the Republican Party experienced searing defeats at the hands of Tea Party activists, it was Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks about the movement that were especially striking. “I think these boomlets come along when the public is dissatisfied,” he said. “There was a Ross Perot boomlet, there was a John McCain boomlet, there’s the Tea Party boomlet.” Mr. Bloomberg added, “It isn’t like people are going to gravitate towards one of these boomlet — splinter might not be quite the right word, since it might have other connotations — but the small nouveau parties.” Eventually, the mayor said, “people go back to the major parties.”
Underscoring the extent to which catatonia is the best way to describe the mayor's center stage lurching, is his endorsement of Harry Reid-someone who not only symbolizes dissatisfaction with Obama's leftward lurch, but also embodies, in his deal making over ObamaCare, the dysfunction of Washington politics. After all, Reid can't poll better than 45% in his own state! But what more can you say about a billionaire mayor who, searching for relevancy and bemoaning political dysfunction, does robocalls for Charlie Rangel?
And then there's the mayor's positions on immigration and the GZM-clearly to the left of not only the electorate, but President Obama as well. The failure of Bloomberg to recognize this is the height of solipsism-not to mention a patronizing sneering at his emotional lessers that is a habit of the haughty mayor. In this, Bloomberg fits right into the elite liberal Weltanschauung: "The leftists view their countrymen as in dire need of supervision — by elites like them, of course. Americans are not competent to make decisions on their own, and left to their own devices, will run amok"
But in spite of our biting critique of all of this quixotic self absorption, we encourage Mike to keep it up: Run Mike Run. Even a billionaire like Bloomberg can't buy his way into national prominence and acceptance. We look forward to his comeuppance-and the awakening will be a rude one if he continues along this path with any real delusions of grandeur. But, after buying New Yorkers at a premium rate, who can blame the mayor for believing the H.L. Mencken observation that, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Could anyone be more detached from the national mood-or more clueless about what it means? Certainly, the Bloomberg effort underscores the mayor's isolation from the country's concerns and passions-not surprising for someone who spends most of his weekends at a Bermuda estate: "Mr. Bloomberg described the Tea Party movement as a fad, comparing it to the short-lived burst of support for Ross Perot in 1992. The mayor suggested that the fury it had unleashed was not a foundation for leadership. “Look, people are angry,” he said. “Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. Government seems to be paralyzed and unable to solve all of our problems. Anger, however, is not a government strategy,” he said. “It’s not a way to govern.”
We can just hear Richard Dawson's Family Feud buzzer going off-ehhh, you're wrong Mike. First of all, the comparison to the Perot, "boomlet," is inapt-Ross was an eccentric political figure trying to harness the public's mood. The Tea Party-and doesn't all popular sentiment frighten the likes of Bloomberg?-is a mass movement with a particular set of grievances and positive prescriptions; and since the rising growth of government and taxes is right in the Tea Party cross hairs, we can see why the big government mayor would be alarmed. Bloomberg is in many ways the poster child for what the Tea Party folks are arguing against.
Just as Ed Koch misreads this mass mood-thinking that it's all about government corruption and dysfunction-so too does out of touch Mike. A corollary to the big government alarm that has been raised, is a growing fear of the regulatory reach of the public sector-to wit the virulent antagonism to national health care. This isn't an inchoate public anger, but Bloomberg isn't an isolated figure, and he comfortably fits into the liberal Eugene Robinson, "temper tantrum," critique of the voters' anger. (or, alternately, the voters are, "clueless." or "bewildered")
Bloomberg, of course, would miss this side of the Tea Party critique because he is the ubber-regulator and Nanny in chief; and is now going forward to restrict outdoor smoking. Talk about tacking against the political winds-this guy is, to mix a metaphor, pure salmon.
And Bloomberg's poli sci 101 view of the Tea Party misses the extent to which it is a movement of ideas designed to move the debate back to a more traditional American comfort zone-and away from the Obama democratic socialist perspective. All of this is over the little guy's head: "But during a week in which the Republican Party experienced searing defeats at the hands of Tea Party activists, it was Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks about the movement that were especially striking. “I think these boomlets come along when the public is dissatisfied,” he said. “There was a Ross Perot boomlet, there was a John McCain boomlet, there’s the Tea Party boomlet.” Mr. Bloomberg added, “It isn’t like people are going to gravitate towards one of these boomlet — splinter might not be quite the right word, since it might have other connotations — but the small nouveau parties.” Eventually, the mayor said, “people go back to the major parties.”
Underscoring the extent to which catatonia is the best way to describe the mayor's center stage lurching, is his endorsement of Harry Reid-someone who not only symbolizes dissatisfaction with Obama's leftward lurch, but also embodies, in his deal making over ObamaCare, the dysfunction of Washington politics. After all, Reid can't poll better than 45% in his own state! But what more can you say about a billionaire mayor who, searching for relevancy and bemoaning political dysfunction, does robocalls for Charlie Rangel?
And then there's the mayor's positions on immigration and the GZM-clearly to the left of not only the electorate, but President Obama as well. The failure of Bloomberg to recognize this is the height of solipsism-not to mention a patronizing sneering at his emotional lessers that is a habit of the haughty mayor. In this, Bloomberg fits right into the elite liberal Weltanschauung: "The leftists view their countrymen as in dire need of supervision — by elites like them, of course. Americans are not competent to make decisions on their own, and left to their own devices, will run amok"
But in spite of our biting critique of all of this quixotic self absorption, we encourage Mike to keep it up: Run Mike Run. Even a billionaire like Bloomberg can't buy his way into national prominence and acceptance. We look forward to his comeuppance-and the awakening will be a rude one if he continues along this path with any real delusions of grandeur. But, after buying New Yorkers at a premium rate, who can blame the mayor for believing the H.L. Mencken observation that, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Friday, September 17, 2010
Comptroller Challenges Land Use Status Quo
The WSJ has a peak at the task force report on community benefits for Comptroller John Liu-and without any real analysis of its contents, the blow back has started: "A task force commissioned by City Comptroller John Liu is poised to call for a major change in the way that the city determines what amenities—such as affordable housing and parks—to extract from real-estate developers in exchange for approving their plans.Those decisions are among the most controversial parts of the city's rough-and-tumble land-use approval process and are often criticized for the inconsistent way in which they are made. A draft report by the task force, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, recommends that new groups made up of community representatives—and monitored by the comptroller—negotiate benefit deals with developers involving major rezoning decisions."
Without giving away the store, since we participated in the effort here, what reporter Eliot Brown misses-and welcome to the Journal Eliot-is the most significant proposed change in the way land use is done. What the task force is proposing is that an independent consultant be made integral to reviewing the development plans-and this consultant would be an advisor to the community stakeholders and the local community board.
If implemented, this would mean a predevelopment phase that would allow for a more complete vetting of the project's impact-as well as a greater opportunity to create community coalitions as stakeholders in the land use process. In the consultant, what you would have in theory is a person who can see the development through the eyes of the local community that will be forced to live with whatever impacts the development would have on the surrounding neighborhoods.
This would create a sea change from the developer-hired experts now setting the agenda-and whose conflicts of interest yield environmental reviews that could easily win Pulitzer Prizes for fiction. It's little wonder that the counter attack is building: "A city official said the Bloomberg administration would oppose the recommendations as drafted, saying it would hinder investment and marginalize the roles of elected officials and community boards. Council Speaker Christine Quinn has expressed concerns about the legality of the proposals, according to a person familiar with her position."
Opposed sight unseen basically by the two biggest cheer leaders of the real estate status quo. We aren't overly optimistic that, given the positions of the mayor and the speaker, this will have political legs in the short term-but long term it sets the agenda for the next election cycle; and allows Liu to separate himself from a speaker whose once liberal credentials have been tarnished on a wide assortment of fronts. Put simply, once released, this task force report will throw down a gauntlet-and help frame the next great city wide debate.
Without giving away the store, since we participated in the effort here, what reporter Eliot Brown misses-and welcome to the Journal Eliot-is the most significant proposed change in the way land use is done. What the task force is proposing is that an independent consultant be made integral to reviewing the development plans-and this consultant would be an advisor to the community stakeholders and the local community board.
If implemented, this would mean a predevelopment phase that would allow for a more complete vetting of the project's impact-as well as a greater opportunity to create community coalitions as stakeholders in the land use process. In the consultant, what you would have in theory is a person who can see the development through the eyes of the local community that will be forced to live with whatever impacts the development would have on the surrounding neighborhoods.
This would create a sea change from the developer-hired experts now setting the agenda-and whose conflicts of interest yield environmental reviews that could easily win Pulitzer Prizes for fiction. It's little wonder that the counter attack is building: "A city official said the Bloomberg administration would oppose the recommendations as drafted, saying it would hinder investment and marginalize the roles of elected officials and community boards. Council Speaker Christine Quinn has expressed concerns about the legality of the proposals, according to a person familiar with her position."
Opposed sight unseen basically by the two biggest cheer leaders of the real estate status quo. We aren't overly optimistic that, given the positions of the mayor and the speaker, this will have political legs in the short term-but long term it sets the agenda for the next election cycle; and allows Liu to separate himself from a speaker whose once liberal credentials have been tarnished on a wide assortment of fronts. Put simply, once released, this task force report will throw down a gauntlet-and help frame the next great city wide debate.
Mother Mike's Phony Clean Air Crusade
We weren't going to comment on Mike Bloomberg's attempt to criminalize the city's public spaces, but the amount of smoke being blown about this latest ban on smoking-the idea that God can't properly ventilate the outdoors-compels us to change our minds. As the NY Post reports: "Talk about kicking butts in Times Square. Smokers will not be able to light up when hanging out along pedestrian walkways across the five boroughs, including in car-free areas of Times Square, as part of a broad expansion of the city’s smoking ban to parks, beaches and boardwalks, officials announced today. The proposed ban means no smoking if you're sitting on the traffic-free Broadway plaza at the Crossroads of the World and Herald Square, in all parts of Central Park or along the famous Coney Island boardwalk."
According to Dr. Bloomberg, famed scientist and epidemiologist, the fact that this outdoor smoke is harmful is-like global warming?-settled science: "The science is clear: Prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke – whether you’re indoors or out -- hurts your health," Mayor Bloomberg said in announcing the widespread ban. "Today, we’re doing something about it."
Which only goes to demonstrate when you're the richest man in New York, and the mayor of the city to boot, you can say all sorts of stupid stuff and watch as everyone nods their head in deference to your wisdom. Jeffrey Greggs, writing on the NY Daily News Op-ed page, is on to this particular line of BS: "The scientific rationale against outdoor secondhand smoke, however, is more tenuous. City officials have thus far cited but one 2007 Stanford study to bolster their arguments for the ordinance. Slim evidence, I'd say, on which to curtail my personal liberties from the ground all the way up to the troposphere."
But when it comes to telling people how to live their lives-and curtail their personal freedom in the process-Bloomberg would cite Cindy Adams as a credible scientific source. And many New Yorkers are beginning to catch on to the rationale behind the mayor's expansive slippery slope. As the NY Times reports: "Banning smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces is one thing, people said, but banning cigarettes in parks and on beaches might be going just a step too far — except near children — on the road to a nanny state."
Here's some reaction:: “Where else are people going to go where they can enjoy themselves because it’s free? Except the jail or the park, that’s it,” Mr. Bux said, sitting in the shade of sweet-smelling trees and bushes, a large fountain burbling 10 feet away. “Rich people, they go to the club.”
And more: "Not far from Mr. Bux, eight construction workers, hard hats in hand, sat in a row on several benches, talking. None of them were smoking, but they defended the right of others to do so. “Pretty soon they’re going to start charging us to breathe the air,” said one of the workers, Emilio Cuomo. “When I was smoking, they got rid of smoking in bars, and I thought that was great,” Mr. Cuomo said.
“But parks?” a coworker, Sam Mele, said incredulously. “What — are they talking about having a body-odor ticket?” Mr. Cuomo said. “I think they should do that.”
Please, don't give the mayor any more swell ideas. But what really got our polluted blood boiling was all the talk of cleaning the air. So, in the interest of clearing the air, we'll remind everyone about the latest DOH air quality survey: "A city Department of Health study on summer air quality released yesterday showed a troubling finding: Even quieter neighborhoods that don't have New York's infamous crowds, traffic and skyscrapers suffer from high levels of smog. The report, which examined various types of air pollution, revealed that a variety of contamination occurs throughout the city, depending on the type of neighborhood. "The take-home message here is that the air quality just isn't great anywhere in New York City. What's surprising is just how variable the air quality is across the city," Deputy Health Commissioner Daniel Kass said."
Now why is that? The reason lies with the double talkng of the Bloombergistas-and how while they're promoting ending second hand smoke as a dangerous pollutant, they are choking the roadways with thousands of more cars and trucks in the name of the mayor's edifice complex-driven mega development schemes: "Lower and midtown Manhattan, The Bronx and outer-borough neighborhoods that flank major highways have higher levels of this form of pollution. Neighborhoods with the largest crowds during the day had, on average, 22 percent higher levels of particulate matter, while areas with the heaviest traffic had an average of 15 percent more than other neighborhoods in the study, which was conducted between June and August 2009."
And what has Mayor Mike been doing for the past nine years-while at the same time huckstering about something "sustainable," and environmentally friendly, called PlaNYC 2030? He has been directly aggravating this situation by building auto dependent malls and other developments contiguous to these highways-most famously, the Gateway Mall built right along, "asthma alley," in the South Bronx. And if he had his way, another such mall would have been injected right into the middle of the crowded Kingsbridge Heights neighborhood of the Bronx as well.
As we pointed out last month: "Now if only someone could reach Mike Bloomberg in Bermuda to let him know what's going on-and clue him in to the role that his policies are playing in making the city's air harder to breathe. The news might get the mayor off the golf course a little early. Maybe he could even make a passionate speech about our basic rights to breathe clean air?"
But he is doing something about it; he's reducing, "elevated levels of cotitine, a byproduct of nicotine;" while simultaneously dumping tens of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide and other smog components into the city's increasing filthy air. That's not a fair trade by any one's standard-and when you add the restriction of civil liberties you have really made a bad deal. But, hey, as long as it makes Mike feel better, we guess that everyone can breathe a bit easier."
According to Dr. Bloomberg, famed scientist and epidemiologist, the fact that this outdoor smoke is harmful is-like global warming?-settled science: "The science is clear: Prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke – whether you’re indoors or out -- hurts your health," Mayor Bloomberg said in announcing the widespread ban. "Today, we’re doing something about it."
Which only goes to demonstrate when you're the richest man in New York, and the mayor of the city to boot, you can say all sorts of stupid stuff and watch as everyone nods their head in deference to your wisdom. Jeffrey Greggs, writing on the NY Daily News Op-ed page, is on to this particular line of BS: "The scientific rationale against outdoor secondhand smoke, however, is more tenuous. City officials have thus far cited but one 2007 Stanford study to bolster their arguments for the ordinance. Slim evidence, I'd say, on which to curtail my personal liberties from the ground all the way up to the troposphere."
But when it comes to telling people how to live their lives-and curtail their personal freedom in the process-Bloomberg would cite Cindy Adams as a credible scientific source. And many New Yorkers are beginning to catch on to the rationale behind the mayor's expansive slippery slope. As the NY Times reports: "Banning smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces is one thing, people said, but banning cigarettes in parks and on beaches might be going just a step too far — except near children — on the road to a nanny state."
Here's some reaction:: “Where else are people going to go where they can enjoy themselves because it’s free? Except the jail or the park, that’s it,” Mr. Bux said, sitting in the shade of sweet-smelling trees and bushes, a large fountain burbling 10 feet away. “Rich people, they go to the club.”
And more: "Not far from Mr. Bux, eight construction workers, hard hats in hand, sat in a row on several benches, talking. None of them were smoking, but they defended the right of others to do so. “Pretty soon they’re going to start charging us to breathe the air,” said one of the workers, Emilio Cuomo. “When I was smoking, they got rid of smoking in bars, and I thought that was great,” Mr. Cuomo said.
“But parks?” a coworker, Sam Mele, said incredulously. “What — are they talking about having a body-odor ticket?” Mr. Cuomo said. “I think they should do that.”
Please, don't give the mayor any more swell ideas. But what really got our polluted blood boiling was all the talk of cleaning the air. So, in the interest of clearing the air, we'll remind everyone about the latest DOH air quality survey: "A city Department of Health study on summer air quality released yesterday showed a troubling finding: Even quieter neighborhoods that don't have New York's infamous crowds, traffic and skyscrapers suffer from high levels of smog. The report, which examined various types of air pollution, revealed that a variety of contamination occurs throughout the city, depending on the type of neighborhood. "The take-home message here is that the air quality just isn't great anywhere in New York City. What's surprising is just how variable the air quality is across the city," Deputy Health Commissioner Daniel Kass said."
Now why is that? The reason lies with the double talkng of the Bloombergistas-and how while they're promoting ending second hand smoke as a dangerous pollutant, they are choking the roadways with thousands of more cars and trucks in the name of the mayor's edifice complex-driven mega development schemes: "Lower and midtown Manhattan, The Bronx and outer-borough neighborhoods that flank major highways have higher levels of this form of pollution. Neighborhoods with the largest crowds during the day had, on average, 22 percent higher levels of particulate matter, while areas with the heaviest traffic had an average of 15 percent more than other neighborhoods in the study, which was conducted between June and August 2009."
And what has Mayor Mike been doing for the past nine years-while at the same time huckstering about something "sustainable," and environmentally friendly, called PlaNYC 2030? He has been directly aggravating this situation by building auto dependent malls and other developments contiguous to these highways-most famously, the Gateway Mall built right along, "asthma alley," in the South Bronx. And if he had his way, another such mall would have been injected right into the middle of the crowded Kingsbridge Heights neighborhood of the Bronx as well.
As we pointed out last month: "Now if only someone could reach Mike Bloomberg in Bermuda to let him know what's going on-and clue him in to the role that his policies are playing in making the city's air harder to breathe. The news might get the mayor off the golf course a little early. Maybe he could even make a passionate speech about our basic rights to breathe clean air?"
But he is doing something about it; he's reducing, "elevated levels of cotitine, a byproduct of nicotine;" while simultaneously dumping tens of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide and other smog components into the city's increasing filthy air. That's not a fair trade by any one's standard-and when you add the restriction of civil liberties you have really made a bad deal. But, hey, as long as it makes Mike feel better, we guess that everyone can breathe a bit easier."
Caught Red Handed
City Room is reporting something we have been inveighing against for the past fifteen years-the illegal buttlegging being done from Indian reservation smoke shops on Long Island. In fact, the late Ralph Penza did a marvelous undercover story on this back in 2002 when Mayor Bloomberg was calling all of this a, "minor economic issue."
But here's the lowdown-with the mayor now in the role of outraged cuckold: "An undercover investigation disclosed by the city on Thursday showed that vendors on a Long Island Indian reservation sold large quantities of cigarettes without paying city or state taxes, city officials said. City officials alleged that dealers on the Poospatuck reservation had sold more than four million cartons of untaxed cigarettes this year. They said that a video shot last week showed an undercover agent securing a discount on 60 cartons of cigarettes from two vendors, despite the fact that he announced his intention to resell them in the city."
And Bloomberg, late to the dance, manages to channel his inner Howard Beale-or something like that: "City officials said the 50-acre Poospatuck reservation, in Mastic, N.Y., was depriving state and local governments of sorely needed money. In a statement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that the law was being abused to “fill the pockets of bootleggers and crooked cigarette dealers.”
Here, here. Better late then never-and Mike has been right on the money, who else?-since getting some of our old time religion: "The investigation was the latest clash between Mr. Bloomberg and Indian tribes over cigarette sales. In 2008, the mayor filed a complaint in civil court against eight Long Island businesses, alleging that they had illegally sold cigarettes. Investigators have said that for years, many reservations have sold cigarettes in bulk to bootleggers, who then ship them to the city. Mr. Bloomberg has often criticized state officials, including Gov. David A. Paterson, for not more strictly enforcing state law and moving to recapture billions in lost revenue. The two businesses named in Thursday’s investigation were G Talk Smoke Shop and Running Bull Smoke Shop."
The NY Post gives us some more details about the Indian scam: "The investigators, who wore hidden cameras, told two separate sellers they were buying cigarettes to sell in New York City, and were able to purchase 60 cartons of untaxed smokes. “I have to do a re-sale, you know, in Brooklyn,” said one investigator who bought 30 cartons of Newports. “I don’t want to know any information that you’re talking about because our cigarettes are for personal use,” the saleswoman told him. “Should I know that you’re going to resell them, I can get in trouble. So the less I know the better.”
And until the state is finally allowed to stamp all cigarettes at the wholesale source, so that all smokes are sold with tax, we will get the Indians continuing to flout the law. As the NY Times points out: "Under state law, taxes would be charged to wholesalers, who would pass the cost to the tribes, though each would be allowed to buy a certain amount of tax-free cigarettes for members."
The Post dramatizes the breathtaking crookedness of these scofflaws: "Some of the largest shops on the Mastic, N.Y., reservation have been effectively shut down by a federal judge who ordered them to stop selling tax-free cigarettes to customers who weren’t members of the tribe. Those stores, however, have been replaced by new shops not covered by the court order. State records show that cigarette sales on the reservation have dropped, but business continues to be robust. The city has accused several merchants who were covered by the court order of secretly reorganizing and continuing to do business through relatives or front companies."
Now we are waiting for a federal judge to resolve this so that the state can do what it is supposed to do-simply enforce the law without fear or favor.
But here's the lowdown-with the mayor now in the role of outraged cuckold: "An undercover investigation disclosed by the city on Thursday showed that vendors on a Long Island Indian reservation sold large quantities of cigarettes without paying city or state taxes, city officials said. City officials alleged that dealers on the Poospatuck reservation had sold more than four million cartons of untaxed cigarettes this year. They said that a video shot last week showed an undercover agent securing a discount on 60 cartons of cigarettes from two vendors, despite the fact that he announced his intention to resell them in the city."
And Bloomberg, late to the dance, manages to channel his inner Howard Beale-or something like that: "City officials said the 50-acre Poospatuck reservation, in Mastic, N.Y., was depriving state and local governments of sorely needed money. In a statement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that the law was being abused to “fill the pockets of bootleggers and crooked cigarette dealers.”
Here, here. Better late then never-and Mike has been right on the money, who else?-since getting some of our old time religion: "The investigation was the latest clash between Mr. Bloomberg and Indian tribes over cigarette sales. In 2008, the mayor filed a complaint in civil court against eight Long Island businesses, alleging that they had illegally sold cigarettes. Investigators have said that for years, many reservations have sold cigarettes in bulk to bootleggers, who then ship them to the city. Mr. Bloomberg has often criticized state officials, including Gov. David A. Paterson, for not more strictly enforcing state law and moving to recapture billions in lost revenue. The two businesses named in Thursday’s investigation were G Talk Smoke Shop and Running Bull Smoke Shop."
The NY Post gives us some more details about the Indian scam: "The investigators, who wore hidden cameras, told two separate sellers they were buying cigarettes to sell in New York City, and were able to purchase 60 cartons of untaxed smokes. “I have to do a re-sale, you know, in Brooklyn,” said one investigator who bought 30 cartons of Newports. “I don’t want to know any information that you’re talking about because our cigarettes are for personal use,” the saleswoman told him. “Should I know that you’re going to resell them, I can get in trouble. So the less I know the better.”
And until the state is finally allowed to stamp all cigarettes at the wholesale source, so that all smokes are sold with tax, we will get the Indians continuing to flout the law. As the NY Times points out: "Under state law, taxes would be charged to wholesalers, who would pass the cost to the tribes, though each would be allowed to buy a certain amount of tax-free cigarettes for members."
The Post dramatizes the breathtaking crookedness of these scofflaws: "Some of the largest shops on the Mastic, N.Y., reservation have been effectively shut down by a federal judge who ordered them to stop selling tax-free cigarettes to customers who weren’t members of the tribe. Those stores, however, have been replaced by new shops not covered by the court order. State records show that cigarette sales on the reservation have dropped, but business continues to be robust. The city has accused several merchants who were covered by the court order of secretly reorganizing and continuing to do business through relatives or front companies."
Now we are waiting for a federal judge to resolve this so that the state can do what it is supposed to do-simply enforce the law without fear or favor.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Queens Roads Have No Champion: And Kudos to WPU's Mike Gerrard
In a survey of the best lawyers from around the world, Willets Point United's legal advocate Mike Gerrard was listed as the best environmental lawyer in New York-and in our view, it's not even close. But the recognition should put the state and the federal regulatory authorities0NYSDOT and FHWA-on notice that their lack of due diligence (and potential collusion) over the Willets Point/Van Wyck ramps will not go unchallenged if they fail to subject the proposed Access Modification Report to a full independent review under the National Environmental Policy act.
Given that the state's roads are in a state of current disrepair-owing in large part to DOT's incapacities-the allowance of ramps that will flood the highwayss and lead to the wasting of the billion dollar being spent to upgrade of the Kew Gardens Interchange, is simply unconscionable. Queens electeds need to wake up-much as those on Staten Island have because of the poor state of that boroughs roads.
As Tri-State Transportation Campaign tells us: "On Staten Island, traffic congestion is both a way of life and a perennial complaint. Six of the 15 editorials in the Staten Island Advance this month have been about transportation, and the paper — and Island citizens and elected officials — regularly call for both better transit and better roads."
And guess what? NYSDOT responds when there is political pressure: "After meeting with borough officials, NYSDOT Acting Commissioner Stan Gee said this week that the agency will widen a 1.2-mile section of the Staten Island Expressway. But a project to extend the SIE bus lane to the Goethals Bridge has fallen out of the NYSDOT capital program; the lane will be extended only to Richmond Ave. The agency has already opened the bus lane to cars with at least two occupants during peak periods, and hasn’t publicly documented how the change is affecting bus commuters."
In Queens, not so much-as pols still seem reluctant to challenge a Willets Point project that was falsely sold to them on the basis of environmental sustainability. But the proverbial stuff is already hitting the fan and the three blind mice routine is gonna come back and bite Queens residents on their collective butts. WPU may be in the eye of the storm, but that organization's fate is akin to the canary in the mine-a warning to all those borough residents, and the folks who are supposed to represent them, that a Category 5 traffic storm is on the way.
Given that the state's roads are in a state of current disrepair-owing in large part to DOT's incapacities-the allowance of ramps that will flood the highwayss and lead to the wasting of the billion dollar being spent to upgrade of the Kew Gardens Interchange, is simply unconscionable. Queens electeds need to wake up-much as those on Staten Island have because of the poor state of that boroughs roads.
As Tri-State Transportation Campaign tells us: "On Staten Island, traffic congestion is both a way of life and a perennial complaint. Six of the 15 editorials in the Staten Island Advance this month have been about transportation, and the paper — and Island citizens and elected officials — regularly call for both better transit and better roads."
And guess what? NYSDOT responds when there is political pressure: "After meeting with borough officials, NYSDOT Acting Commissioner Stan Gee said this week that the agency will widen a 1.2-mile section of the Staten Island Expressway. But a project to extend the SIE bus lane to the Goethals Bridge has fallen out of the NYSDOT capital program; the lane will be extended only to Richmond Ave. The agency has already opened the bus lane to cars with at least two occupants during peak periods, and hasn’t publicly documented how the change is affecting bus commuters."
In Queens, not so much-as pols still seem reluctant to challenge a Willets Point project that was falsely sold to them on the basis of environmental sustainability. But the proverbial stuff is already hitting the fan and the three blind mice routine is gonna come back and bite Queens residents on their collective butts. WPU may be in the eye of the storm, but that organization's fate is akin to the canary in the mine-a warning to all those borough residents, and the folks who are supposed to represent them, that a Category 5 traffic storm is on the way.
Poor Judgment
Judge Nicholas Garaufis didn't do enough damage when he threw out the latest fire fighter test? Apparently not, since he has now embarked on a scheme to remedy the fact that-because of his actions-the city is short of firefighting manpower. And the plan adds a quota insult to injury, as the NY Post opines "It's official: Judge Nicholas Garaufis is America's new racial-quota king. The Brooklyn federal jurist, who apparently won't rest until the New York Fire Department meets his personally approved racial specifications, has offered the agency five possible options to hire a new class of firefighters. Yet all five, by Garaufis' own admission, "resemble racial quotas." Resemble? We'd say so. Garaufis says he'll allow the FDNY to create a pool of 2,500 applicants that mirrors the racial makeup of those who took the most recently outlawed test -- and then choose randomly."
All of this dangerous social engineering devolves from the politically correct mindset that demands equality of results-and if somehow the results lack enough diversity after a test is given then, ipso facto, the exam must have been biased. Enter Judge Garaufis: "Garaufis has already thrown out three entrance exams for firefighters. He suggests that he's bound by a federal law which states that any statistical discrepancy in the pass/fail rates between whites and minorities is automatic proof of discrimination. It's called "disparate impact" -- and it's nonsense on stilts."
Indeed it is-and the NY Daily News agrees, labeling the judge's action for what it is: "Brooklyn Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis is about to burn the city, the Fire Department and thousands of qualified applicants who took the most recent FDNY exam in good faith. Garaufis is moving toward imposing racial hiring quotas as a way to rectify perceived discrimination in the department's testing regimen. To do so would be needlessly and horribly divisive, as well as logic-defying. On the one hand, Garaufis ruled the test invalid because some questions were badly drawn and minorities in general did not score as well as whites. Yet, he accepted the exam as a basis for hiring - while grafting the equivalent of quotas onto the results."
Garaufis should simply butt out-and leave the best firefighting contingent in the world alone so it can continue to do what it does best-save the lives of New Yorkers. It's bad enough when the mayor wants to use the department as a budget cutting pinata; but worse when a jurist, who wouldn't know how to put out a fire if his pants were inflamed, seeks to impose quota-based solutions where they will cause hardship and division within the ranks.
In fact, it is the judge's decision and not the test that will cause a, "disparate impact," on the morale of the city's firefighters and compromise their ability to do what they do better than anyone else-fight fire and protect the citizens of NYC. We'll give the Post the last word: "If the judge is so desperate to remake the FDNY in his own desired image, why doesn't he simply call Bloomberg and ask for the job of fire commissioner? Maybe because he'd be accountable?"
All of this dangerous social engineering devolves from the politically correct mindset that demands equality of results-and if somehow the results lack enough diversity after a test is given then, ipso facto, the exam must have been biased. Enter Judge Garaufis: "Garaufis has already thrown out three entrance exams for firefighters. He suggests that he's bound by a federal law which states that any statistical discrepancy in the pass/fail rates between whites and minorities is automatic proof of discrimination. It's called "disparate impact" -- and it's nonsense on stilts."
Indeed it is-and the NY Daily News agrees, labeling the judge's action for what it is: "Brooklyn Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis is about to burn the city, the Fire Department and thousands of qualified applicants who took the most recent FDNY exam in good faith. Garaufis is moving toward imposing racial hiring quotas as a way to rectify perceived discrimination in the department's testing regimen. To do so would be needlessly and horribly divisive, as well as logic-defying. On the one hand, Garaufis ruled the test invalid because some questions were badly drawn and minorities in general did not score as well as whites. Yet, he accepted the exam as a basis for hiring - while grafting the equivalent of quotas onto the results."
Garaufis should simply butt out-and leave the best firefighting contingent in the world alone so it can continue to do what it does best-save the lives of New Yorkers. It's bad enough when the mayor wants to use the department as a budget cutting pinata; but worse when a jurist, who wouldn't know how to put out a fire if his pants were inflamed, seeks to impose quota-based solutions where they will cause hardship and division within the ranks.
In fact, it is the judge's decision and not the test that will cause a, "disparate impact," on the morale of the city's firefighters and compromise their ability to do what they do better than anyone else-fight fire and protect the citizens of NYC. We'll give the Post the last word: "If the judge is so desperate to remake the FDNY in his own desired image, why doesn't he simply call Bloomberg and ask for the job of fire commissioner? Maybe because he'd be accountable?"
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Hammond's Tea Leaves
In this morning's NY Daily News, Bill Hammond rakes Carl Paladino over the coals and sees the Tea Party favorite as a Republican albatross in November: "Carl Paladino loves to bluster about going after Albany's powerbrokers with a baseball bat, but the only thing he's likely to beat to a pulp is the state GOP's credibility. Or what's left of it, anyway. Paladino's brand of ill-informed Tea Party rage sold well with the minority of Republicans who turned out for Tuesday's primary, letting him humiliate a lackluster Rick Lazio. But it spells almost certain disaster for his fellow Republicans in November - and beyond."
We respectfully demur-and actually can see the loose cannon as a potent weapon, particularly when it comes to who controls the pivotal state senate. Lazy Boy Lazio was simply an embarrassment-as well as a dead weight that would have brought absolutely zero energy to Republicans in the general election. With Paladino, the base will be activated-as can be seen by the disparity between Republican and Democratic turnout in yesterday's primary.
Liz Benjamin has the numbers: "Political number-crunching expert Jerry Skurnik sent the following information in an e-mail this morning: “With 92% of EDs reporting, turnout for Dem AG is 591,833, which probably means an overall turnout of @13%. GOP Gov Primary has 439,555, which probably mean(s) @18%. This is consistent with national trend of Republican Primary turnout being much better this year than Dem turnout.” (Greg David makes the same point today)
Think of those senate districts now controlled by Democrats-both upstate and on Long Island-that are extremely vulnerable. Paladino will resonate with many of those voters, and the enthusiasm gap may well spell the difference between victory and defeat for Senators Valesky, Aubertine , Foley and Johnson-and perhaps even Oppenheimer. If Paladino does nothing else but ramp up the GOP vote in those districts, he will have made the Hammond disaster prediction look really foolish.
But what about the candidate himself? Is he so wacky that he will doom Wilson and Donovan in their respective races for Comptroller and AG? Hammond thinks so: "Because the reckless statements, hollow promises and dumb ideas that have been coming from the Buffalo millionaire's mouth mean his GOP running mates will have to spend the next seven weeks fending off questions about his every outrage and gaffe. "He will be extremely harmful to the party," says Susan Del Percio, a Republican strategist not involved in any New York races. "You're going to see a lot of people extremely turned off by the Republican brand because of him. . . . And candidates running down ballot will be forced to distance themselves."
This remains to be seen-and we don't know Del Percio's work, but there's a lot of establishment Republicans that are looking quite silly after yesterday. And Hammond mentions a few of Paladino's comments-some are naive and others are a little off the wall or offensive-that he believes will turn the top of the ticket into political Ebola. One in particular caught our eye: "The lowest of the lows was his demagogic scheme to block construction of an Islamic center in lower Manhattan - which he slurred as a "monument to those who attacked our country" - by seizing the property through eminent domain. He managed to violate decency and two clauses of the Bill of Rights in a single blow."
Perhaps Paladino's statement wasn't as felicitous as we would have expressed the way in which the GZM is an anathema to 63% of New Yorkers (52% in NYC!); but given the widespread revulsion against the site, it's hard to see how this view will be a fatal thorn in the side of down ballot candidates-and we kinda like the idea of using eminent domain for the entire area around the proposed mosque (including the strip joints)
And Hammond didn't address the fact that Paladino will get under Andrew Cuomo's skin-and perhaps provoke a debate that will be good for the voters. Certainly, with Lazio at the top of the ticket, Cuomo could have simply taken the next two months off-now we're not so sure.
But Hammond clearly is certain of Paladino's toxicity: "This stuff puts common-sense Republicans like controller candidate Harry Wilson and would-be attorney general Dan Donovan in a bind - not to mention Republicans hoping to retake the state Senate. Do they embrace the Tea Party wackadoo at the top of their ticket or run the other way? Maybe this train wreck will wake Republicans to the dangers of self-financed candidates. Without his personal fortune - and the unfettered ability to blow millions on consultants and campaign ads - Paladino would never have become the standard-bearer for the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas E. Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller. In all likelihood, he'd be just another blow-hard on a Buffalo barstool."
Well, we guess that's why we have horse races-and on November 2nd, when the sacred gin mill closes, we'll see who's a bigger fool; and whether Paladino or Hammond will end up on his back and not his stool (with apologies to Muhammad Ali)
We respectfully demur-and actually can see the loose cannon as a potent weapon, particularly when it comes to who controls the pivotal state senate. Lazy Boy Lazio was simply an embarrassment-as well as a dead weight that would have brought absolutely zero energy to Republicans in the general election. With Paladino, the base will be activated-as can be seen by the disparity between Republican and Democratic turnout in yesterday's primary.
Liz Benjamin has the numbers: "Political number-crunching expert Jerry Skurnik sent the following information in an e-mail this morning: “With 92% of EDs reporting, turnout for Dem AG is 591,833, which probably means an overall turnout of @13%. GOP Gov Primary has 439,555, which probably mean(s) @18%. This is consistent with national trend of Republican Primary turnout being much better this year than Dem turnout.” (Greg David makes the same point today)
Think of those senate districts now controlled by Democrats-both upstate and on Long Island-that are extremely vulnerable. Paladino will resonate with many of those voters, and the enthusiasm gap may well spell the difference between victory and defeat for Senators Valesky, Aubertine , Foley and Johnson-and perhaps even Oppenheimer. If Paladino does nothing else but ramp up the GOP vote in those districts, he will have made the Hammond disaster prediction look really foolish.
But what about the candidate himself? Is he so wacky that he will doom Wilson and Donovan in their respective races for Comptroller and AG? Hammond thinks so: "Because the reckless statements, hollow promises and dumb ideas that have been coming from the Buffalo millionaire's mouth mean his GOP running mates will have to spend the next seven weeks fending off questions about his every outrage and gaffe. "He will be extremely harmful to the party," says Susan Del Percio, a Republican strategist not involved in any New York races. "You're going to see a lot of people extremely turned off by the Republican brand because of him. . . . And candidates running down ballot will be forced to distance themselves."
This remains to be seen-and we don't know Del Percio's work, but there's a lot of establishment Republicans that are looking quite silly after yesterday. And Hammond mentions a few of Paladino's comments-some are naive and others are a little off the wall or offensive-that he believes will turn the top of the ticket into political Ebola. One in particular caught our eye: "The lowest of the lows was his demagogic scheme to block construction of an Islamic center in lower Manhattan - which he slurred as a "monument to those who attacked our country" - by seizing the property through eminent domain. He managed to violate decency and two clauses of the Bill of Rights in a single blow."
Perhaps Paladino's statement wasn't as felicitous as we would have expressed the way in which the GZM is an anathema to 63% of New Yorkers (52% in NYC!); but given the widespread revulsion against the site, it's hard to see how this view will be a fatal thorn in the side of down ballot candidates-and we kinda like the idea of using eminent domain for the entire area around the proposed mosque (including the strip joints)
And Hammond didn't address the fact that Paladino will get under Andrew Cuomo's skin-and perhaps provoke a debate that will be good for the voters. Certainly, with Lazio at the top of the ticket, Cuomo could have simply taken the next two months off-now we're not so sure.
But Hammond clearly is certain of Paladino's toxicity: "This stuff puts common-sense Republicans like controller candidate Harry Wilson and would-be attorney general Dan Donovan in a bind - not to mention Republicans hoping to retake the state Senate. Do they embrace the Tea Party wackadoo at the top of their ticket or run the other way? Maybe this train wreck will wake Republicans to the dangers of self-financed candidates. Without his personal fortune - and the unfettered ability to blow millions on consultants and campaign ads - Paladino would never have become the standard-bearer for the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas E. Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller. In all likelihood, he'd be just another blow-hard on a Buffalo barstool."
Well, we guess that's why we have horse races-and on November 2nd, when the sacred gin mill closes, we'll see who's a bigger fool; and whether Paladino or Hammond will end up on his back and not his stool (with apologies to Muhammad Ali)
New York's Rail-Roading
We have been raising some serious questions about the impact that building two ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway will have on that, and other, Queens highways. We have also been raising questions about the oversight role-or lack thereof-that is being played by NYS DOT. But now, our own concerns have an even more serious context-the abysmal overall state of NY's highway system; and the failure of the state agency to do its core function efficiently.
This concern is expressed in the NY Post by David Hartgen, a former employee of DOT, and a twenty year veteran of the
agency: "As any driver will tell you, New York's roads are in bad shape. But at least the state could always count on New Jersey's roads being even worse. Not any more. Each year, the Reason Foundation's Highway Report ranks the roads and highways of all 50 states in a variety of categories, including cost-effectiveness, pavement condition, traffic congestion, fatalities and deficient bridges. Jersey finished dead last every year from 2000 to 2006 -- but then started to improve, inching up to 45th in the latest rankings. Meanwhile, New York (which hasn't ranked higher than 45th since 2000) placed 46th -- the first time in the report's 19-year-history that it fell below New Jersey in road performance and cost-effectiveness.
So, as Hartgen asks, what happened? "The short answer is that the pavement condition of New York's urban interstate highways worsened and New Jersey made more progress in fixing its deficient bridges. These differences, while not large, were enough to move New Jersey up two spots, and New York down one. But the larger issue is that the Empire State consistently fails to get much bang for its highway bucks."
And the malfeasance is profound: "Only two states spend more than New York on road maintenance per mile -- yet the state's urban interstates rank 45th in pavement condition. (And rural interstates are even worse, 46th in the nation.) The state spends big on bridges, too -- yet more than 37 percent of its bridges were deficient or functionally obsolete in 2008, ranking New York 47th out of 50. New York's taxpayers spend more than nearly every other state in these areas, but still get potholes, bumpy pavement and deficient bridges in return. The bureaucratic waste is remarkable: For each mile of road that it is responsible for, the state spends nearly $90,000 in administrative costs. Only California spends more. These high office costs mean millions and millions of dollars never make it to the Empire State's roads. For comparison, Pennsylvania spends $11,000 a mile in administrative costs, Texas $6,500 and Maine just $2,500."
NYSDOT has some serious explaining to do-and the case of the Van Wyck ramps may underscore in a microcosm some of DOT's fatal flaws in need of correction. The bureaucratic waste that Hartgen cites dramatizes a culture of indifference-and a lack of thoroughness that is costing NY State tax payers plenty. Absent, in our view, is a zealous regard for the public interest-an absence that is underscored by the way in which the agency has conducted the review of the traffic impacts that emanate from the proposed ramps.
Put simply, given the deteriorated state of NY's roads, DOT should be examining any and all proposals that will exacerbate already poor traffic conditions with the proverbial fine tooth comb-instead it is apparently colluding with NYC EDC in approving a proposal that will flood the Van Wyck and gridlock the Grand Central/Kew Gardens Interchange-even after a $1 billion overhaul!
Hartgen has some suggestions about how to improve the abysmal state of our roads: "If Albany is going to be one of the nation's biggest spenders on roads, it should focus its money on fixing bridges, repairing potholes and smoothing pavement. At least then, taxpayers will see some return on their very costly investments."
But he leaves out an important corollary: fixing what's broke is undoubtedly urgent; but preventing excess capacity on the already beleaguered infrastructure that we have is a necessary additional policy goal that should be seen as complementary to the better fix. Right now, it seems that DOT is failing at both of these important tasks.
This concern is expressed in the NY Post by David Hartgen, a former employee of DOT, and a twenty year veteran of the
agency: "As any driver will tell you, New York's roads are in bad shape. But at least the state could always count on New Jersey's roads being even worse. Not any more. Each year, the Reason Foundation's Highway Report ranks the roads and highways of all 50 states in a variety of categories, including cost-effectiveness, pavement condition, traffic congestion, fatalities and deficient bridges. Jersey finished dead last every year from 2000 to 2006 -- but then started to improve, inching up to 45th in the latest rankings. Meanwhile, New York (which hasn't ranked higher than 45th since 2000) placed 46th -- the first time in the report's 19-year-history that it fell below New Jersey in road performance and cost-effectiveness.
So, as Hartgen asks, what happened? "The short answer is that the pavement condition of New York's urban interstate highways worsened and New Jersey made more progress in fixing its deficient bridges. These differences, while not large, were enough to move New Jersey up two spots, and New York down one. But the larger issue is that the Empire State consistently fails to get much bang for its highway bucks."
And the malfeasance is profound: "Only two states spend more than New York on road maintenance per mile -- yet the state's urban interstates rank 45th in pavement condition. (And rural interstates are even worse, 46th in the nation.) The state spends big on bridges, too -- yet more than 37 percent of its bridges were deficient or functionally obsolete in 2008, ranking New York 47th out of 50. New York's taxpayers spend more than nearly every other state in these areas, but still get potholes, bumpy pavement and deficient bridges in return. The bureaucratic waste is remarkable: For each mile of road that it is responsible for, the state spends nearly $90,000 in administrative costs. Only California spends more. These high office costs mean millions and millions of dollars never make it to the Empire State's roads. For comparison, Pennsylvania spends $11,000 a mile in administrative costs, Texas $6,500 and Maine just $2,500."
NYSDOT has some serious explaining to do-and the case of the Van Wyck ramps may underscore in a microcosm some of DOT's fatal flaws in need of correction. The bureaucratic waste that Hartgen cites dramatizes a culture of indifference-and a lack of thoroughness that is costing NY State tax payers plenty. Absent, in our view, is a zealous regard for the public interest-an absence that is underscored by the way in which the agency has conducted the review of the traffic impacts that emanate from the proposed ramps.
Put simply, given the deteriorated state of NY's roads, DOT should be examining any and all proposals that will exacerbate already poor traffic conditions with the proverbial fine tooth comb-instead it is apparently colluding with NYC EDC in approving a proposal that will flood the Van Wyck and gridlock the Grand Central/Kew Gardens Interchange-even after a $1 billion overhaul!
Hartgen has some suggestions about how to improve the abysmal state of our roads: "If Albany is going to be one of the nation's biggest spenders on roads, it should focus its money on fixing bridges, repairing potholes and smoothing pavement. At least then, taxpayers will see some return on their very costly investments."
But he leaves out an important corollary: fixing what's broke is undoubtedly urgent; but preventing excess capacity on the already beleaguered infrastructure that we have is a necessary additional policy goal that should be seen as complementary to the better fix. Right now, it seems that DOT is failing at both of these important tasks.
Indians Court Setback
A state Appellate Court has knocked out the preliminary injunction against the state's effort to collect taxes against Indian scofflaws. As the Buffalo News reports: "In Rochester, a state appeals court lifted a temporary order blocking the state from collecting taxes on cigarettes sold by Native American stores to non-Indian customers. On Sept. 1, Appellate Judge Samuel L. Green restored a restraining order that barred the state from collecting the $4.35-per-pack tax. But the court's five-judge panel, which took up the case last week, ruled on Tuesday that the state properly approved regulations for the levy."
The Indians will undoubtedly appeal the decision, but we're still waiting for action on the federal stay as well: "In Buffalo's federal court, District Richard J. Arcara agreed to extend his temporary restraining order barring the state from collecting cigarette taxes from businesses run by Seneca Nation and Cayuga Nation members. The judge extended his order until Sept. 28, as lawyers from the two Indian tribes and the State Attorney General's office continued their dispute in his courtroom. Arcara heard several hours of legal arguments in the case on Tuesday and will hear more today."
But the Senecas are still sticking to their, "sovereign nation," scam: "During Tuesday's proceedings, he heard testimony from Robert Odawi Porter, a lawyer and senior policy adviser to the Senecas. Porter and other witnesses spoke about the Senecas' own procedures for regulating cigarette sales on their reservations. Under an import-export program set up by the tribe four years ago, the Senecas collect 7.5 cents in "fees" for each pack of cigarettes sold by tribal businesses, Porter said. "We do not collect taxes. We call these collections fees," Porter said. "We have collected $45 million in the past four years, and those funds are used for health and education programs for all the Seneca people."
Sure, but how about reimbursing the tax payers for all of the, "fees," that are sent to tribal members for health and educational benefits that accrue to them by virtue, we guess, of the fact that they are considered citizens of this country-turning the courtroom rigmarole about import-export fess into a farce.
But the real issue is how this tax avoidance has ripped off both the tax paters and small business. The cat's let out of the bag by this observation in the NY Post: "Tribal leaders say the $4.35-per-pack tax would blunt their competitive edge over off-reservation sellers and devastate their economies." Yeah, it sucks when you have to follow the tax laws.
So, in our view, it's simply a matter of time before the legal logjam is cleared-and the state gets the green light to enforce its law; but the threat of violence is still hanging in the air: "The tax tussle has raised tension on reservations. The last time the state tried to collect the tax, in 1997, protesters lit tire fires and shut down a 30-mile stretch of the New York state Thruway that bisects Seneca land near the Pennsylvania line."
With the state budget in free fall-and a current $200 million gap remaining from these judicial stays-the need to enforce the law remains compelling. We'll give the Post the last word: "State lawmakers facing a $9.2 billion budget deficit in June voted to start collecting the sales tax by requiring cigarette wholesalers to prepay the sales taxes before supplying reservation stores. Wholesalers would pass along the levy to tribal retailers." Now let's just do it!
The Indians will undoubtedly appeal the decision, but we're still waiting for action on the federal stay as well: "In Buffalo's federal court, District Richard J. Arcara agreed to extend his temporary restraining order barring the state from collecting cigarette taxes from businesses run by Seneca Nation and Cayuga Nation members. The judge extended his order until Sept. 28, as lawyers from the two Indian tribes and the State Attorney General's office continued their dispute in his courtroom. Arcara heard several hours of legal arguments in the case on Tuesday and will hear more today."
But the Senecas are still sticking to their, "sovereign nation," scam: "During Tuesday's proceedings, he heard testimony from Robert Odawi Porter, a lawyer and senior policy adviser to the Senecas. Porter and other witnesses spoke about the Senecas' own procedures for regulating cigarette sales on their reservations. Under an import-export program set up by the tribe four years ago, the Senecas collect 7.5 cents in "fees" for each pack of cigarettes sold by tribal businesses, Porter said. "We do not collect taxes. We call these collections fees," Porter said. "We have collected $45 million in the past four years, and those funds are used for health and education programs for all the Seneca people."
Sure, but how about reimbursing the tax payers for all of the, "fees," that are sent to tribal members for health and educational benefits that accrue to them by virtue, we guess, of the fact that they are considered citizens of this country-turning the courtroom rigmarole about import-export fess into a farce.
But the real issue is how this tax avoidance has ripped off both the tax paters and small business. The cat's let out of the bag by this observation in the NY Post: "Tribal leaders say the $4.35-per-pack tax would blunt their competitive edge over off-reservation sellers and devastate their economies." Yeah, it sucks when you have to follow the tax laws.
So, in our view, it's simply a matter of time before the legal logjam is cleared-and the state gets the green light to enforce its law; but the threat of violence is still hanging in the air: "The tax tussle has raised tension on reservations. The last time the state tried to collect the tax, in 1997, protesters lit tire fires and shut down a 30-mile stretch of the New York state Thruway that bisects Seneca land near the Pennsylvania line."
With the state budget in free fall-and a current $200 million gap remaining from these judicial stays-the need to enforce the law remains compelling. We'll give the Post the last word: "State lawmakers facing a $9.2 billion budget deficit in June voted to start collecting the sales tax by requiring cigarette wholesalers to prepay the sales taxes before supplying reservation stores. Wholesalers would pass along the levy to tribal retailers." Now let's just do it!
The Test Evidence Keeps Piling Up
According to City Room, the Bloomberg educational miracle is fast becoming a big joke-and his $109 million ad campaign is as close to outright fraud as anything we have ever seen in NYC: "New York City’s white and Asian students are scoring better on the SATs than at any time since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took control of the city schools, according to 2010 SAT scores released by the city Tuesday. But Hispanic and black students as a whole are still scoring lower than they did in 2002, despite gains on some sections since last year. The city says the lower scores are a result of significantly increased participation from black and Hispanic students, which tends to depress scores by broadening the pool of test takers."
Should have just kept them out perhaps; but seriously, the evidence is as damning as it is considerable that the Great Leap Forward is reminiscent of all those great socialist public relations fiascos of the past: "But the overall trend since 2002 remained negative. Compared to 2002 scores, city students scored eight points lower in math and three points lower in reading in 2010. In writing, students scored four points lower than they did when the section was introduced in 2006."
Does the mayor perchance have a home schooling initiative? Anything beats the current record levels of failure-and, as we have said before, the euphoric promotion of charters by the mayor is an example of self abuse. But the racial gap can't be ignored: "But black students had more mixed performance. While their average score on the reading test, 412, was the same as in 2009, and scores went up by one point to 411 on the math section, writing scores dropped by three points to 404. In 2002, black students had average scores of 428 in math and 427 in reading."
Woof, woof-calling Al Sharpton; but that barkless dog is nowhere to be found, busy cashing the Bloomberg hush money checks. Chancellor Klein, alive and well in a sealed hyperbaric chamber, tries his hand at playing Dr. Pangloss: "This year’s results suggest that more students have college on their minds,” said Joel I. Klein, the schools chancellor, in a press release. “With a shift toward higher standards and the increasing demands of a global economy, progress on the SATs and in AP courses could not come at a better time.”
Or, as General Pyhrus might say, "One more such victory will undo me!"
Should have just kept them out perhaps; but seriously, the evidence is as damning as it is considerable that the Great Leap Forward is reminiscent of all those great socialist public relations fiascos of the past: "But the overall trend since 2002 remained negative. Compared to 2002 scores, city students scored eight points lower in math and three points lower in reading in 2010. In writing, students scored four points lower than they did when the section was introduced in 2006."
Does the mayor perchance have a home schooling initiative? Anything beats the current record levels of failure-and, as we have said before, the euphoric promotion of charters by the mayor is an example of self abuse. But the racial gap can't be ignored: "But black students had more mixed performance. While their average score on the reading test, 412, was the same as in 2009, and scores went up by one point to 411 on the math section, writing scores dropped by three points to 404. In 2002, black students had average scores of 428 in math and 427 in reading."
Woof, woof-calling Al Sharpton; but that barkless dog is nowhere to be found, busy cashing the Bloomberg hush money checks. Chancellor Klein, alive and well in a sealed hyperbaric chamber, tries his hand at playing Dr. Pangloss: "This year’s results suggest that more students have college on their minds,” said Joel I. Klein, the schools chancellor, in a press release. “With a shift toward higher standards and the increasing demands of a global economy, progress on the SATs and in AP courses could not come at a better time.”
Or, as General Pyhrus might say, "One more such victory will undo me!"
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Re-Education on Health Care
We are now one year since former president Bill Clinton urged Democrats not be faint of heart and push forward on totally overhauling this country's health care system-claiming that Americans would learn to love it as it aged: "I’m telling you no matter how low [Republicans] drive support for this with misinformation, the minute the president signs a health care reform bill his approval will go up. Secondly, within a year, when all those bad things they say will happen don’t happen, and all the good things happen, approval will explode."
Gee, how's that working out? In the current election cycle we can't seem to find many Dems willing to extol the virtue of what they voted in lock step for-probably because the rationales about, "bending the cost curve," and lowering individual premiums, have been exposed as arrant nonsense; not to mention the fact that the cost containments in the bill lead inexorably to some form of rationing.
But what has roiled the waters recently in this regard is the fact that health insurers are raising their rates-claiming that the ObamaCare mandates have forced their hands: "Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections."
Who would have thought that bringing 30 million new folks onto the roles-not to mention covering folks with pre-existing conditions-would bend that old cost curve in the other direction? The timing isn't good news for Dems looking to play defense in a bad political climate: "Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.In addition to pledging that the law would restrain increases in Americans' insurance premiums, Democrats front-loaded the legislation with early provisions they hoped would boost public support. Those include letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps."
The old adage about there being no free lunch comes to mind right now, but what really concerns us, is the reaction to this basic law of economic gravity from the country's health bureaucrat in chief, Kathleen Sebelius: "President Barack Obama's top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won't tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law. "There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby. "Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections," Sebelius said."
This is, put simply, the jawbone of an ass-and it is, in our view, an example of an ideological world view that believes that government's wishes can trump the laws of economics. But, as Michael Barone points out, there is a more sinister take from all this-and he sees Sebelius as an exemplar of, "gangster government." And our first amendment aficionados should be alarmed: "But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases). And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014." That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs." (emphasis added)
What Sebelius would like to do is bend the reality curve-and her descent into Soviet-style governance doesn't stop at bogarting insurers. There are the poor misinformed citizens who need government's helping hand in order to better understand that the ObamaCare medicine is really good for them. In a word, re-education: "With a number of polls showing a sustained level of opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform efforts more than five months after passage, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the Obama administration has “a lot of reeducation to do” heading into the midterms."
This re-education gambit is, we're afraid, the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel-who see the stupid uneducated masses as being bedeviled by that old bogeyman, "false consciousness." It is both patronizing and wrongheaded. What the folks are seeing is a vast expansion of government-something that Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas has helpfully mapped out for us: "This clearly is a candidate for most disorganized organizational chart ever. It shows that the health system is complex, yes, but also ornate. The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements."
But there's more! The law creates an expediter to end run some of the bureaucratic entanglements: "Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts. This monarchical protection from challenges is extended as well to the development of new patient-care models under Obama’s controversial recess appointment, Donald Berwick, whom Republicans are calling the rationer-in-chief. Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he can experiment with ways to use administrative fiat to move our system toward the socialized medicine of Europe, which he has at times embraced."
The same Sebelius that has just issued woof tickets to the country's insurance companies. This is simply a nightmare in the making, and no amount of educating the American kennel can get the dogs to eat this dog food-hence the sins of omission by Democrats in this election cycle. It is now quite apparent that ObamaCare is the poster child for what is wrong with the president's entire approach to governing.
Republicans may have too great a suspicion of the ability of the public sector to solve some of the country's most pressing problems, but the enthusiasm of Democrats-along with their total suspension of disbelief about unintended incompetence-about the power of government to do good is chilling-making this election cycle the most important in our lifetime (at least until 2012).
If things go as they are appearing that they will, it will not be the folks who will be subject to re-education, but the over-reaching majority party who will be schooled about just what good sense Americans can possess when facing the prospects of consuming rancid policies that run counter to their core beliefs.
Gee, how's that working out? In the current election cycle we can't seem to find many Dems willing to extol the virtue of what they voted in lock step for-probably because the rationales about, "bending the cost curve," and lowering individual premiums, have been exposed as arrant nonsense; not to mention the fact that the cost containments in the bill lead inexorably to some form of rationing.
But what has roiled the waters recently in this regard is the fact that health insurers are raising their rates-claiming that the ObamaCare mandates have forced their hands: "Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections."
Who would have thought that bringing 30 million new folks onto the roles-not to mention covering folks with pre-existing conditions-would bend that old cost curve in the other direction? The timing isn't good news for Dems looking to play defense in a bad political climate: "Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.In addition to pledging that the law would restrain increases in Americans' insurance premiums, Democrats front-loaded the legislation with early provisions they hoped would boost public support. Those include letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps."
The old adage about there being no free lunch comes to mind right now, but what really concerns us, is the reaction to this basic law of economic gravity from the country's health bureaucrat in chief, Kathleen Sebelius: "President Barack Obama's top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won't tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law. "There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby. "Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections," Sebelius said."
This is, put simply, the jawbone of an ass-and it is, in our view, an example of an ideological world view that believes that government's wishes can trump the laws of economics. But, as Michael Barone points out, there is a more sinister take from all this-and he sees Sebelius as an exemplar of, "gangster government." And our first amendment aficionados should be alarmed: "But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases). And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014." That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs." (emphasis added)
What Sebelius would like to do is bend the reality curve-and her descent into Soviet-style governance doesn't stop at bogarting insurers. There are the poor misinformed citizens who need government's helping hand in order to better understand that the ObamaCare medicine is really good for them. In a word, re-education: "With a number of polls showing a sustained level of opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform efforts more than five months after passage, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the Obama administration has “a lot of reeducation to do” heading into the midterms."
This re-education gambit is, we're afraid, the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel-who see the stupid uneducated masses as being bedeviled by that old bogeyman, "false consciousness." It is both patronizing and wrongheaded. What the folks are seeing is a vast expansion of government-something that Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas has helpfully mapped out for us: "This clearly is a candidate for most disorganized organizational chart ever. It shows that the health system is complex, yes, but also ornate. The new law creates 68 grant programs, 47 bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six regulatory systems, six compliance standards and two entitlements."
But there's more! The law creates an expediter to end run some of the bureaucratic entanglements: "Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts. This monarchical protection from challenges is extended as well to the development of new patient-care models under Obama’s controversial recess appointment, Donald Berwick, whom Republicans are calling the rationer-in-chief. Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he can experiment with ways to use administrative fiat to move our system toward the socialized medicine of Europe, which he has at times embraced."
The same Sebelius that has just issued woof tickets to the country's insurance companies. This is simply a nightmare in the making, and no amount of educating the American kennel can get the dogs to eat this dog food-hence the sins of omission by Democrats in this election cycle. It is now quite apparent that ObamaCare is the poster child for what is wrong with the president's entire approach to governing.
Republicans may have too great a suspicion of the ability of the public sector to solve some of the country's most pressing problems, but the enthusiasm of Democrats-along with their total suspension of disbelief about unintended incompetence-about the power of government to do good is chilling-making this election cycle the most important in our lifetime (at least until 2012).
If things go as they are appearing that they will, it will not be the folks who will be subject to re-education, but the over-reaching majority party who will be schooled about just what good sense Americans can possess when facing the prospects of consuming rancid policies that run counter to their core beliefs.
Cuomo and the WFP: "Words Uttered Under Coercion..."
Bill Hammond has a few choice words this morning about the shotgun marriage between Andrew Cuomo, the putative next governor of New York, and the Working Families Party: "Andrew Cuomo left no doubt as to who's the boss in his marriage of convenience this weekend with the Working Families Party. The Democratic front-runner for governor accepted the lefty coalition's endorsement, but only after extracting a humiliating concession from party leaders: They had to pledge allegiance to his entire agenda - including fiscally conservative planks they have ardently opposed in the past."
Which brings to mind a quotation that we had wrongfully attributed to Justice Holmes in the past, but was the felicitous phrase that Hugo Black had used to describe loyalty oaths: "Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds."
And so it goes with the WFP, whose 180 here amounts to a death bed conversion that will be recanted just as soon as the party gets the 50,000 votes it needs to stay a fixture on the state ballot: "Keep in mind that Working Families leaders were acting with a gun to their heads. They need to draw at least 50,000 votes for their gubernatorial candidate on Election Day to keep their status as an officially recognized party - which is the key to their considerable influence with elected officials. If Cuomo had refused to put his name at the top of the WFP ticket, the party's very survival would have been in doubt. So the party's official statement - "We stand proudly and steadfastly behind Andrew Cuomo and his plan for a new New York" - had the whiff of flop sweat."
Hammond feels, and we agree, that Cuomo should have left the WFP twist in the wind because this collection of public sector slackers is part of the problem and certainly not the solution: "The statement pointedly fails to mention any of the specifics of that plan - such as freezing taxes and capping state spending - that the WFP had opposed until five minutes before issuing it. In fact, as of yesterday, the party's website continued to refer to capping property taxes - a centerpiece of Cuomo's agenda and the topic of his first campaign commercial - as a "gimmick" that could "seriously undermine New York schools."
So what did Cuomo gain by allowing these folks to pledge their faux loyalty to a concept that is an anathema to its core constituency? Hammond doesn't see how this benefits Andrew: "Cuomo is framing this deal as a huge step forward for his plan to overhaul Albany. If he can bring the WFP to its knees, the logic goes, the Assembly and Senate are sure to follow. But the WFP derives most of its political clout - not to mention its financial backing - from 1199, the UFT and other labor powerhouses. If they're not onboard - really onboard - any lobbying campaign the WFP may mount on Cuomo's behalf will fall flat. And members of the Legislature are likely to see the WFP's embrace of Cuomo as a cynical deal for survival, not a genuine change of heart. So what's the WFP's statement of support really worth? Not much. Certainly nowhere near enough to justify thoroughly muddying Cuomo's message of change in Albany."
If Andrew Cuomo is truly sincere about what he intends to do once in office-and we really hope he is-than the current embrace of the WFP will be seen as a temporary reprieve for a party that will soon be in the new governor's cross hairs. We believe, then, that yesterday's moment of mutual affection will be remembered as a kiss of death
Which brings to mind a quotation that we had wrongfully attributed to Justice Holmes in the past, but was the felicitous phrase that Hugo Black had used to describe loyalty oaths: "Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds."
And so it goes with the WFP, whose 180 here amounts to a death bed conversion that will be recanted just as soon as the party gets the 50,000 votes it needs to stay a fixture on the state ballot: "Keep in mind that Working Families leaders were acting with a gun to their heads. They need to draw at least 50,000 votes for their gubernatorial candidate on Election Day to keep their status as an officially recognized party - which is the key to their considerable influence with elected officials. If Cuomo had refused to put his name at the top of the WFP ticket, the party's very survival would have been in doubt. So the party's official statement - "We stand proudly and steadfastly behind Andrew Cuomo and his plan for a new New York" - had the whiff of flop sweat."
Hammond feels, and we agree, that Cuomo should have left the WFP twist in the wind because this collection of public sector slackers is part of the problem and certainly not the solution: "The statement pointedly fails to mention any of the specifics of that plan - such as freezing taxes and capping state spending - that the WFP had opposed until five minutes before issuing it. In fact, as of yesterday, the party's website continued to refer to capping property taxes - a centerpiece of Cuomo's agenda and the topic of his first campaign commercial - as a "gimmick" that could "seriously undermine New York schools."
So what did Cuomo gain by allowing these folks to pledge their faux loyalty to a concept that is an anathema to its core constituency? Hammond doesn't see how this benefits Andrew: "Cuomo is framing this deal as a huge step forward for his plan to overhaul Albany. If he can bring the WFP to its knees, the logic goes, the Assembly and Senate are sure to follow. But the WFP derives most of its political clout - not to mention its financial backing - from 1199, the UFT and other labor powerhouses. If they're not onboard - really onboard - any lobbying campaign the WFP may mount on Cuomo's behalf will fall flat. And members of the Legislature are likely to see the WFP's embrace of Cuomo as a cynical deal for survival, not a genuine change of heart. So what's the WFP's statement of support really worth? Not much. Certainly nowhere near enough to justify thoroughly muddying Cuomo's message of change in Albany."
If Andrew Cuomo is truly sincere about what he intends to do once in office-and we really hope he is-than the current embrace of the WFP will be seen as a temporary reprieve for a party that will soon be in the new governor's cross hairs. We believe, then, that yesterday's moment of mutual affection will be remembered as a kiss of death
P. T. Bloomberg
Well, well, look whose resurrecting his national profile-again; it's Mayor Mike and Politico's Maggie Haberman is doing the honors: "Term-limited New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is at work expanding his national profile, delivering a string of high-profile candidate endorsements around the country and using his outsized megaphone to become a spokesman for swaths of disgruntled elites who were once part of President Barack Obama’s base. What he wants isn’t entirely clear. The mayor, armed with a $15 billion fortune, publicly denies in the most emphatic terms—death, incapacitation—any interest in cutting short his third term to run for higher office.
So, what's up with this farcical exercise in self promotion? No one's really sure, but there's enough folks out there who wouldn't turn down Bloomberg's money-and perhaps even the president would grasp at a billion for the Veep slot for Mike. But in the end, the Bloomberg money is enough to keep a certain buzz about the mayor alive and well. Haberman, however, expends way too much ink with copious encomiums to the gazillionaire-barely leaving room at the end of her piece for a small discouraging word of cold water.
But first there is the speculation: "He has endorsed both Republicans and Democrats in House and Senate races across the country the cycle, with an apolitical litmus test that depends on whether they fought for either his own city's interests or for the mayor’s own pet causes, such as gun restrictions or education reform." Distilled, it has little or nothing to do with any philosophical position-unless solipsism is now considered a branch of moral reasoning.
One of our favorite comments comes from one of the early architects of the McCain campaign-and the words feel covered with saliva: "Mike Bloomberg has become the political gold standard for governance, ethics and transparency. At a time when people have given up faith that government can do anything, Bloomberg has proven that government can actually work in the toughest city in America," said an admiring Mark McKinnon, a former George W. Bush senior adviser who declined to work against Obama in 2008." (pant, pant)
But what exactly would be the mayor's constituency? Why, elites it seems:
"Bloomberg offered public disavowals regarding his political future in 2008—even as his aides explored the possibility of an independent run and ballot access laws in depth—pulling the plug only when the nominees emerged. But some of his backers have never given up the idea, and see an opening in the current restive political environment. At a minimum, the talk—combined with the billionaire’s ability to instantly plunge more money into advertising, mail and field operations than any major-party nominee (including the president) will likely be able to raise for 2012—makes him impossible to dismiss. At the same time, Bloomberg has become something of a spokesman for swaths of elites who comprised President Obama's base in 2008 but have become disenchanted with him—ranging from Wall Streeters enraged by the new financial reform bill to liberals who support the ground zero-area mosque."
With the kind of money that Bloomberg is able to spend, it appears that the money goes a long way to inculcate delusional thinking. Imagine being the spokesman for disenchanted elites-and further imagine the kind of political wind at the mayor's back that this will generate. This, friends, all comes down to Bloomberg's checks appeal-because in the current political climate, Mike Bloomberg is the anti-hero. As a liberal defender of Wall Street, the ground zero mosque and almost open borders-not to mention his nanny interference with personal liberty-Bloomberg is operating consistently against the popular will; and we haven't even mentioned his tax raising, anti-small business proclivities.
So, in our view, this Bloomberg boomlet is P. T. Barnum like-with the mayor believing, perhaps, that after having successfully bought off the sophisticated New Yorkers, the less savvy American suckers at large can't be too difficult a challenge. But this is one prize that will elude the mayor's long armed monetary reach-and that judgment comes in spite of our deep seated hope that the money grubbers around him will convince him to spend quixotically and make a total ass of himself.
But finally, after all of this breathless speculation we make it the conclusory evaluation at the end of the Haberman narrative: "Few expect him to actually make a run, in part because the risk of failure is high and the viability of a socially liberal, Jewish mayor from New York—something he himself points out frequently—is questionable. And Elmendorf {Democratic strategist}noted that Bloomberg's actual name recognition outside cable network-centric New York is probably "not as strong as he thinks it is."
But in the mayor's case, that's a good thing, because in our view familiarity would only bring contempt.
So, what's up with this farcical exercise in self promotion? No one's really sure, but there's enough folks out there who wouldn't turn down Bloomberg's money-and perhaps even the president would grasp at a billion for the Veep slot for Mike. But in the end, the Bloomberg money is enough to keep a certain buzz about the mayor alive and well. Haberman, however, expends way too much ink with copious encomiums to the gazillionaire-barely leaving room at the end of her piece for a small discouraging word of cold water.
But first there is the speculation: "He has endorsed both Republicans and Democrats in House and Senate races across the country the cycle, with an apolitical litmus test that depends on whether they fought for either his own city's interests or for the mayor’s own pet causes, such as gun restrictions or education reform." Distilled, it has little or nothing to do with any philosophical position-unless solipsism is now considered a branch of moral reasoning.
One of our favorite comments comes from one of the early architects of the McCain campaign-and the words feel covered with saliva: "Mike Bloomberg has become the political gold standard for governance, ethics and transparency. At a time when people have given up faith that government can do anything, Bloomberg has proven that government can actually work in the toughest city in America," said an admiring Mark McKinnon, a former George W. Bush senior adviser who declined to work against Obama in 2008." (pant, pant)
But what exactly would be the mayor's constituency? Why, elites it seems:
"Bloomberg offered public disavowals regarding his political future in 2008—even as his aides explored the possibility of an independent run and ballot access laws in depth—pulling the plug only when the nominees emerged. But some of his backers have never given up the idea, and see an opening in the current restive political environment. At a minimum, the talk—combined with the billionaire’s ability to instantly plunge more money into advertising, mail and field operations than any major-party nominee (including the president) will likely be able to raise for 2012—makes him impossible to dismiss. At the same time, Bloomberg has become something of a spokesman for swaths of elites who comprised President Obama's base in 2008 but have become disenchanted with him—ranging from Wall Streeters enraged by the new financial reform bill to liberals who support the ground zero-area mosque."
With the kind of money that Bloomberg is able to spend, it appears that the money goes a long way to inculcate delusional thinking. Imagine being the spokesman for disenchanted elites-and further imagine the kind of political wind at the mayor's back that this will generate. This, friends, all comes down to Bloomberg's checks appeal-because in the current political climate, Mike Bloomberg is the anti-hero. As a liberal defender of Wall Street, the ground zero mosque and almost open borders-not to mention his nanny interference with personal liberty-Bloomberg is operating consistently against the popular will; and we haven't even mentioned his tax raising, anti-small business proclivities.
So, in our view, this Bloomberg boomlet is P. T. Barnum like-with the mayor believing, perhaps, that after having successfully bought off the sophisticated New Yorkers, the less savvy American suckers at large can't be too difficult a challenge. But this is one prize that will elude the mayor's long armed monetary reach-and that judgment comes in spite of our deep seated hope that the money grubbers around him will convince him to spend quixotically and make a total ass of himself.
But finally, after all of this breathless speculation we make it the conclusory evaluation at the end of the Haberman narrative: "Few expect him to actually make a run, in part because the risk of failure is high and the viability of a socially liberal, Jewish mayor from New York—something he himself points out frequently—is questionable. And Elmendorf {Democratic strategist}noted that Bloomberg's actual name recognition outside cable network-centric New York is probably "not as strong as he thinks it is."
But in the mayor's case, that's a good thing, because in our view familiarity would only bring contempt.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Dying in the Roots
Errol Louis has an interesting take on the much ballyhooed-at least by certain editorialists at the News-reform effort aimed at changing politics in Albany. He doesn't think much of its top down nature-and he's spot on: "Tuesday's primary elections will test whether New York voters can convert high-minded rhetoric about reform into the gritty, practical business of winning at the polls. The odds don't look good. It's easy to demand that smart, honest, independent people run for office - but much harder to recruit, fund, support and elect them."
And in the absence of any genuine grass roots movement, reform is hard to come by: "The main problem is that civic groups, editorial boards and other pro-reform voices remain too distant from the political clubs and block and tenant associations that do the political heavy-lifting in New York. Well-intentioned public interest groups like the Citizens Union and the Brennan Center have perfected the art of analyzing the shortcomings of Albany - from ethics and disclosure rules that allow conflicts of interest to blossom to the strict hierarchy that concentrates nearly absolute power in the notorious "three men in a room" and makes gridlock and delay inevitable."
But Errol elides a key ideological point-"reform," at least as conjured up by former mayor Ed Koch, is detached from any real ideological passion-and since it is, it has little ability to attract the passions of grass roots people who are concerned about how politics is done in New York, not only because of the unsavory methods, but for the unsavory results as well.
These unsavory results are what has enlivened the tea party activists all around the country-but in NY, not so much. People are fed up about the growing size and scope of government and the out sized role of public employee unions-a role whose synergy with Leviathan is drowning the rest of us in debt; and making private sector success that much harder because of the rising tax liability that forestalls economic growth.
Fred Siegel captures this in his NY Post essay on Sunday: "New York has become what America fears. Crushed by costs imposed from Albany, the state suffers from the highest taxes, the largest budget, the greatest debt and the slowest rate of job creation in the country. The polls show America will fight back against Washington in November. But New York state is by now so thoroughly swayed by Gotham — a city characterized by Latin American levels of inequality and a Soviet level of political participation — that there is little talk of revolt here. Unlike America, New Yorkers have meekly accepted their fate."
So when Louis sees the absence of a grass roots support of reform, he is missing the extent to which these roots have been diseased by the same ideological presumptions that animate the state's ruling class. Here's his delimited view: "But Op-Eds and studies about Albany's problems don't win elections: skilled campaigners do. I'd trade the next five books about government dysfunction for a well-organized, reform-oriented political club that teaches citizens how to run a voter registration drive, raise and spend money legally, collect nominating petitions, recruit volunteers and canvass from door to door. Not enough people interested in reform know how to do these things. The result is a yawning gap between reform dreamers and political doers that will give a lot of mediocre, anti-reform pols a return trip to Albany come Tuesday."
The key retarding factor in all of this is the reality that the political clubs Louis alludes to are part of the same mobilization of bias that has caused dysfunction in the first place-and that's without pointing out that the public employee forces that drive much of the city's politics, amassed in the Working Families Party, are culprit number one in the underlying cause column. All of this, of course, is totally alien to the mindset of traditional superannuated pols such as Koch and Henry Stern.
Siegel is closer to the mark: "This is because the Obama/Pelosi policies of vast, Keynesian public spending is old hat here. New York has been pushing Keynesianism, or what Mario Cuomo called the “New York Idea,” for a half-century of relative decline. For many decades the decline of private industry upstate has been accelerated by the growth of public-sector jobs in health and education, which then have to be paid for with ever higher taxes on manufacturing and agriculture."
NY State is drowning in debt and taxes, and Koch is yakking about redistricting-notice the disconnect? Siegel does: "In much of the country, the energy of the Tea Partiers has forced both parties to deal with runaway spending. Tea Partiers, notes pollster Scott Rasmussen, are not about governing from the left or the right but about the ideal of self-government. Yet in a state run by and for the big battalions, there’s no need for citizens, as evidenced by some of the lowest rates of voter participation in the United States."
Can you imagine any weaker candidates than the three who are running to obtain the Republican nod to run against the hapless Gillibrand? There's been a total collapse of the Republican Party in this state, but the real concern should be the ennui of the electorate. Where everywhere else in the country there is anger and outrage, in NY there is quiet resignation and the lack of any cohesive Tea Party-or any other similar grass roots movement.
Make no mistake about it, with the shutting off of the federal stimulus spigot, New York will be facing the most severe fiscal crisis this side of California-and that side of Greece. The pollos are about to come home to roost-and when they do, the heretofore quiescence of the citizens will become transformed. The blow back could be both immense and salutary for the state. But if it doesn't emerge, prepare for the Empire State's transformation into a failed state.
And in the absence of any genuine grass roots movement, reform is hard to come by: "The main problem is that civic groups, editorial boards and other pro-reform voices remain too distant from the political clubs and block and tenant associations that do the political heavy-lifting in New York. Well-intentioned public interest groups like the Citizens Union and the Brennan Center have perfected the art of analyzing the shortcomings of Albany - from ethics and disclosure rules that allow conflicts of interest to blossom to the strict hierarchy that concentrates nearly absolute power in the notorious "three men in a room" and makes gridlock and delay inevitable."
But Errol elides a key ideological point-"reform," at least as conjured up by former mayor Ed Koch, is detached from any real ideological passion-and since it is, it has little ability to attract the passions of grass roots people who are concerned about how politics is done in New York, not only because of the unsavory methods, but for the unsavory results as well.
These unsavory results are what has enlivened the tea party activists all around the country-but in NY, not so much. People are fed up about the growing size and scope of government and the out sized role of public employee unions-a role whose synergy with Leviathan is drowning the rest of us in debt; and making private sector success that much harder because of the rising tax liability that forestalls economic growth.
Fred Siegel captures this in his NY Post essay on Sunday: "New York has become what America fears. Crushed by costs imposed from Albany, the state suffers from the highest taxes, the largest budget, the greatest debt and the slowest rate of job creation in the country. The polls show America will fight back against Washington in November. But New York state is by now so thoroughly swayed by Gotham — a city characterized by Latin American levels of inequality and a Soviet level of political participation — that there is little talk of revolt here. Unlike America, New Yorkers have meekly accepted their fate."
So when Louis sees the absence of a grass roots support of reform, he is missing the extent to which these roots have been diseased by the same ideological presumptions that animate the state's ruling class. Here's his delimited view: "But Op-Eds and studies about Albany's problems don't win elections: skilled campaigners do. I'd trade the next five books about government dysfunction for a well-organized, reform-oriented political club that teaches citizens how to run a voter registration drive, raise and spend money legally, collect nominating petitions, recruit volunteers and canvass from door to door. Not enough people interested in reform know how to do these things. The result is a yawning gap between reform dreamers and political doers that will give a lot of mediocre, anti-reform pols a return trip to Albany come Tuesday."
The key retarding factor in all of this is the reality that the political clubs Louis alludes to are part of the same mobilization of bias that has caused dysfunction in the first place-and that's without pointing out that the public employee forces that drive much of the city's politics, amassed in the Working Families Party, are culprit number one in the underlying cause column. All of this, of course, is totally alien to the mindset of traditional superannuated pols such as Koch and Henry Stern.
Siegel is closer to the mark: "This is because the Obama/Pelosi policies of vast, Keynesian public spending is old hat here. New York has been pushing Keynesianism, or what Mario Cuomo called the “New York Idea,” for a half-century of relative decline. For many decades the decline of private industry upstate has been accelerated by the growth of public-sector jobs in health and education, which then have to be paid for with ever higher taxes on manufacturing and agriculture."
NY State is drowning in debt and taxes, and Koch is yakking about redistricting-notice the disconnect? Siegel does: "In much of the country, the energy of the Tea Partiers has forced both parties to deal with runaway spending. Tea Partiers, notes pollster Scott Rasmussen, are not about governing from the left or the right but about the ideal of self-government. Yet in a state run by and for the big battalions, there’s no need for citizens, as evidenced by some of the lowest rates of voter participation in the United States."
Can you imagine any weaker candidates than the three who are running to obtain the Republican nod to run against the hapless Gillibrand? There's been a total collapse of the Republican Party in this state, but the real concern should be the ennui of the electorate. Where everywhere else in the country there is anger and outrage, in NY there is quiet resignation and the lack of any cohesive Tea Party-or any other similar grass roots movement.
Make no mistake about it, with the shutting off of the federal stimulus spigot, New York will be facing the most severe fiscal crisis this side of California-and that side of Greece. The pollos are about to come home to roost-and when they do, the heretofore quiescence of the citizens will become transformed. The blow back could be both immense and salutary for the state. But if it doesn't emerge, prepare for the Empire State's transformation into a failed state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
