The Village Voice's Tom Robbins pens a satiric piece on the activities of the "revolutionary" Senator Carl Kruger, and his role in thwarting the MTA. Instead of reading as if irony was its underlying theme, however, the article actually appears to laud Brooklyn's own populist icon; calling him, "Vanguard of the Senate Revolution:"
"Carl Kruger, state senator from Brooklyn's most southern reaches, barreled up the thruway to Albany last week in his black 2008 Cadillac sedan. He was in a hurry to get there because, thanks to the Democrats finally winning control of the State Senate this year—Hurray! Power to the People!—he has a great deal to say these days about bills and budgets. This influence stems from his new position as chairman of the mighty Senate Finance Committee. In fact, now that this blessed new day has dawned, and the Senate is no longer a Republican graveyard of progressive hopes and dreams, Kruger is the people, and the people have finally got the power."
Robbins goes on to describe Kruger's role in the attack on the MTA monolith: "The Chairman is 59 years old, built like a fireplug, and the possessor of a Brooklyn mouth that roars. Here he was late last week, thundering on the telephone about this latest attack on the people: the push to charge tolls on drivers crossing the East River..."This is not just a battle over the so-called Ravitch rescue plan for the MTA," says Kruger, biting off his words like Hugo Chávez firing up the masses. "This is a feeding frenzy by the Manhattan elite at the expense of the outer boroughs!"
Well, we can't quite see the Chavez comparison, but what Robbins is missing in his attempt at a satiric belittlement, is the fact that there are a lot of folks-particularly in the 27th senatorial district-who think that the tolling of the bridges is a redux of the Bloomberg congestion tax; and, yes, it is a brainchild of the Manhattan liberal elites to boot. Let's not forget that the congestion tax was wildly unpopular, and that most folks see the MTA, and not the recalcitrant senators like Kruger, as the real enemy.
And in his mocking of the senate Dems-and Kruger's-ascension to power, Robbins appears to elide subtly from satire to unavoidable praise: "Thanks to the people's victory at the polls last fall, this is not empty talk. Kruger now commands the vast arsenal of legislative weapons enjoyed by the Senate majority—weaponry that was once aimed at the people's interests by Republican reactionaries, but which is now rightly aimed at their true enemies."I am prepared to use the full subpoena power of the finance committee," said the Chairman. His target? Nothing less than the MTA itself. "The goal is to have them open their books, pull up the venetian blinds, and shed some sunlight on that dark and musty entity that they call the MTA," he said."
Are we missing something here? Is our friend Tom really mocking the idea that the MTA is an enemy of the people? And Robbins goes on to underscore what is, at least for a great many outer borough folks, a legitimate source of their anger-at both tolling the bridges and the MTA: "Part of his anger at the agency, the Chairman acknowledges, is personal: The district he represents has long been shortchanged by the mass transit system. True, as the blatantly pro-MTA Daily News pointed out last week, there are 20 subway stations in the neighborhoods Kruger represents, serving some 109,000 riders daily. But, as the Chairman understands, the personal is political. What the newspapers don't tell you is this sad fact: "When they built the subways, we were not only ignored, we were treated like we didn't exist," he says. "We have an antiquated bus network that drops us off at the Flatbush Junction. That's it."
Anyone living in South Brooklyn neighborhoods like Mill Basin, Gerritson Beach and Georgetown, will spend around two hours getting into the city if they opt for mass transit-a bit longer than it takes us to drive up to Albany! So for the Krugerites, this mockery is their reality; and the MTA lies at the center of the controversy: "Because of this second-class-citizen status, local residents like the Chairman must rely on vehicles like his mighty Cadillac to get around. Not to say he doesn't sometimes use a Metrocard..."Do I have a Metrocard? Yes, I do," he told us last Thursday, moments before the Post pranksters caught up with him. "Sometimes it goes empty. My most use is not so much the subway because the subway takes me nowhere."
Which is precisely what many Brooklynites feel. So Robbins needs to sharpen his satiric subtlety; because when satire strays to close to reality it loses its bite-and the attack on Kommandant Kruger slips easily into something else: a paean to someone who has stood up to Speaker Silver and the rest of the liberal establishment when no one else would or could.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Dr. Frieden, Bloomberg's Super Nanny, Isn't Worth His Salt
There's a fascinating article in the NY Times by John Tierney on the New York City experiment with reducing salt in our diets; and the piece underscores the unscientific, and frankly frightening, methods employed by the good doctor in his pursuit of a liberal fascist Valhalla. The headline says a lot: "Public Policy That Makes Test Subjects of Us All."
Having gotten away with his arbitrary calorie counting assault on fast foods-and the businesses that purvey them, Frieden, Mike Bloomberg's Nanny in Chief, now is looking for more guinea pigs to socially experiment on:
"Suppose you wanted to test the effects of halving the amount of salt in people’s diets. If you were an academic researcher, you’d have to persuade your institutional review board that you had considered the risks and obtained informed consent from the participants...But if you are the mayor of New York, no such constraints apply. You can simply announce, as Michael Bloomberg did, that the city is starting a “nationwide initiative” to pressure the food industry and restaurant chains to cut salt intake by half over the next decade. Why bother with consent forms when you can automatically enroll everyone in the experiment?"
It was exactly so with his fast food assault. Armed with no scientific data from peer reviewed efficacy studies-but bolstered by the propagandistic pretensions of a bunch of unscientific busy bodies from Center for Science in the Public Interest-Frieden proclaimed that posting calorie counts on menus would save countless lives. Well, he's back: "And why bother with a control group when you already know the experiment’s outcome? The city’s health commissioner, Thomas R. Frieden, has enumerated the results. If the food industry follows the city’s wishes, the health department’s Web site announces, “that action will lower health care costs and prevent 150,000 premature deaths every year.”
Was there ever a bigger medical fake, phony and fraud than this quack? But Frieden's intervention in our lives is sanctioned by the great medical maven himself-Dr. Mike Bloomberg, a man whose scientific and medical knowledge has been nurtured through osmosis; and by ostentatious donations to the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. And the danger lies in the fact that these two fakers have the power to coercively tell people how to behave. All for their own good, of course.
But what does the extant work on salt suggest? According to Tierney, you might be a bit surprised: "You might, for instance, take note of a recent clinical trial in which heart patients put on a restricted-sodium diet fared worse than those on a normal diet. In light of new research suggesting that eating salt improves mood and combats depression, you might be alert for psychological effects of the new diet. You might worry that people would react to less-salty food by eating more of it, a trend you could monitor by comparing them with a control group."
The fact here is that no one has any idea how people will react to less salt in their diet-just as Friedberg had no clue what the impact of calorie posting would be, aside from knowing that it would be fun to force small businesses to spend thousands of dollars in jumping through bureaucratic hoops: "No one knows how people would react to less-salty food, much less what would happen to their health."
So what's the problem here? The problem lies with the way that the Friedberg's of the world want to impose their life style choices and social views on others-damn the scientific evidence when you're one of the chosen true believers. And it's a slippery slope from this kind of imposition, to others that are far less benign; even while appearing to be imposed out of genuine love and concern for the well being of the masses.
This is precisely what Tocqueville called "soft despotism," a paternalistic lassitude that saps the liberty of a people: "In Democracy in America, Tocqueville suggested that democracy was capable of breeding its own form of despotism, albeit one without the edges of Jacobin or Bonapartist dictatorship with which Europeans were all too familiar. The book spoke of “an immense protective power” which took all responsibility for everyone's happiness-just so long as this power remained “sole agent and judge of it.” This power, Tocqueville wrote, would “resemble parental authority” but would try to keep people “in perpetual childhood” by relieving people “from all the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living.”
Sound familiar? Folks like Friedberg have little faith in the intellect of the folks; or in their ability to act in their own best interests. Nanny emerges and enervates the free spirits of a people: "After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
So, who care about the facts-kind of like Al Gore, isn't it?-when we have a more important task at hand; remaking the populace into our own image of health. And let's put aside the fact that reducing salt isn't good for everyone. The goal is control-and the resultant passivity that allows elites like Friedberg to monitor and regulate how people should live.
As Tierney points out: "In the past year, researchers led by Salvatore Paterna of the University of Palermo have reported one of the most rigorous experiments so far: a randomized clinical trial of heart patients who were put on different diets. Those on a low-sodium diet were more likely to be rehospitalized and to die, results that prompted the researchers to ask, “Is sodium an old enemy or a new friend?” Those results, while hardly a reason for you to start eating more salt, are a reminder that salt affects a great deal more than blood pressure. Lowering it can cause problems with blood flow to the kidneys and insulin resistance, which can increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks."
The Friedberg regime is truly frightening-with a B. F. Skinner kind of behavioral model that sees all citizens as subjects to be experimented on. The most foreboding aspect of all this is, well to put it kindly, these folks are full of crapola-making policy based on pseudo science-much as the antifat campaign was a few years ago: "That antifat campaign, like the antisalt campaign, was endorsed by prominent groups and federal agencies before the campaigners’ theory was tested in rigorous trials. It too seemed quite logical — in theory. But in practice the results were dismal, as demonstrated eventually by clinical trials and by the expanding waistlines of Americans. People followed the advice in the “food pyramid” to reduce the percentage of fat in the diet, but they got more obese, perhaps because they ate so many other ingredients in foods with “low fat” labels."
But if form holds, and Mike Bloomberg is able to purchase the NY electorate once again, we willl really find out that the third time is no charm. And the man behind the curtain is little in stature, but he has big plans for how you should live your life.
Having gotten away with his arbitrary calorie counting assault on fast foods-and the businesses that purvey them, Frieden, Mike Bloomberg's Nanny in Chief, now is looking for more guinea pigs to socially experiment on:
"Suppose you wanted to test the effects of halving the amount of salt in people’s diets. If you were an academic researcher, you’d have to persuade your institutional review board that you had considered the risks and obtained informed consent from the participants...But if you are the mayor of New York, no such constraints apply. You can simply announce, as Michael Bloomberg did, that the city is starting a “nationwide initiative” to pressure the food industry and restaurant chains to cut salt intake by half over the next decade. Why bother with consent forms when you can automatically enroll everyone in the experiment?"
It was exactly so with his fast food assault. Armed with no scientific data from peer reviewed efficacy studies-but bolstered by the propagandistic pretensions of a bunch of unscientific busy bodies from Center for Science in the Public Interest-Frieden proclaimed that posting calorie counts on menus would save countless lives. Well, he's back: "And why bother with a control group when you already know the experiment’s outcome? The city’s health commissioner, Thomas R. Frieden, has enumerated the results. If the food industry follows the city’s wishes, the health department’s Web site announces, “that action will lower health care costs and prevent 150,000 premature deaths every year.”
Was there ever a bigger medical fake, phony and fraud than this quack? But Frieden's intervention in our lives is sanctioned by the great medical maven himself-Dr. Mike Bloomberg, a man whose scientific and medical knowledge has been nurtured through osmosis; and by ostentatious donations to the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. And the danger lies in the fact that these two fakers have the power to coercively tell people how to behave. All for their own good, of course.
But what does the extant work on salt suggest? According to Tierney, you might be a bit surprised: "You might, for instance, take note of a recent clinical trial in which heart patients put on a restricted-sodium diet fared worse than those on a normal diet. In light of new research suggesting that eating salt improves mood and combats depression, you might be alert for psychological effects of the new diet. You might worry that people would react to less-salty food by eating more of it, a trend you could monitor by comparing them with a control group."
The fact here is that no one has any idea how people will react to less salt in their diet-just as Friedberg had no clue what the impact of calorie posting would be, aside from knowing that it would be fun to force small businesses to spend thousands of dollars in jumping through bureaucratic hoops: "No one knows how people would react to less-salty food, much less what would happen to their health."
So what's the problem here? The problem lies with the way that the Friedberg's of the world want to impose their life style choices and social views on others-damn the scientific evidence when you're one of the chosen true believers. And it's a slippery slope from this kind of imposition, to others that are far less benign; even while appearing to be imposed out of genuine love and concern for the well being of the masses.
This is precisely what Tocqueville called "soft despotism," a paternalistic lassitude that saps the liberty of a people: "In Democracy in America, Tocqueville suggested that democracy was capable of breeding its own form of despotism, albeit one without the edges of Jacobin or Bonapartist dictatorship with which Europeans were all too familiar. The book spoke of “an immense protective power” which took all responsibility for everyone's happiness-just so long as this power remained “sole agent and judge of it.” This power, Tocqueville wrote, would “resemble parental authority” but would try to keep people “in perpetual childhood” by relieving people “from all the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living.”
Sound familiar? Folks like Friedberg have little faith in the intellect of the folks; or in their ability to act in their own best interests. Nanny emerges and enervates the free spirits of a people: "After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
So, who care about the facts-kind of like Al Gore, isn't it?-when we have a more important task at hand; remaking the populace into our own image of health. And let's put aside the fact that reducing salt isn't good for everyone. The goal is control-and the resultant passivity that allows elites like Friedberg to monitor and regulate how people should live.
As Tierney points out: "In the past year, researchers led by Salvatore Paterna of the University of Palermo have reported one of the most rigorous experiments so far: a randomized clinical trial of heart patients who were put on different diets. Those on a low-sodium diet were more likely to be rehospitalized and to die, results that prompted the researchers to ask, “Is sodium an old enemy or a new friend?” Those results, while hardly a reason for you to start eating more salt, are a reminder that salt affects a great deal more than blood pressure. Lowering it can cause problems with blood flow to the kidneys and insulin resistance, which can increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks."
The Friedberg regime is truly frightening-with a B. F. Skinner kind of behavioral model that sees all citizens as subjects to be experimented on. The most foreboding aspect of all this is, well to put it kindly, these folks are full of crapola-making policy based on pseudo science-much as the antifat campaign was a few years ago: "That antifat campaign, like the antisalt campaign, was endorsed by prominent groups and federal agencies before the campaigners’ theory was tested in rigorous trials. It too seemed quite logical — in theory. But in practice the results were dismal, as demonstrated eventually by clinical trials and by the expanding waistlines of Americans. People followed the advice in the “food pyramid” to reduce the percentage of fat in the diet, but they got more obese, perhaps because they ate so many other ingredients in foods with “low fat” labels."
But if form holds, and Mike Bloomberg is able to purchase the NY electorate once again, we willl really find out that the third time is no charm. And the man behind the curtain is little in stature, but he has big plans for how you should live your life.
Push Comes to Shove
As the NY Times is reporting today, the Bloomberg campaign is beginning to discover its inner Sid Vicious: "He is comfortably ahead in the polls. He has the vast powers of incumbency at his disposal. He has the backing of the city’s most powerful business interests. But that does not seem to be enough for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. As his campaign sought to overpower any candidate considering challenging him, Mr. Bloomberg commissioned a telephone poll last month that spread derogatory information about Representative Anthony D. Weiner, one of the mayor’s possible rivals in the race."
What emerges from this, is the stark reality that the mayor's unprecedented wealth is corrosive of any real democratic process: "Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause, said the episode underscored the dangers of a candidate with unlimited resources. “It just goes to show, if you have too much money in your campaign, you don’t use it productively,” she said. “He’s hired so many consultants who are looking for something to do.”
While the Times continues to do stand out reporting on all things Bloomberg, we are intrigued to see how the editorialists over on Eighth Avenue will treat this corrupting phenomenon-now that the paper did its own self aggrandizing about face on term limits. Can we get more "special interests" than the mayor's own amour propre?
And check out the follicly challenged Wolfson's response to the gilded phone attack: "Asked if the Bloomberg campaign had commissioned the telephone messages, Howard Wolfson, a Bloomberg spokesman, declined to respond directly. But Mr. Wolfson denied that the campaign had engaged in any push-polling. “Unfortunately for Congressman Weiner, the fact that he takes money from lobbyists and special interests, misses votes and has not passed any significant legislation isn’t a push poll — it’s his record,” Mr. Wolfson said."
Of course, overturning the will of the voters, suborning the bumbling city legislature, and buying elections with unheard of cash outlays is, what, good government in the Wolfson weltanschauung? Imagine if Weiner had $100 million to catalogue the Bloomberg Albany fiascos and his stadium bumbling? Not to mention his term limits flipping.
The possibility still exists, however, that this kind of plutocratic heavy handedness will backfire in an age of austerity and resentment. But, as they say, it ain't the way to bet.
What emerges from this, is the stark reality that the mayor's unprecedented wealth is corrosive of any real democratic process: "Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause, said the episode underscored the dangers of a candidate with unlimited resources. “It just goes to show, if you have too much money in your campaign, you don’t use it productively,” she said. “He’s hired so many consultants who are looking for something to do.”
While the Times continues to do stand out reporting on all things Bloomberg, we are intrigued to see how the editorialists over on Eighth Avenue will treat this corrupting phenomenon-now that the paper did its own self aggrandizing about face on term limits. Can we get more "special interests" than the mayor's own amour propre?
And check out the follicly challenged Wolfson's response to the gilded phone attack: "Asked if the Bloomberg campaign had commissioned the telephone messages, Howard Wolfson, a Bloomberg spokesman, declined to respond directly. But Mr. Wolfson denied that the campaign had engaged in any push-polling. “Unfortunately for Congressman Weiner, the fact that he takes money from lobbyists and special interests, misses votes and has not passed any significant legislation isn’t a push poll — it’s his record,” Mr. Wolfson said."
Of course, overturning the will of the voters, suborning the bumbling city legislature, and buying elections with unheard of cash outlays is, what, good government in the Wolfson weltanschauung? Imagine if Weiner had $100 million to catalogue the Bloomberg Albany fiascos and his stadium bumbling? Not to mention his term limits flipping.
The possibility still exists, however, that this kind of plutocratic heavy handedness will backfire in an age of austerity and resentment. But, as they say, it ain't the way to bet.
Last Store Standing
In the recently concluded budget fight over wine in grocery stores, the successful opposition portrayed their fight as a defense of Mom and Pop stores on Main Street. Whatever the merits of this argument might be for the box store world of upstate New York-and, quite frankly, we don't see any-it really falls flat in the city of New York; as more and more small stores on the city's main streets succumb to economic hard times: "Bye-bye, mom and pop. Small businesses in the Bronx are disappearing, according to a report released by Rep. Anthony Weiner. It shows that 9.1%, or 105, of the 1,156 stores along seven main shopping strips in the borough have closed or are in the process of closing."
And it ain't the big boxes that are at fault in the city's small store plight: "Michael Palomba, 51, owner of Palomba Academy of Music & Dance, said he has watched his area of E. Gun Hill Road deteriorate as the Internet and chain stores grow, the economy plummets and the city makes the environment less welcoming to businesses...Palomba said the city “chokes” local businesses with regular sanitation citations, tax rate increases and fines from the Fire and Health departments."
This dire situation has led to the introduction of the Small Business Protection bill at the city council. But does anyone think that the Quinnberg administration will let this bill sail through so that the city's bodegas can get some relief? Bloomberg is no fan of the little guy; and as for Chris Quinn, how does Invasion of the Body Snatchers sound as a description of her new political persona as the mayor's handmaiden?
Will leave the last word to a Bronx bodeguero: "Waley Alzubide, 23, who owns a bodega at 900 E. Gun Hill Road, is weathering a time when goods are more expensive, people have less money to spend and stores are closing around him. He said much more will be needed to rebuild his belief in the American dream. “It doesn’t look like the America that people who come from different countries come here for,” he said. “If you have a family and you are making $600 a week, you can’t make it.”
And it ain't the big boxes that are at fault in the city's small store plight: "Michael Palomba, 51, owner of Palomba Academy of Music & Dance, said he has watched his area of E. Gun Hill Road deteriorate as the Internet and chain stores grow, the economy plummets and the city makes the environment less welcoming to businesses...Palomba said the city “chokes” local businesses with regular sanitation citations, tax rate increases and fines from the Fire and Health departments."
This dire situation has led to the introduction of the Small Business Protection bill at the city council. But does anyone think that the Quinnberg administration will let this bill sail through so that the city's bodegas can get some relief? Bloomberg is no fan of the little guy; and as for Chris Quinn, how does Invasion of the Body Snatchers sound as a description of her new political persona as the mayor's handmaiden?
Will leave the last word to a Bronx bodeguero: "Waley Alzubide, 23, who owns a bodega at 900 E. Gun Hill Road, is weathering a time when goods are more expensive, people have less money to spend and stores are closing around him. He said much more will be needed to rebuild his belief in the American dream. “It doesn’t look like the America that people who come from different countries come here for,” he said. “If you have a family and you are making $600 a week, you can’t make it.”
Paterson's Limbo
Governor David Paterson continues to practice his election poll limbo; along with that old refrain from the limbo-watching crowd: "how low can you go." As the NY Post reports this morning: "A staggering 63 percent of voters say Gov. Paterson does not deserve to be elected to a full term next year, and 53 percent want him to declare now that he won't run, according to a poll released yesterday."
Paterson, for his part, remained eerily upbeat, blaming his low polling on the economic hard times, and not his own performance: "Paterson blamed his poor showing on his efforts to grapple with the massive state budget deficit. "Right now, we have a historically high budget deficit, so it would follow that whoever is supervising it would have historically low poll numbers," he said yesterday."
This is known as whistling passed the graveyard. How many sitting governor's would lose to a challenger from their own party by over 40% of those polled? But that's what Paterson faces if he were to find himself in a showdown with Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. So, as Liz pointed out yesterday: "Top New York Democrats have privately set a deadline of early November for Gov. Paterson to turn his poll numbers around or they'll urge him not to run next year.
"The idea is to let him get through the budget and get through the summer," said a prominent Democratic donor who sees the fall elections as the cutoff for Paterson's improvement."
How likely is that? Not so much if you consider the governor's raw leadership skills. In his case, it would take an extremely eloquent and charismatic fellow to somehow emerge from this kind of morass; and does anyone think that David Paterson is that fellow? The reality is that Paterson's poll numbers are well deserved-with a dismal year's performance that culminated in his ceding governing authority to the state's most liberal leader, the assembly speaker Sheldon Silver. The end result, was a budget that did a 180 from the fiscal austerity rhetoric that had originally helped Paterson to attain some decent poll numbers last summer.
Which is precisely as the Daily News' Bill Hammond sees this dismal scene: "Stick a fork in Gov. Paterson. He's as good as done.The budget battle was his last, best chance to regain the shattered faith of New Yorkers, and he blew it. He promised a budget that would rein in out-of-control spending in the face of a terrible economy. He promised to avoid job-killing tax hikes. He delivered exactly the opposite - a bloated plan that allows spending to soar and wallops overburdened taxpayers with $8 billion in new levies."
And the governor's spin class has only succeeded in making us all dizzy: "The biggest fib of all is Paterson's claim to have controlled spending and conquered future budget gaps. In fact, deficits are guaranteed to explode in 2012, when the federal stimulus money runs out and the temporary income tax hike expires. Add it up, and they're not just trying to tell us the glass is half full. They're telling us up is down and black is white."
If Democratic leaders don't find a way to get Paterson to exit gracefully, they may well be facing a bloodbath in 2010: "State Republicans have their fannies in fewer legislative and congressional seats than since the mists of political time. They control no statewide offices. Even their inventory of local government chairs looks as spare as the shelves of a Third World department store. Republicans can't even take advantage of opportunities to recapture offices that, based on enrollment, they never should have lost. As bleak a scenario as this is for a party that only recently held the governor's mansion, the state Senate and other centers of power, the Republicans may have the Democrats right where they want them. And that's taxing, spending, flailing and feuding."
And it is the state senate where the putative comeback will take place, that is unless Paterson is able to see the handwriting on the wall: "The Democrats' actions on the state budget — on top of other perceived disasters — could fuel a quick Republican rebound next year. The most likely place for GOP gains is the state Senate. The Democrats' control is so tenuous that the illness of one of their members delayed the budget for at least a day because they didn't have an extra vote to pass it. And the boiling anger in swing suburban and upstate communities over they way they feel the New York City-based Democratic leadership treated them could help the party reclaim its majority. The Democrats, who held the line on the state spending not driven by federal stimulus funds, may have a case that the budget is not as unfair as Republicans and regional activists claim."
So, if the party is going to avoid this debacle in the making, someone needs to gracefully give Paterson the Ted Mack hook; and the fawning wagon-circling by fellow Harlemites doesn't bode well for gracefulness: "Embattled Gov. David Paterson got some support earlier today from three fellow Harlem Democrats, who rallied around him and (at least in the case of Rep. Charlie Rangel), accused the media of giving him a bad rap. Said Rangel, who noted he's had his own "differences with the press," to Paterson: "...If you were in a boat and you got out of the boat and walked the waters, the newspaper would report ‘Governor Paterson can’t swim.’ And so, I want you to know that we don’t control the ink that the reporters have, but throughout this great state, and throughout the congressional delegation, we’re looking forward to your continued leadership and to the community, thank you so much for being you."
If good sense doesn't prevail here, Paterson will be joining the hapless Hall of Fame-joining David Dinkins in more ways the one if his refusal to leave the stage ushers in a new era of Guiliani. But we don't expect the governor's poll numbers to experience a Lourdes curing moment; nor do we think that the Rangel-style cheer leading will last while poll numbers remain frozen in record depths. Come September, as we have already suggested, David Paterson will be playing Groucho's Captain Spaulding; telling us all: "Hello, I must be going."
Paterson, for his part, remained eerily upbeat, blaming his low polling on the economic hard times, and not his own performance: "Paterson blamed his poor showing on his efforts to grapple with the massive state budget deficit. "Right now, we have a historically high budget deficit, so it would follow that whoever is supervising it would have historically low poll numbers," he said yesterday."
This is known as whistling passed the graveyard. How many sitting governor's would lose to a challenger from their own party by over 40% of those polled? But that's what Paterson faces if he were to find himself in a showdown with Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. So, as Liz pointed out yesterday: "Top New York Democrats have privately set a deadline of early November for Gov. Paterson to turn his poll numbers around or they'll urge him not to run next year.
"The idea is to let him get through the budget and get through the summer," said a prominent Democratic donor who sees the fall elections as the cutoff for Paterson's improvement."
How likely is that? Not so much if you consider the governor's raw leadership skills. In his case, it would take an extremely eloquent and charismatic fellow to somehow emerge from this kind of morass; and does anyone think that David Paterson is that fellow? The reality is that Paterson's poll numbers are well deserved-with a dismal year's performance that culminated in his ceding governing authority to the state's most liberal leader, the assembly speaker Sheldon Silver. The end result, was a budget that did a 180 from the fiscal austerity rhetoric that had originally helped Paterson to attain some decent poll numbers last summer.
Which is precisely as the Daily News' Bill Hammond sees this dismal scene: "Stick a fork in Gov. Paterson. He's as good as done.The budget battle was his last, best chance to regain the shattered faith of New Yorkers, and he blew it. He promised a budget that would rein in out-of-control spending in the face of a terrible economy. He promised to avoid job-killing tax hikes. He delivered exactly the opposite - a bloated plan that allows spending to soar and wallops overburdened taxpayers with $8 billion in new levies."
And the governor's spin class has only succeeded in making us all dizzy: "The biggest fib of all is Paterson's claim to have controlled spending and conquered future budget gaps. In fact, deficits are guaranteed to explode in 2012, when the federal stimulus money runs out and the temporary income tax hike expires. Add it up, and they're not just trying to tell us the glass is half full. They're telling us up is down and black is white."
If Democratic leaders don't find a way to get Paterson to exit gracefully, they may well be facing a bloodbath in 2010: "State Republicans have their fannies in fewer legislative and congressional seats than since the mists of political time. They control no statewide offices. Even their inventory of local government chairs looks as spare as the shelves of a Third World department store. Republicans can't even take advantage of opportunities to recapture offices that, based on enrollment, they never should have lost. As bleak a scenario as this is for a party that only recently held the governor's mansion, the state Senate and other centers of power, the Republicans may have the Democrats right where they want them. And that's taxing, spending, flailing and feuding."
And it is the state senate where the putative comeback will take place, that is unless Paterson is able to see the handwriting on the wall: "The Democrats' actions on the state budget — on top of other perceived disasters — could fuel a quick Republican rebound next year. The most likely place for GOP gains is the state Senate. The Democrats' control is so tenuous that the illness of one of their members delayed the budget for at least a day because they didn't have an extra vote to pass it. And the boiling anger in swing suburban and upstate communities over they way they feel the New York City-based Democratic leadership treated them could help the party reclaim its majority. The Democrats, who held the line on the state spending not driven by federal stimulus funds, may have a case that the budget is not as unfair as Republicans and regional activists claim."
So, if the party is going to avoid this debacle in the making, someone needs to gracefully give Paterson the Ted Mack hook; and the fawning wagon-circling by fellow Harlemites doesn't bode well for gracefulness: "Embattled Gov. David Paterson got some support earlier today from three fellow Harlem Democrats, who rallied around him and (at least in the case of Rep. Charlie Rangel), accused the media of giving him a bad rap. Said Rangel, who noted he's had his own "differences with the press," to Paterson: "...If you were in a boat and you got out of the boat and walked the waters, the newspaper would report ‘Governor Paterson can’t swim.’ And so, I want you to know that we don’t control the ink that the reporters have, but throughout this great state, and throughout the congressional delegation, we’re looking forward to your continued leadership and to the community, thank you so much for being you."
If good sense doesn't prevail here, Paterson will be joining the hapless Hall of Fame-joining David Dinkins in more ways the one if his refusal to leave the stage ushers in a new era of Guiliani. But we don't expect the governor's poll numbers to experience a Lourdes curing moment; nor do we think that the Rangel-style cheer leading will last while poll numbers remain frozen in record depths. Come September, as we have already suggested, David Paterson will be playing Groucho's Captain Spaulding; telling us all: "Hello, I must be going."
Monday, April 06, 2009
In Loco Parentis
This is a tale of two stories-one from parents frustrated over the lack of access and responsiveness from the Bloomberg/Klein school apparatus; and the other from, who else?-the aparatchiks themselves who tout all of their efforts to engage said parents. Here's the NY Daily News on the parents' frustration: "Parents and advocates say they are shut out of information allowing them to keep tabs on how the mayor's management of the school system is working.
Many report extensive delays and barriers getting access to public information just as a showdown looms over control of the city's schools. Mayor Bloomberg is the first to have direct control over the school system, but the law giving him that power is up for renewal this year."
The NY Post presents the official version: "The biggest complaint about mayoral control of the schools is that parents have been shut out of key decision-making and their participation in educational affairs has been generally discouraged. But Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein insist that nothing could be further from the truth..."
Here's how they see their stewardship on this issue: "Since taking over the schools in 2003, the Bloomberg administration has:
* Hired a parent coordinator to be a point of contact in every school. And there's at least one parent advocate in every district.
* Created the Office of Family Engagement and Advocacy, headed by "chief mom" Martine Guerrier, to focus more attention on addressing grievances raised by parents from the school level to the chancellor's office.
* Required that parental involvement be part of principals' job evaluations.
* Made sure parents get more information about the quality of their schools through A-to-F progress reports...." And so on, and so on"
What to make of the great divide? It just might be that, in spite of all of the bureaucratic "remedies" for parent disaffection, the basic ruling principle of top down management animates the governing system in spite of all of the apparent efforts to involve parents. As Dick Dadey told the News: "There is widespread frustration over public access to this information," said Dick Dadey, director of the Citizens Union. "From parents, teachers - it's a common complaint." Frustration is mounting even after Bloomberg recently told the Sunnyside, Queens, Chamber of Commerce that public information should be easily obtained. "This is your government," he said. "I've never understood governments that don't put out all the information, good and bad. The public owns the information." Tell that to lower Manhattan parents' council President Lisa Donlan, who says she can't get the most basic school data."
So it appears that all of the vaunted efforts at parental involvement are more cosmetic than tangible-there to appear good rather than to be good. As the Post points out: "Despite the efforts, Klein is the first to admit that complaining about the lack of parental and community involvement has been a sore point. "There are things we could have done better on engaging the community, and we will work to improve those," Klein said. Still, some parents complain that they have to navigate a bureaucracy to solve problems. "It is too easy to become an authoritarian when you're given some power and nobody is there to stop you from taking all of the power," said Robert Coloras, president of District 26's parents' CEC in Queens."
This leaves it to the legislature to sort out what's real and what's Memorex; a place where the mayor hasn't had much success-and deservedly so, in our view. It's one venue where Bloomberg's money hasn't gotten any bang. Let's hope this doesn't change.
Many report extensive delays and barriers getting access to public information just as a showdown looms over control of the city's schools. Mayor Bloomberg is the first to have direct control over the school system, but the law giving him that power is up for renewal this year."
The NY Post presents the official version: "The biggest complaint about mayoral control of the schools is that parents have been shut out of key decision-making and their participation in educational affairs has been generally discouraged. But Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein insist that nothing could be further from the truth..."
Here's how they see their stewardship on this issue: "Since taking over the schools in 2003, the Bloomberg administration has:
* Hired a parent coordinator to be a point of contact in every school. And there's at least one parent advocate in every district.
* Created the Office of Family Engagement and Advocacy, headed by "chief mom" Martine Guerrier, to focus more attention on addressing grievances raised by parents from the school level to the chancellor's office.
* Required that parental involvement be part of principals' job evaluations.
* Made sure parents get more information about the quality of their schools through A-to-F progress reports...." And so on, and so on"
What to make of the great divide? It just might be that, in spite of all of the bureaucratic "remedies" for parent disaffection, the basic ruling principle of top down management animates the governing system in spite of all of the apparent efforts to involve parents. As Dick Dadey told the News: "There is widespread frustration over public access to this information," said Dick Dadey, director of the Citizens Union. "From parents, teachers - it's a common complaint." Frustration is mounting even after Bloomberg recently told the Sunnyside, Queens, Chamber of Commerce that public information should be easily obtained. "This is your government," he said. "I've never understood governments that don't put out all the information, good and bad. The public owns the information." Tell that to lower Manhattan parents' council President Lisa Donlan, who says she can't get the most basic school data."
So it appears that all of the vaunted efforts at parental involvement are more cosmetic than tangible-there to appear good rather than to be good. As the Post points out: "Despite the efforts, Klein is the first to admit that complaining about the lack of parental and community involvement has been a sore point. "There are things we could have done better on engaging the community, and we will work to improve those," Klein said. Still, some parents complain that they have to navigate a bureaucracy to solve problems. "It is too easy to become an authoritarian when you're given some power and nobody is there to stop you from taking all of the power," said Robert Coloras, president of District 26's parents' CEC in Queens."
This leaves it to the legislature to sort out what's real and what's Memorex; a place where the mayor hasn't had much success-and deservedly so, in our view. It's one venue where Bloomberg's money hasn't gotten any bang. Let's hope this doesn't change.
Budgeting Back
According to the NY Times, the state's budget that was passed on Friday may have to be held together with chewing gum and tape-and it's almost inevitable that, because of revenue shortfalls, it will have to be revisited: "But the document may only be a first draft. The governor, a Democrat, has warned that it is likely to be reopened this year amid declining state tax revenues and Wall Street’s troubles. There are questions whether the Legislature has seriously addressed the state’s problems; lawmakers are relying on federal stimulus payments over the next two years and on a three-year state tax increase on the highest earners to balance the budget."
Given this need for another cash infusion-and with taxes and fees already sky high-it is a good bet that wine in grocery stores will be given a second look; and that second look should be crafted around a compromise that allows NY's liquor stores to expand their limited retail offerings. This is a scenario that forward thinking liquor store owners have already begun to embrace.
One such owner, writing in last month's NY Times, outlined his willingness to embrace a change in the law if it were to include his business as well: "But these proposals will bring increased competition, and it’s only fair that there should be commensurate opportunities to expand our small businesses. If supermarkets can have multiple locations, why are we prohibited (pardon the pun) from operating more than one store? Or from keeping the same hours? If grocery stores can sell a Côtes du Rhône, then why shouldn’t we be able to sell baguettes and cheese? How about artisan beer? Or just reusable shopping bags? (A Rochester store was recently fined a whopping $10,000 for doing this.) What goes for the grocery stores should go for us too."
And the compromise that will be most viable will also need to include some ability to address the question of underage sales. This is something that Assemblyman Ortiz has addresses in a draft piece of legislation that will allow for training for store owners and mandatory carding of all purchasers of alcoholic beverages-something that Florida mandates with much success. Now we believe that this issue was a huge piece of propaganda from the Last Truth on Main Street crowd, but the Ortiz proposal should quiet the disinformation on that front.
Another issue that will need to be addresses is the fees for the smaller, NYC-based, independent supermarkets. Under the current draft from the governor's office, a mid-sized city supermarket-of, let's say 10,000 square feet-that grosses around $100,000/week, would have to pay a wine fee of approximately $25,000! This is too much for a retailer that will lack the space to really devote a lot of room to a wide selection of wines. And, if the fees are made more reasonable, there will be 600 or more Main Street stores in the city that will be able to add a profit center to slow the disappearance of supermarkets from New York.
With the short fall already mounting-and tax payers in high dudgeon-isn't it a good idea to look for revenues-an estimated $160million from wine license fees-that don't include additional taxes? And as long as the small liquor stores get an ability to grow at the same time, this should be an idea that the legislature can embrace.
Update
An article from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle highlights our general point on the likelihood that the wine issue will indeed return to the Albany stage in the very near term: "I'm positive it will come up again," said New York State Liquor Store Association President Stefan Kalogridis, owner of Covin Wine Merchants in Albany."
And on the side of goodness, the folks over at Wegmans agree: "Paterson's proposed budget had estimated that allowing wine sales in grocery stores would add $105 million to state coffers. Gates-based grocery chain Wegmans Food Markets Inc. spearheaded a campaign to get public support, bankrolling a series of television ads as well as having a petition drive in its New York stores."We will continue our efforts," said Jo Natale, director of media relations for Wegmans. "We owe it to our customers, 70 percent of whom want this. We owe it to our employees because it would create new growth opportunities. And we owe it to the New York wine industry because they, too, would benefit."
But the liquor stores still resist compromise, claiming-get this-that their stores are too small to expand: "State law currently allows wine sales only in liquor stores, which in turn are prohibited from selling merchandise much beyond that. "Our business model was set up to sell liquor and wine — 95 percent of our stores aren't able to bring in foods and other items," Kalogridis said. "We don't have the room."
So the liquor stores are so small that they can't expand the scope of their operation, but the owners feel that this is the kind of consumer depriving environment that they need to defend at all costs? Good sense needs to prevail here. "We have no room to expand," is not a rallying cry for the 21st century-not when the state is in dire need of the license fee money from new wine sellers.
Given this need for another cash infusion-and with taxes and fees already sky high-it is a good bet that wine in grocery stores will be given a second look; and that second look should be crafted around a compromise that allows NY's liquor stores to expand their limited retail offerings. This is a scenario that forward thinking liquor store owners have already begun to embrace.
One such owner, writing in last month's NY Times, outlined his willingness to embrace a change in the law if it were to include his business as well: "But these proposals will bring increased competition, and it’s only fair that there should be commensurate opportunities to expand our small businesses. If supermarkets can have multiple locations, why are we prohibited (pardon the pun) from operating more than one store? Or from keeping the same hours? If grocery stores can sell a Côtes du Rhône, then why shouldn’t we be able to sell baguettes and cheese? How about artisan beer? Or just reusable shopping bags? (A Rochester store was recently fined a whopping $10,000 for doing this.) What goes for the grocery stores should go for us too."
And the compromise that will be most viable will also need to include some ability to address the question of underage sales. This is something that Assemblyman Ortiz has addresses in a draft piece of legislation that will allow for training for store owners and mandatory carding of all purchasers of alcoholic beverages-something that Florida mandates with much success. Now we believe that this issue was a huge piece of propaganda from the Last Truth on Main Street crowd, but the Ortiz proposal should quiet the disinformation on that front.
Another issue that will need to be addresses is the fees for the smaller, NYC-based, independent supermarkets. Under the current draft from the governor's office, a mid-sized city supermarket-of, let's say 10,000 square feet-that grosses around $100,000/week, would have to pay a wine fee of approximately $25,000! This is too much for a retailer that will lack the space to really devote a lot of room to a wide selection of wines. And, if the fees are made more reasonable, there will be 600 or more Main Street stores in the city that will be able to add a profit center to slow the disappearance of supermarkets from New York.
With the short fall already mounting-and tax payers in high dudgeon-isn't it a good idea to look for revenues-an estimated $160million from wine license fees-that don't include additional taxes? And as long as the small liquor stores get an ability to grow at the same time, this should be an idea that the legislature can embrace.
Update
An article from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle highlights our general point on the likelihood that the wine issue will indeed return to the Albany stage in the very near term: "I'm positive it will come up again," said New York State Liquor Store Association President Stefan Kalogridis, owner of Covin Wine Merchants in Albany."
And on the side of goodness, the folks over at Wegmans agree: "Paterson's proposed budget had estimated that allowing wine sales in grocery stores would add $105 million to state coffers. Gates-based grocery chain Wegmans Food Markets Inc. spearheaded a campaign to get public support, bankrolling a series of television ads as well as having a petition drive in its New York stores."We will continue our efforts," said Jo Natale, director of media relations for Wegmans. "We owe it to our customers, 70 percent of whom want this. We owe it to our employees because it would create new growth opportunities. And we owe it to the New York wine industry because they, too, would benefit."
But the liquor stores still resist compromise, claiming-get this-that their stores are too small to expand: "State law currently allows wine sales only in liquor stores, which in turn are prohibited from selling merchandise much beyond that. "Our business model was set up to sell liquor and wine — 95 percent of our stores aren't able to bring in foods and other items," Kalogridis said. "We don't have the room."
So the liquor stores are so small that they can't expand the scope of their operation, but the owners feel that this is the kind of consumer depriving environment that they need to defend at all costs? Good sense needs to prevail here. "We have no room to expand," is not a rallying cry for the 21st century-not when the state is in dire need of the license fee money from new wine sellers.
Taxing Habit
As we have been arguing for over a decade, rising cigarette taxes are killing small stores, while creating a thriving black market for Indian retailers. At some point, there will be a law of diminishing returns-something that the NY Post pointed out yesterday: "As smokers dwindle so will the money, says Thomas Briant, executive director of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets. "It's really a declining revenue source," Briant says. "Increases in cigarette and tobacco taxes are reaching a point of diminishing returns, often not generating the amount projected."
And of course, the transfer of sales to illegal Indian sources, deprives NY State of over $1 billion tax dollars: "Altria spokesman David Sutton also argues that tobacco taxes are "a very questionable revenue stream" for government programs. "It's quite likely the $35 billion [earmarked for children's health insurance programs from tobacco tax revenue] will not be realized. When you increase the tax level, consumers change their behavior," perhaps seeking to avoid paying more rather than quitting. "In New York, instead of going to the bodega, folks go to the Native American reservation, who don't pay the tax, or go online, or to another state, or buy counterfeit or contraband product."
With the state's budget still out of whack-and an adjustment expected to be needed as early as June-this is money left on the table that can no longer be ignored; especially when it's likely that some unappetizing service cuts will have to be made. Here's hoping that the assembly and the senate get together and force Governor Paterson to come up with a workable methodology to -end the Indian tax rip-off.
And of course, the transfer of sales to illegal Indian sources, deprives NY State of over $1 billion tax dollars: "Altria spokesman David Sutton also argues that tobacco taxes are "a very questionable revenue stream" for government programs. "It's quite likely the $35 billion [earmarked for children's health insurance programs from tobacco tax revenue] will not be realized. When you increase the tax level, consumers change their behavior," perhaps seeking to avoid paying more rather than quitting. "In New York, instead of going to the bodega, folks go to the Native American reservation, who don't pay the tax, or go online, or to another state, or buy counterfeit or contraband product."
With the state's budget still out of whack-and an adjustment expected to be needed as early as June-this is money left on the table that can no longer be ignored; especially when it's likely that some unappetizing service cuts will have to be made. Here's hoping that the assembly and the senate get together and force Governor Paterson to come up with a workable methodology to -end the Indian tax rip-off.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Fat City
Governor Paterson, borrowing a page out of Mike Bloomberg's playbook, is launching a war on obesity: "Gov. David Paterson just announced he is proposing two bills designed to combat obesity, including one that would ban trans fats...The other bill will enact the Health Schools Act, which would establish nutritional guidelines on cafeteria food, and require schools to develop wellness policies to make students more active."
Well good luck with that! Or, as Liz tells us, Paterson feels that he might approach the mayor's approval rating if he apes Bloomberg's nanny state agenda: "Even though there have been grumbles about Bloomberg's "nanny state" approach to governing (no fat, no salt, no smoking etc.), his poll numbers have continued to remain high (although they've slipped of late). Paterson, on the other hand, recently saw his approval rating hit an historic low. So even an anti-fat crusade is worth a shot, as he doesn't have much to lose."
To us, however, this is simply a poor attempt to change the subject away from the governor's performance rating-poll numbers that make the mayor's look like fat city. And the development of school wellness policies are, well, a bit too nebulous to stimulate any new resurgence of the governor's diminished popularity.
But the approach here isn't half bad, since the effort is intelligently designed to enlist community involvement. As the governor's press statement says: "The Healthy Schools Act also requires schools districts to develop school wellness policies to ensure community involvement in considering ways to create healthier schools and increase opportunities for physical activity throughout the school day. Such policies are already mandatory for participants in federal meal programs but compliance is not universal."
The devil, however, is in the details, and nothing we've seen from Paterson gives us any optimism that this kind of a program will be gotten off the ground in enough time to help prevent his ouster. It will be up to his predecessor-if he or she wants-to take this idea and implement it.
Well good luck with that! Or, as Liz tells us, Paterson feels that he might approach the mayor's approval rating if he apes Bloomberg's nanny state agenda: "Even though there have been grumbles about Bloomberg's "nanny state" approach to governing (no fat, no salt, no smoking etc.), his poll numbers have continued to remain high (although they've slipped of late). Paterson, on the other hand, recently saw his approval rating hit an historic low. So even an anti-fat crusade is worth a shot, as he doesn't have much to lose."
To us, however, this is simply a poor attempt to change the subject away from the governor's performance rating-poll numbers that make the mayor's look like fat city. And the development of school wellness policies are, well, a bit too nebulous to stimulate any new resurgence of the governor's diminished popularity.
But the approach here isn't half bad, since the effort is intelligently designed to enlist community involvement. As the governor's press statement says: "The Healthy Schools Act also requires schools districts to develop school wellness policies to ensure community involvement in considering ways to create healthier schools and increase opportunities for physical activity throughout the school day. Such policies are already mandatory for participants in federal meal programs but compliance is not universal."
The devil, however, is in the details, and nothing we've seen from Paterson gives us any optimism that this kind of a program will be gotten off the ground in enough time to help prevent his ouster. It will be up to his predecessor-if he or she wants-to take this idea and implement it.
Waterboarding Legalized!
Just when you thought real change had been ushered in for the Age of Obama-with Gitmo closing and water boarding placed on the endangered species list-along comes the news that NYC homeowners will be soaked once again by another double digit increase in their water bills. As the NY Times reports: "New York City residents should brace for another double-digit increase in their water rates, even though they are conserving more water than ever before.That is the mixed message that residents are likely to hear on Friday, when the New York City Water Board is expected to raise water and sewer rates by 14 percent, while water consumption is projected, thanks to the recession, to hit its lowest point since the 1960s."
All we can think about this is that water boarding has been legalized-with New York City residents being the hapless victims once again: "Over all, the city is on pace to collect roughly $80 million less in water bill revenues than in previous years. And that decline is one reason, city officials said, that the water board is expected to consider a rate increase similar to the 14.5 percent increase in 2008, which was the largest since 1992. For the average single-family homeowner, a 14 percent increase would mean a new annual bill of roughly $910, compared with the current bill of about $800."
But wait! Remember when the rate was last increased, and the administration promised a full report on the entire rate making process? As the Times points out: "Water rates have become an increasingly contentious issue in recent years. Last year, the city’s Independent Budget Office calculated that water rates had risen a cumulative 77 percent since 2001. City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., who is considered a probable opponent for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in the November election, held a news conference this week criticizing the city for failing to produce a study on water rates that was promised after the 14.5 percent increase. He is expected to testify at the water board meeting on Friday."
So we have an agency that arbitrarily-without any real rhyme or reason-raises rates; while its governing structure-can anyone say MTA?-remains totally opaque: "The Department of Environmental Protection has been questioned, as well, about its operations. Because the agency is financed chiefly by water bills, it has been largely cushioned from the steep budget cuts ordered by Mr. Bloomberg to help the city close a multibillion-dollar deficit. The Daily News reported recently that the agency had approved $300,000 in raises to 41 employees since January."
Remember also, that the DEP is an agency that has for years been unable to collect its bills; owing to the fact that it simply is so inefficient that it can't justify them in any independent review process. So what good is modernization and overhaul, if the modernizers are also the aggrandizers? "But city officials say that the Bloomberg administration is pushing ahead with modernization and infrastructure programs that will ultimately save the city — and consumers — much more money. As one example, the city recently unveiled the latest technology to upgrade its record-keeping system to help the city collect tens of millions of dollars in overdue water bills."
So the one thing that we can depend on when the DEP reaches for greater efficiencies, is a more facile and lucrative bill collection process; one that will perhaps continue to charge more as consumers use less water. And only in DEP Newspeak is a greater ability to collect money from customers seen as a saving for consumers.
So this Keystone Kops agency is yet another example of the failure of the Bloombergistas to reinvent government in a way that will create cost savings through greater efficiencies. The good news? He'll probably have another four years to continue to demonstrate his own lack of governing suppleness.
All we can think about this is that water boarding has been legalized-with New York City residents being the hapless victims once again: "Over all, the city is on pace to collect roughly $80 million less in water bill revenues than in previous years. And that decline is one reason, city officials said, that the water board is expected to consider a rate increase similar to the 14.5 percent increase in 2008, which was the largest since 1992. For the average single-family homeowner, a 14 percent increase would mean a new annual bill of roughly $910, compared with the current bill of about $800."
But wait! Remember when the rate was last increased, and the administration promised a full report on the entire rate making process? As the Times points out: "Water rates have become an increasingly contentious issue in recent years. Last year, the city’s Independent Budget Office calculated that water rates had risen a cumulative 77 percent since 2001. City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., who is considered a probable opponent for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in the November election, held a news conference this week criticizing the city for failing to produce a study on water rates that was promised after the 14.5 percent increase. He is expected to testify at the water board meeting on Friday."
So we have an agency that arbitrarily-without any real rhyme or reason-raises rates; while its governing structure-can anyone say MTA?-remains totally opaque: "The Department of Environmental Protection has been questioned, as well, about its operations. Because the agency is financed chiefly by water bills, it has been largely cushioned from the steep budget cuts ordered by Mr. Bloomberg to help the city close a multibillion-dollar deficit. The Daily News reported recently that the agency had approved $300,000 in raises to 41 employees since January."
Remember also, that the DEP is an agency that has for years been unable to collect its bills; owing to the fact that it simply is so inefficient that it can't justify them in any independent review process. So what good is modernization and overhaul, if the modernizers are also the aggrandizers? "But city officials say that the Bloomberg administration is pushing ahead with modernization and infrastructure programs that will ultimately save the city — and consumers — much more money. As one example, the city recently unveiled the latest technology to upgrade its record-keeping system to help the city collect tens of millions of dollars in overdue water bills."
So the one thing that we can depend on when the DEP reaches for greater efficiencies, is a more facile and lucrative bill collection process; one that will perhaps continue to charge more as consumers use less water. And only in DEP Newspeak is a greater ability to collect money from customers seen as a saving for consumers.
So this Keystone Kops agency is yet another example of the failure of the Bloombergistas to reinvent government in a way that will create cost savings through greater efficiencies. The good news? He'll probably have another four years to continue to demonstrate his own lack of governing suppleness.
Governor Spaulding
Yesterday we commented on Governor Paterson's snarky observation about Rush Limbaugh's Escape From New York; and Clyde Haberman follows up on this in the morning's NY Times, with a discussion of the governor's speech at the Association for a Better New York:
"So if we correctly understood past warnings from the governor and the mayor, we should soon witness a mass exodus of the wealthy to other states, right? Well, maybe not quite, Mr. Paterson told reporters after his speech. He had spoken with rich people. “A lot of them said they’re going to stay,” he said, and “ride out this storm.” One prominent person intends to seek shelter from the storm somewhere else. That would be the radio personality Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Limbaugh announced that he was giving up on New York because of “these stupid, punitive, massive tax increases.” He will sell his penthouse on Fifth Avenue, he said, and will no longer use the city as a backup whenever hurricanes force him to flee his broadcast studio in Florida.
Now Haberman finds the Limbaugh exit quite funny-alluding to the loosening of the state's drug laws, something that the pill popping Limbaugh should find attractive enough to postpone his leave: "It’s a shame, really. Here’s a fellow who has had a serious pill-popping problem. Now he’s waving New York goodbye just when it is easing its drug laws. The timing could not be more unfortunate."
But, as Haberman observes, the overall tone of the Paterson speech was one of defensiveness; and his Limbaugh remarks fall flat in contrast to the governor's own lame performance: "His breakfast talk was solemn, striking for its defensiveness. But then, he has a lot to be defensive about. He has managed to dry up most of the enormous reservoir of good will that he had a year ago when he was suddenly thrust into office as a result of Eliot Spitzer’s hankering for prostitutes. A Siena College poll puts the governor’s job-approval rating at 19 percent. Any politician with a pulse should be able to do better than that."
Paterson's free fall-starting with his Caroline Kennedy debacle-escalated with his inept governing performance around the state's budget deficit. Talking tough early on, with much earnest rhetoric about the need for fiscal discipline, Paterson soon reverted to playing Charlie McCarthy to Shelly Silver's Edgar Bergen; and the result is a massive spending spree-along with huge tax hikes-in the midst of a unique economic downturn.
But Paterson would have us believe otherwise: "On Thursday he lashed out at his critics, saying they did not know what they were talking about in regard to his $131.8 billion budget deal with the Legislature. News organizations and unnamed interest groups were “either inaccurate or wrong,” he said, in describing the new budget as nearly 9 percent fatter than the last one. If you strip away billions in federal stimulus money, as well as obligatory increases in certain expenses like health care, you would see that the Legislature actually shaved spending a bit, he said."
So many lying eyes! But let's turn from farce to tragedy, and see what the NY Post's Adam Brodsky has to say about the nature of Paterson's rhetorical austerity; in a column aptly named, "Albany Lies:"
"For the first time, the Legislature has exercised significant spending restraint, and if it continues, the end of the financial crisis is near.
Gov. Paterson uttered this multipronged falsehood this week. But if a record $11 billion spending hike is "restraint," don't even ask what "reckless" would look like."
The reality is that the state took the federal stimulus cash, money that was provided in order to enable the states to avoid large tax increases, and taxed the hell out of everyone anyway: "The 2009-10 fiscal plan is among the most irresponsible in memory. That it comes during a severe recession and with the state economy in enormous flux only compounds the damage...The stimulus money, for example, will soon run out. The tax hikes are to sunset in three years (good luck with that). The economy might not recover as quickly as lawmakers hope."
What all this irresponsible profligacy will do to the private sector-you know, the place where jobs are actually created-is hard to gauge; but it certainly's not gonna be pretty: "A new study for the Empire Center for New York State Policy predicts the loss of 15,500 private-sector jobs as a result of the $4 billion income-tax bump alone."
So Paterson's blithe dismissal of Limbaugh's exodus might be simply a case of his own failure to read the handwriting on the wall. And soon, we expect that the governor will be tap dancing to the tune of Captain Spaulding: "Hello, I must be going."
"So if we correctly understood past warnings from the governor and the mayor, we should soon witness a mass exodus of the wealthy to other states, right? Well, maybe not quite, Mr. Paterson told reporters after his speech. He had spoken with rich people. “A lot of them said they’re going to stay,” he said, and “ride out this storm.” One prominent person intends to seek shelter from the storm somewhere else. That would be the radio personality Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Limbaugh announced that he was giving up on New York because of “these stupid, punitive, massive tax increases.” He will sell his penthouse on Fifth Avenue, he said, and will no longer use the city as a backup whenever hurricanes force him to flee his broadcast studio in Florida.
Now Haberman finds the Limbaugh exit quite funny-alluding to the loosening of the state's drug laws, something that the pill popping Limbaugh should find attractive enough to postpone his leave: "It’s a shame, really. Here’s a fellow who has had a serious pill-popping problem. Now he’s waving New York goodbye just when it is easing its drug laws. The timing could not be more unfortunate."
But, as Haberman observes, the overall tone of the Paterson speech was one of defensiveness; and his Limbaugh remarks fall flat in contrast to the governor's own lame performance: "His breakfast talk was solemn, striking for its defensiveness. But then, he has a lot to be defensive about. He has managed to dry up most of the enormous reservoir of good will that he had a year ago when he was suddenly thrust into office as a result of Eliot Spitzer’s hankering for prostitutes. A Siena College poll puts the governor’s job-approval rating at 19 percent. Any politician with a pulse should be able to do better than that."
Paterson's free fall-starting with his Caroline Kennedy debacle-escalated with his inept governing performance around the state's budget deficit. Talking tough early on, with much earnest rhetoric about the need for fiscal discipline, Paterson soon reverted to playing Charlie McCarthy to Shelly Silver's Edgar Bergen; and the result is a massive spending spree-along with huge tax hikes-in the midst of a unique economic downturn.
But Paterson would have us believe otherwise: "On Thursday he lashed out at his critics, saying they did not know what they were talking about in regard to his $131.8 billion budget deal with the Legislature. News organizations and unnamed interest groups were “either inaccurate or wrong,” he said, in describing the new budget as nearly 9 percent fatter than the last one. If you strip away billions in federal stimulus money, as well as obligatory increases in certain expenses like health care, you would see that the Legislature actually shaved spending a bit, he said."
So many lying eyes! But let's turn from farce to tragedy, and see what the NY Post's Adam Brodsky has to say about the nature of Paterson's rhetorical austerity; in a column aptly named, "Albany Lies:"
"For the first time, the Legislature has exercised significant spending restraint, and if it continues, the end of the financial crisis is near.
Gov. Paterson uttered this multipronged falsehood this week. But if a record $11 billion spending hike is "restraint," don't even ask what "reckless" would look like."
The reality is that the state took the federal stimulus cash, money that was provided in order to enable the states to avoid large tax increases, and taxed the hell out of everyone anyway: "The 2009-10 fiscal plan is among the most irresponsible in memory. That it comes during a severe recession and with the state economy in enormous flux only compounds the damage...The stimulus money, for example, will soon run out. The tax hikes are to sunset in three years (good luck with that). The economy might not recover as quickly as lawmakers hope."
What all this irresponsible profligacy will do to the private sector-you know, the place where jobs are actually created-is hard to gauge; but it certainly's not gonna be pretty: "A new study for the Empire Center for New York State Policy predicts the loss of 15,500 private-sector jobs as a result of the $4 billion income-tax bump alone."
So Paterson's blithe dismissal of Limbaugh's exodus might be simply a case of his own failure to read the handwriting on the wall. And soon, we expect that the governor will be tap dancing to the tune of Captain Spaulding: "Hello, I must be going."
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Bell Tolls for Limbaugh?
Well, it appears that Governor Paterson is heralding the fact that Rush Limbaugh has announced that, because of the recently announced tax increases, he's getting out of New York: "Rush Limbaugh is fed up with taxes in New York and with Gov. David A. Paterson in particular. The radio talk-show host denounced the so-called millionaires’ tax in the new state budget and then announced on the air this week that he would be packing up and leaving town...Mr. Paterson said he was hardly sorry to see him go. “If I knew that would be the result,” he said after a speech Thursday morning in Midtown, “I would’ve thought about the taxes earlier.”
Which raises the obvious question; Is the state better off with Limbaugh leaving and Paterson staying? And in answering this question, isn't it better to see Limbaugh as symbolic of a class? One commenter to the City Room blog captures this: "I don’t care about Rush leaving, but I do think that many will leave when you think that most of these guys will be paying about 60% of their income to Fed, NYC and NYS. What is the benefit of staying? Not much, particularly when media and financial companies are leaving as well. So who gets stuck with the bill at the end of the day for reckless state spending? We do. They’ll hide the additional taxes in the utility bills, phone bills, sales taxes, real estate taxes… but rest assured we will pay. It’s no wonder NY loses its most productive people at a higher rate than any other state (other than CA)."
So while Paterson and the WFP chuckle over the bell tolling for Limbaugh's New York sojourn, it would behoove these folks to remember the message of the John Donne poem:
"Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that."
Which raises the obvious question; Is the state better off with Limbaugh leaving and Paterson staying? And in answering this question, isn't it better to see Limbaugh as symbolic of a class? One commenter to the City Room blog captures this: "I don’t care about Rush leaving, but I do think that many will leave when you think that most of these guys will be paying about 60% of their income to Fed, NYC and NYS. What is the benefit of staying? Not much, particularly when media and financial companies are leaving as well. So who gets stuck with the bill at the end of the day for reckless state spending? We do. They’ll hide the additional taxes in the utility bills, phone bills, sales taxes, real estate taxes… but rest assured we will pay. It’s no wonder NY loses its most productive people at a higher rate than any other state (other than CA)."
So while Paterson and the WFP chuckle over the bell tolling for Limbaugh's New York sojourn, it would behoove these folks to remember the message of the John Donne poem:
"Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that."
Revise That Law!
As Crains Insider reports this morning (subscription), the state's claiming of 80% of the undredeemed deposits from the bottle bill will put a serious hurt on some of New York's small bottlers: "Initially, the unclaimed nickels were seen as an unexpected bonus for the industry, but over time, many businesses have come to depend on them. One industry representative says for some small beverage companies, “their entire profit margin is built on unredeemed deposits.”
And the spotlight is on our client, Good-O Beverage of the Bronx: "Some businesses, such as Good-O Beverage on Boone Avenue in the Bronx, have received a sympathetic response from their local senators (in Good-O’s case, Sen. Pedro Espada Jr.). But their plight was not compelling enough to move senators to undermine their majority leader, Malcolm Smith, who cut the bottle bill deal in closed-door talks with the governor and the Assembly speaker."
But it's not only Good-O; there's also Brooklyn Bottling on Linden Boulevard makers of D & G Jamaican Soft Drinks and Tropical Fantasy soda and juices; as well as GuS Soda, sold at more upscale venues And let's not forget Top Pop owned and operated by Marlen Lugones and Inca Kola owned by the Jardines family. All of these minority and women-owned enterprises would be severely damaged if the state takes away the unredeemed deposits.
But that's not the only defect in the law: "Many are upset that they will have to add a UPC symbol to bottles. The codes are designed to prevent consumers from redeeming deposit-free bottles purchased in other states. Bill opponents warn that consumers will circumvent the measure by returning such bottles to busy clerks rather than redemption machines that are programmed to reject them."
The biggest problem with the separate UPC code is that it will require the added expense of separate bottling lines and additional warehouse space-further challenging struggling small bottlers-not to mention the further additional costs to the consumer it will entail. All of which could have been avoided by an open legislative process: “If this was done in sunlight, we could have negotiated,” a bottle bill opponent says. Instead, small beverage companies will seek legislation exempting them from elements of the bill they find onerous."
Hopefully, legislators will see that there is room for an adjustment to a law that, quite frankly, very few of them had the opportunity to review before it was subsumed within the larger budget agreement. Changes here are only the right thing to do.
And the spotlight is on our client, Good-O Beverage of the Bronx: "Some businesses, such as Good-O Beverage on Boone Avenue in the Bronx, have received a sympathetic response from their local senators (in Good-O’s case, Sen. Pedro Espada Jr.). But their plight was not compelling enough to move senators to undermine their majority leader, Malcolm Smith, who cut the bottle bill deal in closed-door talks with the governor and the Assembly speaker."
But it's not only Good-O; there's also Brooklyn Bottling on Linden Boulevard makers of D & G Jamaican Soft Drinks and Tropical Fantasy soda and juices; as well as GuS Soda, sold at more upscale venues And let's not forget Top Pop owned and operated by Marlen Lugones and Inca Kola owned by the Jardines family. All of these minority and women-owned enterprises would be severely damaged if the state takes away the unredeemed deposits.
But that's not the only defect in the law: "Many are upset that they will have to add a UPC symbol to bottles. The codes are designed to prevent consumers from redeeming deposit-free bottles purchased in other states. Bill opponents warn that consumers will circumvent the measure by returning such bottles to busy clerks rather than redemption machines that are programmed to reject them."
The biggest problem with the separate UPC code is that it will require the added expense of separate bottling lines and additional warehouse space-further challenging struggling small bottlers-not to mention the further additional costs to the consumer it will entail. All of which could have been avoided by an open legislative process: “If this was done in sunlight, we could have negotiated,” a bottle bill opponent says. Instead, small beverage companies will seek legislation exempting them from elements of the bill they find onerous."
Hopefully, legislators will see that there is room for an adjustment to a law that, quite frankly, very few of them had the opportunity to review before it was subsumed within the larger budget agreement. Changes here are only the right thing to do.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Smoking Guns
Did you happen to hear the news? The Indian Aggrandizement Act is now law-and with cigarettes in the city rising to $10 a pack, the new Indian war cry is, "Ca Ching!" As City Room reported yesterday: "Cigarettes in New York City will top $9 a pack — and in some cases more than $10 — starting Wednesday, as a federal tax more than doubles to $1.01 per pack. With taxes having increased last year as well, the price of each pack now carries $5.26 in government fees in New York City, making this one of the most expensive places in the country to smoke." What this means, in spite of the smoke get in your eyes myopia of Michael Daly, is that the bootlegging Indian tax avoiders will be raking it in-already more than 50% of all cigarette sales in NY State are being done through these untaxed reservation outlets.
So where's the crackdown;? And how come the state has yet to enact the law that would put a stop to this lawlessness-a tax avoidance causing the loss of over $1 billion tax dollars? As City Room points out: "While a 2007 study from the city found that higher taxes also prompt people to buy from Indian reservations, duty-free shops and other low-tax venues, this federal tax — which is to finance the states’ Children’s Insurance Program — touches all states. In addition, budget shortfalls are pushing more than 20 states to look to tobacco for revenue, even those that have avoided cigarette taxes for years or decades."
As the IBO reported two years ago: "In February of this year, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg again proposed raising the city’s cigarette tax. “While the mayor’s proposal to again increase the local cigarette tax assumes that higher prices will further discourage New Yorkers from smoking, it may also encourage more city smokers to seek under-taxed cigarettes,” the report concludes." Even Daly can see this: "Of course, many tobacco junkies will try to buy bootleg cigarettes, primarily over the Internet. The laws against that should be toughened and enforced at city, state and federal levels. Bootleggers and second-offense buyers should get time in jail, the realm of the $100 pack."
Huh? We wish that columnists would do some basic research. It's not primarily the Internet where these buttleggers are prospering; it's Indian retailers combined with the state's faintheartedness that's costing the tax payers. As NYACS underscored in its report this year: "With an average excise tax rate of $25.42 per carton for the current fiscal year, these volumes would imply additional cigarettes tax receipts of $970million to $1 billion after adjusting for lost of business due to higher retail prices stemming from newly imposed excise taxes on Native-American stores."
All of this is going to go up; and even the health advocates recognize that higher taxes equal higher tax avoidance-with the greatest burden being placed on low income smokers. So, if you're going to allow smoking at all, then the legal outlets need protection; bodegas in the city have lost $250 million a year and counting-and the bankruptcies of small stores are at record highs. Congressman Weiner gets it: "Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn, Queens) warned that the higher taxes could mean "Christmas is coming early for Internet cigarette sites ... As we work to stop New Yorkers from smoking, we also need a renewed crackdown on smuggled cigarettes."
Sp who will take the lead here? With the state treasury hemorrhaging money, we need a champion to attack this blatant disregard for state law. Indians receive over $100 million in education aid for their children-money they willingly accept. But when it comes time to paying their cigarette taxes they balk; claiming a sovereignty that courts have denied. So, as far as social services are concerned, Indians claim citizenship rights; but when it comes time to paying taxes, they invoke sovereign immunity. Who's gonna fight this hypocrisy and call their bluff?
So where's the crackdown;? And how come the state has yet to enact the law that would put a stop to this lawlessness-a tax avoidance causing the loss of over $1 billion tax dollars? As City Room points out: "While a 2007 study from the city found that higher taxes also prompt people to buy from Indian reservations, duty-free shops and other low-tax venues, this federal tax — which is to finance the states’ Children’s Insurance Program — touches all states. In addition, budget shortfalls are pushing more than 20 states to look to tobacco for revenue, even those that have avoided cigarette taxes for years or decades."
As the IBO reported two years ago: "In February of this year, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg again proposed raising the city’s cigarette tax. “While the mayor’s proposal to again increase the local cigarette tax assumes that higher prices will further discourage New Yorkers from smoking, it may also encourage more city smokers to seek under-taxed cigarettes,” the report concludes." Even Daly can see this: "Of course, many tobacco junkies will try to buy bootleg cigarettes, primarily over the Internet. The laws against that should be toughened and enforced at city, state and federal levels. Bootleggers and second-offense buyers should get time in jail, the realm of the $100 pack."
Huh? We wish that columnists would do some basic research. It's not primarily the Internet where these buttleggers are prospering; it's Indian retailers combined with the state's faintheartedness that's costing the tax payers. As NYACS underscored in its report this year: "With an average excise tax rate of $25.42 per carton for the current fiscal year, these volumes would imply additional cigarettes tax receipts of $970million to $1 billion after adjusting for lost of business due to higher retail prices stemming from newly imposed excise taxes on Native-American stores."
All of this is going to go up; and even the health advocates recognize that higher taxes equal higher tax avoidance-with the greatest burden being placed on low income smokers. So, if you're going to allow smoking at all, then the legal outlets need protection; bodegas in the city have lost $250 million a year and counting-and the bankruptcies of small stores are at record highs. Congressman Weiner gets it: "Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn, Queens) warned that the higher taxes could mean "Christmas is coming early for Internet cigarette sites ... As we work to stop New Yorkers from smoking, we also need a renewed crackdown on smuggled cigarettes."
Sp who will take the lead here? With the state treasury hemorrhaging money, we need a champion to attack this blatant disregard for state law. Indians receive over $100 million in education aid for their children-money they willingly accept. But when it comes time to paying their cigarette taxes they balk; claiming a sovereignty that courts have denied. So, as far as social services are concerned, Indians claim citizenship rights; but when it comes time to paying taxes, they invoke sovereign immunity. Who's gonna fight this hypocrisy and call their bluff?
Bell Tolls
According to the NY Daily News, it appears as if tolling the East and Harlem: "Gov. Paterson officially rang the death knell Tuesday for a plan to toll the city's free East and Harlem river bridges.The Daily News reported last week that officials hammering out an MTA bailout had moved away from the controversial scheme and were focusing on other vehicle-related charges like registration fees or surcharges."
So, let's get this straight. There will be some kind of deal to keep the fares down? Probably, it just won't include the bridges. As the News points out: "Sen. Kevin Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, welcomed news that the tolls were off the table. "It's a victory for the people of Brooklyn and Queens and the Bronx and Staten Island because they are not being unduly penalized to solve a Manhattan problem," he said."
Now if we recall, the News has made skewering Carl Kruger and his colleagues into a serial-with ten editorials lambasting the opponents of tolls. And if this MTA gap can be bridged (pun intended) without tolls, then it's a win-win for all involved; something that we doubt the News will ever admit. If so, it will be the only time that the Senate Dems will have successfully flexed their new muscles-since the budget doesn't have much of a majority stamp on it, does it?
Kudos the Kruger, Parker, the amigos, and the rest of the Dems who stood up to the governor, the speaker, and the entire establishment. See guys, it actually can be done.
So, let's get this straight. There will be some kind of deal to keep the fares down? Probably, it just won't include the bridges. As the News points out: "Sen. Kevin Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, welcomed news that the tolls were off the table. "It's a victory for the people of Brooklyn and Queens and the Bronx and Staten Island because they are not being unduly penalized to solve a Manhattan problem," he said."
Now if we recall, the News has made skewering Carl Kruger and his colleagues into a serial-with ten editorials lambasting the opponents of tolls. And if this MTA gap can be bridged (pun intended) without tolls, then it's a win-win for all involved; something that we doubt the News will ever admit. If so, it will be the only time that the Senate Dems will have successfully flexed their new muscles-since the budget doesn't have much of a majority stamp on it, does it?
Kudos the Kruger, Parker, the amigos, and the rest of the Dems who stood up to the governor, the speaker, and the entire establishment. See guys, it actually can be done.
Rev. Bagman
When all of the controversy over the term limits trashing was going full bore, we experienced a Sherlock Holmes moment. It came about when it was apparent that the city's number one pot stirring and racial ambulance chaser was suddenly silent as a church mouse in the face of the Mike Bloomberg power play. It was a "dog that didn't bark moment." Here's one description of the famous story that underscores what we're saying: " 'The dog that didn't bark' is an expression from a Sherlock Holmes mystery. It was an important clue that led to identifying the criminal. It seems that the killer entered and left the estate grounds one night but without the guard dog barking an alarm at the intruder's presence as expected. From this non—event Holmes reasoned that the dog must have known the killer and that clue led to solving the case."
How apropos of the silent Sharpton-the dog that didn't bark when the billionaire stole democracy right out from under us. At the time, we observed that Slim Shady Sharpton was quiet simply because he was being paid hush money; and now, thanks to Juan Gonzales, we get a small glimpse of what could be an even bigger payola scandal.
In this morning's NY Daily News, Gonzales details how Sharpton received $500,000 from a group controlled by former schools chancellor Harold Levy: "The Rev. Al Sharpton and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein stunned the education world last June when they joined forces to reform the nation's public schools.They called their ambitious venture the Education Equality Project, and they vowed in a Washington press conference to lead a campaign to close the decades-old achievement gap between white and black students. What Klein and Sharpton never revealed is that the National Action Network, Sharpton's organization, immediately received a $500,000 donation for its involvement in the new effort."
There you have it-partners in crime: "The huge infusion of cash - equal to more than a year's payroll for Sharpton's entire organization - was quietly provided by Plainfield Asset Management, a Connecticut-based hedge fund, where former Chancellor Harold Levy is a managing director. The money came at a critical moment for the National Action Network. Sharpton was then settling a long-running IRS investigation of his organization. As part of that settlement, he agreed in July to pay $1 million in back taxes and penalties both he personally and his organization owed the government."
"Hush, Hush Sweet Al!" With an African-American candidate waiting in the wings-a co-favorite for being elected mayor once the rem limited Bloomberg left the stage-Sharpton became the dog that didn't bark, Here's Al's response: "Sharpton said his alliance with Klein should not be read as blanket support for Bloomberg's education policies. "I am committed to cutting the achievement gap, but not necessarily to more mayoral control [of city schools]," he said. "I support more charter schools for local church and community groups, but I'm not for privatizing schools and corporate payoffs in education."
So instead of his expected noise making and rabble rousing when democracy is suborned, we are treated to Sharpton the policy wonk-arguing with an air of phony erudition about the merits of charter schools versus vouchers. Subornation, thy name is Sharpton. And the methods used here should be instructive for every reporter looking into the Bloomberg method of utilizing his great fortune to undermine democratic dissent: "The $500,000 from the Connecticut firm did not go directly to National Action Network. Levy funneled the cash to another nonprofit, Education Reform Now, which allowed his company to claim the donation as a charitable tax deduction. The money was then transferred in several payments to Sharpton's group, which does not have tax-deductible status because it is a lobbying organization."
From Tinkers to Evers to Chance-around the horn-and, as with Learn NY-accompanied by an unbelievable disclaimer: "Levy says his firm came up with the idea to make the contribution, and neither Klein nor Bloomberg asked him to aid Sharpton." In all likelihood, this payoff to the slippery Sharpton was not an isolated incident; and is characteristic of how Mike Bloomberg's royal extension has been accomplished without much of a popular outcry from the usual suspects-farmers who were obviously being paid not to farm.
How apropos of the silent Sharpton-the dog that didn't bark when the billionaire stole democracy right out from under us. At the time, we observed that Slim Shady Sharpton was quiet simply because he was being paid hush money; and now, thanks to Juan Gonzales, we get a small glimpse of what could be an even bigger payola scandal.
In this morning's NY Daily News, Gonzales details how Sharpton received $500,000 from a group controlled by former schools chancellor Harold Levy: "The Rev. Al Sharpton and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein stunned the education world last June when they joined forces to reform the nation's public schools.They called their ambitious venture the Education Equality Project, and they vowed in a Washington press conference to lead a campaign to close the decades-old achievement gap between white and black students. What Klein and Sharpton never revealed is that the National Action Network, Sharpton's organization, immediately received a $500,000 donation for its involvement in the new effort."
There you have it-partners in crime: "The huge infusion of cash - equal to more than a year's payroll for Sharpton's entire organization - was quietly provided by Plainfield Asset Management, a Connecticut-based hedge fund, where former Chancellor Harold Levy is a managing director. The money came at a critical moment for the National Action Network. Sharpton was then settling a long-running IRS investigation of his organization. As part of that settlement, he agreed in July to pay $1 million in back taxes and penalties both he personally and his organization owed the government."
"Hush, Hush Sweet Al!" With an African-American candidate waiting in the wings-a co-favorite for being elected mayor once the rem limited Bloomberg left the stage-Sharpton became the dog that didn't bark, Here's Al's response: "Sharpton said his alliance with Klein should not be read as blanket support for Bloomberg's education policies. "I am committed to cutting the achievement gap, but not necessarily to more mayoral control [of city schools]," he said. "I support more charter schools for local church and community groups, but I'm not for privatizing schools and corporate payoffs in education."
So instead of his expected noise making and rabble rousing when democracy is suborned, we are treated to Sharpton the policy wonk-arguing with an air of phony erudition about the merits of charter schools versus vouchers. Subornation, thy name is Sharpton. And the methods used here should be instructive for every reporter looking into the Bloomberg method of utilizing his great fortune to undermine democratic dissent: "The $500,000 from the Connecticut firm did not go directly to National Action Network. Levy funneled the cash to another nonprofit, Education Reform Now, which allowed his company to claim the donation as a charitable tax deduction. The money was then transferred in several payments to Sharpton's group, which does not have tax-deductible status because it is a lobbying organization."
From Tinkers to Evers to Chance-around the horn-and, as with Learn NY-accompanied by an unbelievable disclaimer: "Levy says his firm came up with the idea to make the contribution, and neither Klein nor Bloomberg asked him to aid Sharpton." In all likelihood, this payoff to the slippery Sharpton was not an isolated incident; and is characteristic of how Mike Bloomberg's royal extension has been accomplished without much of a popular outcry from the usual suspects-farmers who were obviously being paid not to farm.
Rewined
As we mentioned yesterday, the battle to allow grocery stores to sell wine is far from over. As Newsday reported: "With a proposal to allow wine sales in grocery and other stores officially shelved, backers and at least one state legislator say they stand ready to revive it through a compromise bill before the summer."
Doesn't mean that this is gonna be any kind of cake walk-not with the liquor store spigot gushing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the wining and dinner up at the state capitol; and with their phony Main Street facade blatantly lying to legislators and the public. Scott Osbourne from Fox Run Vineyards captures this in a letter he has sent to all legislators: "Unfortunately, I am afraid that the voices of our industry were ultimately drowned out by a big liquor campaign that never allowed the conversation to move to the critically important next step: Developing some sort of big picture compromise that could insure that liquor stores, grape growers, wine makers, and grocers alike could all survive and thrive in New York State."
But with a state budget that remains in free fall, a compromise could still be reached. As the NY Daily News opined: "The final disgrace is that Paterson, Silver and Smith acknowledge that tax collections are continuing to drop. The state will not be able to pay the bills the governor and lawmakers are committing to. In that sense the budget is worse than irresponsible, it's also a fraud."
Which means that, come June, we will be looking for love in all the wrong places-as shortfalls continue to challenge the revenuers. At that point, with as dry a well as you can imagine-should we find more folks to "sacrifice?"-that $160 million in wine fees are going to look mighty darn good. As Newsday pointed out: "Jennifer Carlson, a consultant to grocery chains that pushed for Paterson's proposal, said given budget shortfalls, "We think legislators are going to be coming back to find more money," which the original proposal addressed by raising $160 million in new licensing fees."
With the Albany Easter Egg Hunt pushed into summer, the speaker will be harder pressed to justify keeping his thumb on the scale-in broad daylight this kind of special pleading is more challenging. But it's up to the editorial boards and the good government groups to step up as well; especially for a proposal that will help local supermarkets and be a huge boon to the state's wine growers and consumers.
Doesn't mean that this is gonna be any kind of cake walk-not with the liquor store spigot gushing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the wining and dinner up at the state capitol; and with their phony Main Street facade blatantly lying to legislators and the public. Scott Osbourne from Fox Run Vineyards captures this in a letter he has sent to all legislators: "Unfortunately, I am afraid that the voices of our industry were ultimately drowned out by a big liquor campaign that never allowed the conversation to move to the critically important next step: Developing some sort of big picture compromise that could insure that liquor stores, grape growers, wine makers, and grocers alike could all survive and thrive in New York State."
But with a state budget that remains in free fall, a compromise could still be reached. As the NY Daily News opined: "The final disgrace is that Paterson, Silver and Smith acknowledge that tax collections are continuing to drop. The state will not be able to pay the bills the governor and lawmakers are committing to. In that sense the budget is worse than irresponsible, it's also a fraud."
Which means that, come June, we will be looking for love in all the wrong places-as shortfalls continue to challenge the revenuers. At that point, with as dry a well as you can imagine-should we find more folks to "sacrifice?"-that $160 million in wine fees are going to look mighty darn good. As Newsday pointed out: "Jennifer Carlson, a consultant to grocery chains that pushed for Paterson's proposal, said given budget shortfalls, "We think legislators are going to be coming back to find more money," which the original proposal addressed by raising $160 million in new licensing fees."
With the Albany Easter Egg Hunt pushed into summer, the speaker will be harder pressed to justify keeping his thumb on the scale-in broad daylight this kind of special pleading is more challenging. But it's up to the editorial boards and the good government groups to step up as well; especially for a proposal that will help local supermarkets and be a huge boon to the state's wine growers and consumers.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Lamentations
We guess that we need to give some kind of a shout out to Crain's Insider's Erik Engquist who elevated us-over a cast of hundreds-as one of the biggest losers in the recently concluded budget battle: "Supermarkets: They struck out on their top two issues, the bottle bill and wine sales. Supermarkets didn’t want the hassle of taking back empty water bottles, and they desperately wanted to sell wine. Lobbyist Richard Lipsky suffered both defeats, and the additional blow of having the wine bill killed in part by his ally, Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn."
Now over the past twenty five years we have been in the forefront of many battles, and as a result, a certain amount of notoriety gets attached; so much so, that at times we get undeserved credit for victories that we played a minor role in. Similarly, we often shoulder the blame for defeats that-as with the victories-were team efforts. On balance, however, this stuff all evens out. Or, as one wag once put it: "I'd rather have flunked my Wasserman test, then never to have loved at all."
Others are stepping up in response to the legislative assault on the food and beverage industry-not chagrined, but angry. Also in Crain's: "No one is more incensed at how the state budget unfolded than the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500, which was “treated with a lack of respect,” says organizer Pat Purcell. He blasts Sen. Daniel Squadron, D-Brooklyn, for supporting the bottle bill before anyone read it and slams the governor’s top environmental adviser, Judith Enck, for calling UFCW “tools of the supermarket industry.” Says Purcell, “We may not win everything, but at least represent us. Don’t ignore us. Don’t be condescending. Don’t seek money from us with one hand and stick your finger in your ear with the other.” The union will respond with a public campaign titled “We Matter.”
So, as we said, this is always a team issue-but anyone who puts themselves out in front will have to develop a thick skin. And as far as the wine issue goes, it ain't over yet-but that's for another post.
Now over the past twenty five years we have been in the forefront of many battles, and as a result, a certain amount of notoriety gets attached; so much so, that at times we get undeserved credit for victories that we played a minor role in. Similarly, we often shoulder the blame for defeats that-as with the victories-were team efforts. On balance, however, this stuff all evens out. Or, as one wag once put it: "I'd rather have flunked my Wasserman test, then never to have loved at all."
Others are stepping up in response to the legislative assault on the food and beverage industry-not chagrined, but angry. Also in Crain's: "No one is more incensed at how the state budget unfolded than the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500, which was “treated with a lack of respect,” says organizer Pat Purcell. He blasts Sen. Daniel Squadron, D-Brooklyn, for supporting the bottle bill before anyone read it and slams the governor’s top environmental adviser, Judith Enck, for calling UFCW “tools of the supermarket industry.” Says Purcell, “We may not win everything, but at least represent us. Don’t ignore us. Don’t be condescending. Don’t seek money from us with one hand and stick your finger in your ear with the other.” The union will respond with a public campaign titled “We Matter.”
So, as we said, this is always a team issue-but anyone who puts themselves out in front will have to develop a thick skin. And as far as the wine issue goes, it ain't over yet-but that's for another post.
Bottle Bill Protest Today
There will be a bottle bill protest at an independent supermarket located in the Bronx today. The protest is being led by Nelson Eusebio, Chairman of New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, New York tax payers, and small business owners. The purpose of the protest is to highlight just how the expanded bottle law is a massive hidden tax on New York's consumers.
WHERE: C Town Supermarket: 1750 University Avenue Bronx, NY (near 176th and University Ave).
WHEN: Tuesday, March 31st at 12:00 PM
WHY: The expanded bottle bill is not about cans, it’s about cash; it’s aggressive tax policy disguised as environmental progress. DO NOT BE FOOLED. If passed, this unfair, misguided and hidden tax could:
1. Eliminate thousands of New York jobs;
2. Further hamper New York businesses;
3. Further damage New York’s already fragile economy;
4. Place an additional burden on the backs of hard working – and disproportionately lower and middle income – New Yorkers;
5. Mean the triumph of back-room, closed-door policy-making…and will signal the death of “transparency” in state government;
6. Represent a confiscatory state-money grab of over $100 million each year;
7. Make a mockery of “representative” Government.
This could be just the beginning of protests that might roil the structure of state government in the weeks and months ahead; perhaps even heeding Greg David's call to arms: "Any effort to change this state of affairs will have to be organized and financed by business. This is not so easy. Business groups are divided by geography: upstate, suburban and New York City. Industry groups are primarily concerned with their own parochial issues...Twice in the 1990s, which seems like the distant past, business leaders did mobilize against incumbents. In 1993, fearing the city was in grave danger under David Dinkins, executives opened their wallets for Rudy Giuliani. The next year, many did so again for George Pataki, despite the clear likelihood that Mario Cuomo would penalize them if he won reelection. In both elections, the challenger decided to run and then business decided to back the insurgent."
So, is this a similar situation? Hard to say if we're there yet; but just the thought-to borrow from the puerile Chris Matthews-sends a thrill up our leg.
WHERE: C Town Supermarket: 1750 University Avenue Bronx, NY (near 176th and University Ave).
WHEN: Tuesday, March 31st at 12:00 PM
WHY: The expanded bottle bill is not about cans, it’s about cash; it’s aggressive tax policy disguised as environmental progress. DO NOT BE FOOLED. If passed, this unfair, misguided and hidden tax could:
1. Eliminate thousands of New York jobs;
2. Further hamper New York businesses;
3. Further damage New York’s already fragile economy;
4. Place an additional burden on the backs of hard working – and disproportionately lower and middle income – New Yorkers;
5. Mean the triumph of back-room, closed-door policy-making…and will signal the death of “transparency” in state government;
6. Represent a confiscatory state-money grab of over $100 million each year;
7. Make a mockery of “representative” Government.
This could be just the beginning of protests that might roil the structure of state government in the weeks and months ahead; perhaps even heeding Greg David's call to arms: "Any effort to change this state of affairs will have to be organized and financed by business. This is not so easy. Business groups are divided by geography: upstate, suburban and New York City. Industry groups are primarily concerned with their own parochial issues...Twice in the 1990s, which seems like the distant past, business leaders did mobilize against incumbents. In 1993, fearing the city was in grave danger under David Dinkins, executives opened their wallets for Rudy Giuliani. The next year, many did so again for George Pataki, despite the clear likelihood that Mario Cuomo would penalize them if he won reelection. In both elections, the challenger decided to run and then business decided to back the insurgent."
So, is this a similar situation? Hard to say if we're there yet; but just the thought-to borrow from the puerile Chris Matthews-sends a thrill up our leg.
Hello, He Must Be Going
The concluded budget process has turned David Paterson into Captain Spaulding, whose famous phrase was, "Hello, I must be going." As the NY Post's Jacob Gershman observes: "Paterson confirmed the fear that he's the nation's weakest governor, sealing his fate as a lame duck. It'll be up to New York's next chief executive to rescue the state from bankruptcy."
At the same time, as we have also pointed out elsewhere, this budget fiasco-with an additional $8 billion in new spending while NY business craters-opens the door wide for a challenge to Democratic hegemony: "No one will remember that he got an on-time budget or the minor victories buried in the bonanza of outlays (such as a long-overdue adjustment to hospital Medicaid reimbursements). The big story is that Paterson let lawmakers bury their heads in the sand and produce a budget that fiscal analysts are calling a "recession-proof porkfest." "We're going to run against Paterson," says a Republican source. "People will blame the governor, his party and those who do his bidding."
But it's the entire party-not to mention the state's fiscal good health-that will be threatened: "The long-term shakeout has the potential to elevate a moderate Democrat to the front of next year's governor's-race pack, stir a leadership rebellion in the Legislature and give Republicans a new lease on life."
So while it is clear, as the NY Times points out, that Shelly Silver basically slapped the other two leaders silly, it might also be true that the victory he achieved was a Pyrrhic one: "At the same time, the state’s main financial engine, Wall Street, is undergoing a profound transformation and unlikely to soon produce the tax revenues of its heyday. Some wonder if an Albany led mainly by Mr. Silver will be willing to confront that reality."
Clearly, however, Paterson was out of his depth-bending and breaking on all of the faux fiscal discipline he had articulated in the run up to the budget process, As the Times underscored in another news analysis: "But as outside analysts began poring over hundreds of pages of the budget, they said they saw little evidence of stern spending discipline, even in the face of a major recession. In closing a budget deficit that in the end surpassed $17 billion, lawmakers relied on billions of dollars in new taxes and fees, some of which may not even raise as much revenue as hoped if the economy continues to worsen. And like every Albany budget, whether in good years or bad, this one includes $170 million worth of what critics call pork-barrel spending for lawmakers’ pet projects."
So while we have complained about the poor decision making in our own little world of food and drink, it is the entire state that has been ill served by the leadership in Albany. All that's left is the voter blow back-and the WFP's short term triumph may well be short lived, as tax payers begin to realize how privileged and wealthy they really are when their payment due notices come in.
At the same time, as we have also pointed out elsewhere, this budget fiasco-with an additional $8 billion in new spending while NY business craters-opens the door wide for a challenge to Democratic hegemony: "No one will remember that he got an on-time budget or the minor victories buried in the bonanza of outlays (such as a long-overdue adjustment to hospital Medicaid reimbursements). The big story is that Paterson let lawmakers bury their heads in the sand and produce a budget that fiscal analysts are calling a "recession-proof porkfest." "We're going to run against Paterson," says a Republican source. "People will blame the governor, his party and those who do his bidding."
But it's the entire party-not to mention the state's fiscal good health-that will be threatened: "The long-term shakeout has the potential to elevate a moderate Democrat to the front of next year's governor's-race pack, stir a leadership rebellion in the Legislature and give Republicans a new lease on life."
So while it is clear, as the NY Times points out, that Shelly Silver basically slapped the other two leaders silly, it might also be true that the victory he achieved was a Pyrrhic one: "At the same time, the state’s main financial engine, Wall Street, is undergoing a profound transformation and unlikely to soon produce the tax revenues of its heyday. Some wonder if an Albany led mainly by Mr. Silver will be willing to confront that reality."
Clearly, however, Paterson was out of his depth-bending and breaking on all of the faux fiscal discipline he had articulated in the run up to the budget process, As the Times underscored in another news analysis: "But as outside analysts began poring over hundreds of pages of the budget, they said they saw little evidence of stern spending discipline, even in the face of a major recession. In closing a budget deficit that in the end surpassed $17 billion, lawmakers relied on billions of dollars in new taxes and fees, some of which may not even raise as much revenue as hoped if the economy continues to worsen. And like every Albany budget, whether in good years or bad, this one includes $170 million worth of what critics call pork-barrel spending for lawmakers’ pet projects."
So while we have complained about the poor decision making in our own little world of food and drink, it is the entire state that has been ill served by the leadership in Albany. All that's left is the voter blow back-and the WFP's short term triumph may well be short lived, as tax payers begin to realize how privileged and wealthy they really are when their payment due notices come in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
