Errol Louis has an interesting take on the mayoral race in today's NY Daily News-especially for all of us wishful thinkers. Louis believes that the race will tighten in the closing weeks, and here's why: "Leadership of a city is also about projecting - and protecting - civic virtues like honesty, inclusion, humility and compassion. That's where Bloomberg is vulnerable, and why the race for mayor will surely tighten in these final weeks. The mayor has brazenly purchased the shallow loyalty of too many people and organizations to credibly pass it off as a genuine referendum on his mayoralty. The roster of the bought-and-paid-for includes the Republican and Independence parties and a seemingly endless crowd of preachers and nonprofit managers who suckle at the bosom of Bloomberg's private largess."
And the Bloomberg support is, as the News writes elsewhere, a mile wide and an inch deep: "Mayor Bloomberg's campaign may look unbeatable - but some insiders see troubling signs that he could be tossed out of City Hall. They fear lingering voter anger about term limits, low-turnout primaries, passionate anti-Bloomberg Democrats and complacent Bloomberg supporters could combine to create the biggest political upset of a generation."
Which is why the third term wannabe is spending millions to attach challenger Thompson-a tactic that could well backfire: "I'd be worried," said one of the mayor's prominent backers, who fears moderate pro-Bloomberg voters won't bother voting Nov. 3 if they assume the mayor will win."If you're just a voter who kind of likes Bloomberg, you don't come out," this backer said. "If you hate Bloomberg . . . you come out."
And those attack ads just might be counterproductive: "That has prompted Bloomberg's campaign to fire back with attack ads against Thompson - giving the controller more exposure than he could ever afford with the $3.8 million he has spent on his campaign. "The negative ads give Billy credibility, and I think they give him recognition among voters," said one experienced political consultant and Bloomberg backer..."You've never seen that with them. The fact that they're doing that means that they have to be nervous," said another veteran Bloomberg ally. "They have a problem. And I think turnout could wind up very low."
And by attacking, Bloomberg undermines his ersatz "above politics" persona-and reinforces the city for sale nature of his tenure. As Louis points out: "I'm not out there buying votes," Bloomberg said, drawing snickers. Thompson eagerly seized the high ground. "It's a matter of right and wrong," said Thompson, repeatedly invoking the shabby, shameful maneuvers through which the mayor abolished the term limits law. "Mike Bloomberg lied to the people of New York City."
So what we can expect is Bloomberg going for the lowest common denominator-a shameful strategy for the city's richest man, and a two term incumbent to boot: "Expect the final weeks to feature a heavy dose of negative campaigning by Bloomberg. He has spent about $65 million trying to increase the thin majority - about 53% of voters - who tell pollsters they will vote for him. The idea is not to make Thompson voters switch to Bloomberg. The real aim of negative campaigning is to make undecided voters so cynical and disgusted that they stay home, enabling the mud-thrower's people to carry the day."
Mudslinging has its drawback, however, and the News underscores this potential problem: "The mayor's campaign on Wednesday released a minute-long Internet ad that used footage from Tuesday night's debate to paint Thompson as a liar running away from his record. "You've never seen that with them. The fact that they're doing that means that they have to be nervous," said another veteran Bloomberg ally. "They have a problem. And I think turnout could wind up very low."
And for the Bloombergistas to call out any one else for lying, when the mayor's third term effort is itself built on a blatant falsehood, raises hypocrisy to an art form. We'll give Louis the last word on this: "I do not recall anyone calling the Mayor a liar to his face in public before.
And the mayor had no answer. "They have lost absolutely nothing," he said of New Yorkers whose votes for term limits he nullified. And Bloomberg promised not to run for a fourth term, seemingly unaware that he has no credibility on the issue. After more hammering from Thompson on term limits, Bloomberg threw in the towel, bluntly advising people who feel all that strongly about his double cross to pull the lever for Thompson."
Seems like good advice to us.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Alliance Gets Posted
The NY Post has given us a nice forum for our commentary on the fast food hypocrisy down at the DOH. Remember these are the same folks who were inveighing against sugary soda while keeping a soda vending machine humming away down in the agency lobby. Our piece tries to highlight the gap between theory and practice-and the need to persuade people rather than regulate and mandate businesses with self-defeating and expensive rules.
This philosophy, however-education rather than regulation-takes a little too much time for health bureaucrats who are impatient for quick results, so we get the failed menu labeling experiment that has led to fast food customers consuming more, rather than less calories, at their meals. We had predicted failure here, because there had been no data produced beforehand to indicate that the use of calorie posting would be effective-only the ideological animus from the folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest acting as a prompt for the expensive meddling in the fast food businesses of NYC.
All of this is a cautionary tale, one that underscores the dangers that may lie ahead if a truly national health plan is ever enacted. Once the government is in charge-and every one's health care is being paid for by the tax payers-the sense of bureaucratic entitlement will go off the charts. And it won't be long before every one's behavior is monitored-and sanctioned-by government mandates of one kind or another,
If the government becomes responsible for every one's care, there will no longer be any such thing as individual rights and personal responsibility. If your being fat costs me money, you are going to have to exercise and eat right-or pay a lot extra for your indolence and poor eating choices. Should this ever become our reality, the scope of individual liberty will have been narrowed to such an extent, that it would be unrecognizable.
This philosophy, however-education rather than regulation-takes a little too much time for health bureaucrats who are impatient for quick results, so we get the failed menu labeling experiment that has led to fast food customers consuming more, rather than less calories, at their meals. We had predicted failure here, because there had been no data produced beforehand to indicate that the use of calorie posting would be effective-only the ideological animus from the folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest acting as a prompt for the expensive meddling in the fast food businesses of NYC.
All of this is a cautionary tale, one that underscores the dangers that may lie ahead if a truly national health plan is ever enacted. Once the government is in charge-and every one's health care is being paid for by the tax payers-the sense of bureaucratic entitlement will go off the charts. And it won't be long before every one's behavior is monitored-and sanctioned-by government mandates of one kind or another,
If the government becomes responsible for every one's care, there will no longer be any such thing as individual rights and personal responsibility. If your being fat costs me money, you are going to have to exercise and eat right-or pay a lot extra for your indolence and poor eating choices. Should this ever become our reality, the scope of individual liberty will have been narrowed to such an extent, that it would be unrecognizable.
Incontestable Fraud
We just caught the NY1 story on the national math scores; and New York City school kids have shown no improvement over the past two years-which validates all of the criticism that we, as well as others, have heaped on these over-hyped state test results, and should stimulate calls for an independent review of the entire DOE operation: "While state math test scores make it seem students are doing better in the subject, results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, released today indicate otherwise. The study shows that students in New York State have made no progress in math over the past two years. According to the state tests, fourth grade math scores rose nine point and eighth grade math scores rose 18 points. But the national test showed no improvement at all for those same grades. The NAEP is considered to be the only solid measure on whether state tests are accurate."
So apparently the entire basis of the Bloomberg contention that, through his yoeman-like efforts, the city schools have improved by leaps and bounds, is built on a fraudulent illusion: "At least one educator who spoke to NY1 said the discrepancy could mean what students are learning is not so much math as how to take state math tests. "The state tests cover less material and schools have learned to teach to the content of those tests, which makes it appear that students are learning more, but, in fact, it is really an illusion," said Dr. Aaron Pallas of Teachers College."
Now we know that the city school budget has undeniably improved-shot up by 80%, along with accompanying teacher salary raises-but as it turns out, the money hasn't been well spent; except for the dollars that were sent to the expanded public relations department at the DOE. All of which has caused embarrassment for the new state education commissioner.
As NY1 points out: "The new New York State Department of Education commissioner, David Steiner, issued a statement saying he was greatly concerned by the NAEP scores and, in particular, the discrepancies between the state and national results. He said that he would be taking action, raising the standards of the state test and revising its design, to keep test preparation from skewing the results."
And he should be-as Diane Ravitch opines today in the NY Post, heads should roll: "There's something rotten in the state Education Department. Year after year, New York officials have been claiming impressive gains in student achievement -- claims we now know to be false. Based on these misleading claims, however, tens of millions of dollars in bonuses have been handed out to teachers and principals, and thousands of students have gotten false reports about their progress."
And check out these Enron-like discrepancies: "Nationally, fourth-grade math scores on the NAEP were flat, while eighth-grade math scores were up significantly. In New York, however, there were no significant gains in either. The fabulous "gains" reported last spring, we now know, were based on dumbed-down tests and dubious scoring of the tests in Albany. By federal standards, only 40 percent of our fourth graders are proficient, not 87 percent. And among eighth graders, only 34 percent are proficient in math, not the 80 percent claimed by the state."
And what about the narrowing ethnic gaps? Never happened, it appears: "The state Education Department also misled the public about progress in narrowing racial achievement gaps. The state claims that 78 percent of black students in fourth grade are proficient in math -- but NAEP finds that only 19 percent are. In eighth grade, the state holds that 63 percent of black students are proficient; per NAEP, it's just 13 percent. Similarly, the state says that 82 percent of New York's Hispanic fourth graders are proficient, while NAEP says it is 25 percent. In eighth grade, the state says 69 percent of Hispanic students are proficient, compared to 15 percent on NAEP."
This is a scandal of the highest proportion-one that deserves a full investigation. And these national test results should require the Bloomberg campaign to pull all of its fraudulent education commercials off of the air-especially ones that continue to attack Bill Thompson's "failed leadership" of the old BOE.
Let's hope that the other national results get issued soon-in enough time to give voters food for thought. Obviously, however, the naked mayor has more than a little egg on his face-as do all his enablers in the local media who saw him clothed in educational sartorial splendor.
So apparently the entire basis of the Bloomberg contention that, through his yoeman-like efforts, the city schools have improved by leaps and bounds, is built on a fraudulent illusion: "At least one educator who spoke to NY1 said the discrepancy could mean what students are learning is not so much math as how to take state math tests. "The state tests cover less material and schools have learned to teach to the content of those tests, which makes it appear that students are learning more, but, in fact, it is really an illusion," said Dr. Aaron Pallas of Teachers College."
Now we know that the city school budget has undeniably improved-shot up by 80%, along with accompanying teacher salary raises-but as it turns out, the money hasn't been well spent; except for the dollars that were sent to the expanded public relations department at the DOE. All of which has caused embarrassment for the new state education commissioner.
As NY1 points out: "The new New York State Department of Education commissioner, David Steiner, issued a statement saying he was greatly concerned by the NAEP scores and, in particular, the discrepancies between the state and national results. He said that he would be taking action, raising the standards of the state test and revising its design, to keep test preparation from skewing the results."
And he should be-as Diane Ravitch opines today in the NY Post, heads should roll: "There's something rotten in the state Education Department. Year after year, New York officials have been claiming impressive gains in student achievement -- claims we now know to be false. Based on these misleading claims, however, tens of millions of dollars in bonuses have been handed out to teachers and principals, and thousands of students have gotten false reports about their progress."
And check out these Enron-like discrepancies: "Nationally, fourth-grade math scores on the NAEP were flat, while eighth-grade math scores were up significantly. In New York, however, there were no significant gains in either. The fabulous "gains" reported last spring, we now know, were based on dumbed-down tests and dubious scoring of the tests in Albany. By federal standards, only 40 percent of our fourth graders are proficient, not 87 percent. And among eighth graders, only 34 percent are proficient in math, not the 80 percent claimed by the state."
And what about the narrowing ethnic gaps? Never happened, it appears: "The state Education Department also misled the public about progress in narrowing racial achievement gaps. The state claims that 78 percent of black students in fourth grade are proficient in math -- but NAEP finds that only 19 percent are. In eighth grade, the state holds that 63 percent of black students are proficient; per NAEP, it's just 13 percent. Similarly, the state says that 82 percent of New York's Hispanic fourth graders are proficient, while NAEP says it is 25 percent. In eighth grade, the state says 69 percent of Hispanic students are proficient, compared to 15 percent on NAEP."
This is a scandal of the highest proportion-one that deserves a full investigation. And these national test results should require the Bloomberg campaign to pull all of its fraudulent education commercials off of the air-especially ones that continue to attack Bill Thompson's "failed leadership" of the old BOE.
Let's hope that the other national results get issued soon-in enough time to give voters food for thought. Obviously, however, the naked mayor has more than a little egg on his face-as do all his enablers in the local media who saw him clothed in educational sartorial splendor.
Avending Angels
Another day, another story about fighting street vendors-this time in City Room where strife in East Flatbush is reported: "Police officers arrested four immigrant street vendors last week in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, in the latest development in a six-month street drama that has included arrests, neighborhood complaints, tickets, summonses and even an alleged knife fight. On Tuesday, vendors and their advocates staged a protest against what they call police harassment, while the Police Department defended its handling of the tense situation."
All of the fighting devolves from the opaque nature of the city''s regulatory regime-something we have chronicled here, here, and here-as well as the almost complete absence of effective enforcement. And now the vendors are complaining about the police: "Police officers have been closely monitoring the stretch of pavement in front of the SUNY Downstate Medical Center since a chicken and rice vendor was charged with assaulting a competitor in mid-September. Their rival carts had been battling over prices for months. Two men were arrested in that case, and one of them, Hamdy Abdelraouf Akl, was again arrested on Thursday, this time charged with disorderly conduct. Mr. Akl, 37, from Egypt, said the police had singled him out unfairly, harassing and threatening him. “We serve the community,” he said. “Our vendors should follow the law, and we think the police officers should follow the law, too.”
Ah yes, the law-but what exaclty is the law, and how should it be enforced so that neighborhoods and small retailers aren't victimized by unmanageable vendor proliferation? That is the subject of an organizing effort being led by the Alliance and an assortmment of community and small business groups. In the weeks and months ahead, we will be helping draft new vendor laws that protect the rights of neighborhoods-as well as the stores that serve them.
All of the fighting devolves from the opaque nature of the city''s regulatory regime-something we have chronicled here, here, and here-as well as the almost complete absence of effective enforcement. And now the vendors are complaining about the police: "Police officers have been closely monitoring the stretch of pavement in front of the SUNY Downstate Medical Center since a chicken and rice vendor was charged with assaulting a competitor in mid-September. Their rival carts had been battling over prices for months. Two men were arrested in that case, and one of them, Hamdy Abdelraouf Akl, was again arrested on Thursday, this time charged with disorderly conduct. Mr. Akl, 37, from Egypt, said the police had singled him out unfairly, harassing and threatening him. “We serve the community,” he said. “Our vendors should follow the law, and we think the police officers should follow the law, too.”
Ah yes, the law-but what exaclty is the law, and how should it be enforced so that neighborhoods and small retailers aren't victimized by unmanageable vendor proliferation? That is the subject of an organizing effort being led by the Alliance and an assortmment of community and small business groups. In the weeks and months ahead, we will be helping draft new vendor laws that protect the rights of neighborhoods-as well as the stores that serve them.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Shulman Continues Illegal Lobbying Effort
As the Queens Courier is reporting, the LDC headed by Claire Shulman continues to lobby illegally-in contravention of the not-for-profit laws: "Governor David A. Paterson pledged more than $1.5 million to a Queens development corporation seeking to clean up and reclaim the Flushing riverfront. The grant, announced Wednesday, October 7, is part of the state’s broader Brownfield Opportunities Area Program (BOAP), an initiative to clean up abandoned properties that may pose environmental threats because of contamination."
So what exactly is abandoned here? Or is the grant going to be used to do a pre-cleanup of soon to be absconded with private property? "The Flushing-Willets Point-Corona Local Development Corp. (FWPCLDC) received the largest sum out of the more than $10 million worth of grants to begin research and planning for its Flushing riverfront project. The project is an effort to clean up and redevelop the land along the Flushing River, according to Claire Shulman, President and CEO of FWPCLDC."
This is all way beyond outrageous-and the attorney general needs to let the state know what he plans to do with these phony groups that are violating their charters and engaging in overtly political activity. After all, what's more political than organizing to take away someone else's property?
So what exactly is abandoned here? Or is the grant going to be used to do a pre-cleanup of soon to be absconded with private property? "The Flushing-Willets Point-Corona Local Development Corp. (FWPCLDC) received the largest sum out of the more than $10 million worth of grants to begin research and planning for its Flushing riverfront project. The project is an effort to clean up and redevelop the land along the Flushing River, according to Claire Shulman, President and CEO of FWPCLDC."
This is all way beyond outrageous-and the attorney general needs to let the state know what he plans to do with these phony groups that are violating their charters and engaging in overtly political activity. After all, what's more political than organizing to take away someone else's property?
Bought and Sold
We were heartened to read yesterday that Bloomberg LLP had purchased BusinessWeek magazine-and immediately wondered whether or not the folks of New York City would once again be a similar commodity. In yesterday's first mayoral debate, Bill Thompson did his best to dramatize this salient point-Mike Bloomberg's promiscuous use of his own money to buy up everything in sight. As the NY Post points out: "For his part, Thompson accused Bloomberg of using his massive wealth to buy votes, charging that the mayor bought party lines and donated funds to curry favor with influential community groups. "We are not for sale!" Thompson said at one point. Bloomberg insisted he's independent of special-interest politics. "I'm not out there buying votes. I'm out there trying to run the city," he said."
Yet with this, as with so many other things, Bloomberg has proved to be a master multi-tasker-and he is famously buying votes, outspending his opponent by a margin of 16-1. The question that remains is whether the current economic climate-and the term limits over turn-will be a sufficient lever to allow Thompson to unset the incumbent. As Michael Powell observes in the NY Times: "In fairness, neither mayor nor comptroller made the night electric; Mr. Bloomberg in particular tended to dole out energy a miserly watt at a time. The city is sunk into recession’s mire, unemployment tops 10 percent — black male unemployment edges toward 50 percent — and foreclosure threatens working class families, and the candidates made glancing mentions of all of this. (Neither candidate uttered the word foreclosure)."
And while Powell felt that Thompson failed to adequately define himself for voters, it is our view that the election isn't really about the challenger-and Thompson needs to continue to simply reassure New Yorkers that he would be a capable steward, while hammering away at the mayor's promiscuous personal spending tactics. The NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg feels that he was successful in his first face to face debate: "He smiled more than the mayor, he hammered his points hard after some opening stumbles, and he held his own in their frequent back-and-forth exchanges. He even aimed the best line of the night at Bloomberg, one that distills his campaign into two sentences: "At every level, it hasn't been about the people of New York City. It's been about you."
The pay for play exchange was also, at least for us, an effective parry for Thompson-and he'll need to really continue to highlight the disastrous city economy, while questioning whether or not the mayor really understands the average New Yorker. Bloomberg tried to convey an empathy in the debate that he's hard pressed to portray with any real sincerity. As the NY Times reports: "While Mr. Thompson questioned whether the “richest man in the city” could be entrusted to lead the government, the mayor tried to show he was in touch with ordinary New Yorkers, saying he was hearing the pain of people “in the subways, in the diners, on the streets.”
But to us the real issue-aside from the outrageous rejection of the popular will by the free spending Bloomberg-ironically remains competence-and Bloomberg's overrated status as a manager. Deconstructing the false narrative is the big Thompson challenge for the final three weeks of this election. We'll give Lisberg the last word: "The more Bloomberg looks like just another candidate, the more he loses some of his above-politics aura - especially when he says things like, "I'm not out there buying votes." But the more Thompson looks like just another candidate in a fair fight, the more he looks like a potential mayor - not just the sacrificial lamb people expected in the spring. Strident anti-Bloomberg rhetoric has brought Thompson within 8 points of a popular incumbent who has outspent him, 16 to 1. Thompson has not presented his own strong rationale for running the city. That's not what his campaign is about. But by looking like a real contender Tuesday night, he looked like a guy who could win."
Yet with this, as with so many other things, Bloomberg has proved to be a master multi-tasker-and he is famously buying votes, outspending his opponent by a margin of 16-1. The question that remains is whether the current economic climate-and the term limits over turn-will be a sufficient lever to allow Thompson to unset the incumbent. As Michael Powell observes in the NY Times: "In fairness, neither mayor nor comptroller made the night electric; Mr. Bloomberg in particular tended to dole out energy a miserly watt at a time. The city is sunk into recession’s mire, unemployment tops 10 percent — black male unemployment edges toward 50 percent — and foreclosure threatens working class families, and the candidates made glancing mentions of all of this. (Neither candidate uttered the word foreclosure)."
And while Powell felt that Thompson failed to adequately define himself for voters, it is our view that the election isn't really about the challenger-and Thompson needs to continue to simply reassure New Yorkers that he would be a capable steward, while hammering away at the mayor's promiscuous personal spending tactics. The NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg feels that he was successful in his first face to face debate: "He smiled more than the mayor, he hammered his points hard after some opening stumbles, and he held his own in their frequent back-and-forth exchanges. He even aimed the best line of the night at Bloomberg, one that distills his campaign into two sentences: "At every level, it hasn't been about the people of New York City. It's been about you."
The pay for play exchange was also, at least for us, an effective parry for Thompson-and he'll need to really continue to highlight the disastrous city economy, while questioning whether or not the mayor really understands the average New Yorker. Bloomberg tried to convey an empathy in the debate that he's hard pressed to portray with any real sincerity. As the NY Times reports: "While Mr. Thompson questioned whether the “richest man in the city” could be entrusted to lead the government, the mayor tried to show he was in touch with ordinary New Yorkers, saying he was hearing the pain of people “in the subways, in the diners, on the streets.”
But to us the real issue-aside from the outrageous rejection of the popular will by the free spending Bloomberg-ironically remains competence-and Bloomberg's overrated status as a manager. Deconstructing the false narrative is the big Thompson challenge for the final three weeks of this election. We'll give Lisberg the last word: "The more Bloomberg looks like just another candidate, the more he loses some of his above-politics aura - especially when he says things like, "I'm not out there buying votes." But the more Thompson looks like just another candidate in a fair fight, the more he looks like a potential mayor - not just the sacrificial lamb people expected in the spring. Strident anti-Bloomberg rhetoric has brought Thompson within 8 points of a popular incumbent who has outspent him, 16 to 1. Thompson has not presented his own strong rationale for running the city. That's not what his campaign is about. But by looking like a real contender Tuesday night, he looked like a guy who could win."
Hold the Pickles and the Hypocrisy
The NY Post had a wonderful story yesterday about how the NYC Department of Health-you know, the agency that is waging war against fast food-is issuing vouchers for, well, fast food in order to get the folks in for their TB appointments: "Maybe fatty foods aren't so bad after all. While Mayor Bloomberg was banning trans fats and requiring chain restaurants to post calorie counts, his Health Department was dishing out free coupons to McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken, The Post has learned. Since 1993, eight years before Bloomberg took office, the agency has been giving out $5 vouchers to the fast-food joints, along with round-trip MetroCards and coupons to variety stores, to encourage tuberculosis patients to return to clinics around the city for six-month treatment programs."
How embarrassing! But there has to be a good explanation for this rank hypocrisy, right? Here's the DOH mea culpa: "The assistant commissioner in charge of the TB program, Chrispin Kambili, defended the vouchers' success in reducing the highly contagious disease. "One of the things that people found attractive for them to come to the clinics was that they got food coupons," Kambili said. "When you give people enablers or incentives, you have a better follow-up index."
What an excellent response-kind of an exact replica of the business model that most bodega owners and fast food operators in low income neighborhoods utilize; you know, finding out what the people like to consume-rather than what they perhaps ought to eat-and then selling it to them in order to be successful and make money. Likewise, DOH employs a successful strategy of using where the people's tastes actually lie in order to be successful-not to make money, but to ensure that its TB program achieves its objectives.
Some, however see the hypocrisy in this approach, since it so starkly contradicts the passionate effort of the agency to wean low income folks off of fast food. As one former employee told the Post: "It's a big hypocrisy when they've been campaigning against people eating that stuff," the ex-employee said. The hypocrisy is that the city launches a campaign, as you well know, of making restaurants list calories and all that, while at the same time they themselves are proliferating free McDonald's incentive cards."
Makes perfect sense to us-if, that is, you want to be a real world success, and not simply theoretically and politically correct. And the lesson here is-just as it is with the failed menu labeling regulation-that you need to educate the folks in order to change their behavior. This involves treating them as functional adults who can think and act for themselves. Maybe if you do, and people's attitudes change, and their behavior is altered, you can give away broccoli vouchers and still get the folks returning for their TB treatment.
How embarrassing! But there has to be a good explanation for this rank hypocrisy, right? Here's the DOH mea culpa: "The assistant commissioner in charge of the TB program, Chrispin Kambili, defended the vouchers' success in reducing the highly contagious disease. "One of the things that people found attractive for them to come to the clinics was that they got food coupons," Kambili said. "When you give people enablers or incentives, you have a better follow-up index."
What an excellent response-kind of an exact replica of the business model that most bodega owners and fast food operators in low income neighborhoods utilize; you know, finding out what the people like to consume-rather than what they perhaps ought to eat-and then selling it to them in order to be successful and make money. Likewise, DOH employs a successful strategy of using where the people's tastes actually lie in order to be successful-not to make money, but to ensure that its TB program achieves its objectives.
Some, however see the hypocrisy in this approach, since it so starkly contradicts the passionate effort of the agency to wean low income folks off of fast food. As one former employee told the Post: "It's a big hypocrisy when they've been campaigning against people eating that stuff," the ex-employee said. The hypocrisy is that the city launches a campaign, as you well know, of making restaurants list calories and all that, while at the same time they themselves are proliferating free McDonald's incentive cards."
Makes perfect sense to us-if, that is, you want to be a real world success, and not simply theoretically and politically correct. And the lesson here is-just as it is with the failed menu labeling regulation-that you need to educate the folks in order to change their behavior. This involves treating them as functional adults who can think and act for themselves. Maybe if you do, and people's attitudes change, and their behavior is altered, you can give away broccoli vouchers and still get the folks returning for their TB treatment.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Not Really Naming Names on Stella D'Oro
The lead editorial in the NY Daily News today focuses on the lack of support for the bakery workers at the now closed Stell D'Doro factory in the Bronx-and blames, not the mayor by name, but the Working Families Party and, "city hall," for the failure to aggressively fight the plant's closure: "The closure of the Stella D'Oro baking plant in the Bronx left the members of almost 150 working families without solid paychecks and health benefits after an extraordinarily tough labor battle. Surely, the Working Families Party - vaunted political arm of the unions - rallied to the cause of these blue-collar victims of the downward spiral of the paycheck class. Actually, no."
Calling out the WFP on this is, well, a good call; but what about the biggest bully and his pulpit? Here's how the News calls him out: "And labor had company in abandoning them. The state and city governments, which gallop to the rescue with multimillion-dollar packages to stem shifts in Wall Street jobs, offered nothing beyond routine contract mediation. More was needed. Started in 1922, Stella D'Oro prospered as a family-owned firm. In 1992, Nabisco bought the company, with 575 unionized workers and $65 million in annual sales."
But naming is shaming, and the leaving out of Mike Bloomberg's personal culpability here itself shameful on the News' part: "No one - not the WFP, City Hall or Albany - stepped up to work out an agreement that might have made the plant reasonably profitable while preserving as much as possible in pay and benefits."
Right about at this point, the Daily News should have at least lightly mocked the Bloomberg "five borough economic plan," and called the mayor to task-as it did the WFP-by name. Just another example of the dereliction of local editorialists when it comes to our own 800 pound gorilla-and Bloomberg feels that we don't need a public advocate because, "we have an aggressive enough press." Well, he would say that, now wouldn't he?
Calling out the WFP on this is, well, a good call; but what about the biggest bully and his pulpit? Here's how the News calls him out: "And labor had company in abandoning them. The state and city governments, which gallop to the rescue with multimillion-dollar packages to stem shifts in Wall Street jobs, offered nothing beyond routine contract mediation. More was needed. Started in 1922, Stella D'Oro prospered as a family-owned firm. In 1992, Nabisco bought the company, with 575 unionized workers and $65 million in annual sales."
But naming is shaming, and the leaving out of Mike Bloomberg's personal culpability here itself shameful on the News' part: "No one - not the WFP, City Hall or Albany - stepped up to work out an agreement that might have made the plant reasonably profitable while preserving as much as possible in pay and benefits."
Right about at this point, the Daily News should have at least lightly mocked the Bloomberg "five borough economic plan," and called the mayor to task-as it did the WFP-by name. Just another example of the dereliction of local editorialists when it comes to our own 800 pound gorilla-and Bloomberg feels that we don't need a public advocate because, "we have an aggressive enough press." Well, he would say that, now wouldn't he?
UnRelated Data
You really got to hand it to Ruben Diaz, the Bronx BP has lit into the phony traffic analysis conducted by the developer of the Kingsbride Armory-and it's about time that someone dramatized Related's slip shod attention to the impacts its projects will have on local neighborhoods. As the NY Daily News reports: "Last month, Diaz recommended that the city reject Related's proposal unless the developer signed a binding community benefits agreement, taking up the cause of local activists demanding a living wage and protections for local businesses. Opponents took aim at the draft environmental impact study provided by Related, which they claimed underestimated traffic and parking congestion as well as the impact on existing local businesses, and Diaz has pressed those points with the city and the developer. "This is not the first time the city and its consultants have skirted proper analysis on major development projects it promotes," said Diaz. "Whether this is intentional or indolent, it is nonetheless disturbing."
The fact is that this is a less than ideal site for such a large retail use-and the lack of inside and outside parking would inundate this neighborhood: "Diaz also found fault with Related's assumption that the 330 cars expected to overflow from the underground parking garage on Saturday afternoons would be able to find street parking in the already congested neighborhood. Related's answer - that the lack of parking would likely result in more shoppers opting to take public transport - did not satisfy Diaz either, who expects parking issues "will be a significant burden to the community."
Parking is woefully inadequate and the number of spaces is far less than what Related supplies for its customers over at Gateway in East New York. All of which doesn't address the fact that the supermarket that is still included in the development plan would increase by 20% the number of vehicles attracted to the facility-a fact that is ignored by the developer, and serves as a further reason why this entire environmental review is shoddy.
And speaking of the supermarket, our allies over at the National Supermarket Association informed us that Mayor Bloomberg had met with them last month in Corona and, at the time, personally assured the group-made up of mostly Dominican owners of independent supermarkets-that there would be no supermarket included at the armory. If this is true, and we have no reason to doubt the word of those who attended the gathering, than the mayor has little time between now and the CPC vote next week, to live up to his promise.
In our meeting last week with Deputy Mayor Lieber Nelson Eusebio, NSA's director, conveyed the Bloomberg promise, and the NSA is awaiting a response. It is rare for the mayor to make this kind of personal commitment to a small business group, so his failure to live up to the promise would be a serious breach towards a group that represents a constituency-Hispanic immigrants-he has been actively courting.
The dust-up over traffic and the supermarket, underscores the volatility of the Kingsbridge project. It appears more and more likely, however, that it will be the city council-and not the mayor-that will be forced to hash out the details of any deal that excludes a food store and promotes a living wage-something that the Bronx delegation appears eager to do, even if the mayor won't.
The fact is that this is a less than ideal site for such a large retail use-and the lack of inside and outside parking would inundate this neighborhood: "Diaz also found fault with Related's assumption that the 330 cars expected to overflow from the underground parking garage on Saturday afternoons would be able to find street parking in the already congested neighborhood. Related's answer - that the lack of parking would likely result in more shoppers opting to take public transport - did not satisfy Diaz either, who expects parking issues "will be a significant burden to the community."
Parking is woefully inadequate and the number of spaces is far less than what Related supplies for its customers over at Gateway in East New York. All of which doesn't address the fact that the supermarket that is still included in the development plan would increase by 20% the number of vehicles attracted to the facility-a fact that is ignored by the developer, and serves as a further reason why this entire environmental review is shoddy.
And speaking of the supermarket, our allies over at the National Supermarket Association informed us that Mayor Bloomberg had met with them last month in Corona and, at the time, personally assured the group-made up of mostly Dominican owners of independent supermarkets-that there would be no supermarket included at the armory. If this is true, and we have no reason to doubt the word of those who attended the gathering, than the mayor has little time between now and the CPC vote next week, to live up to his promise.
In our meeting last week with Deputy Mayor Lieber Nelson Eusebio, NSA's director, conveyed the Bloomberg promise, and the NSA is awaiting a response. It is rare for the mayor to make this kind of personal commitment to a small business group, so his failure to live up to the promise would be a serious breach towards a group that represents a constituency-Hispanic immigrants-he has been actively courting.
The dust-up over traffic and the supermarket, underscores the volatility of the Kingsbridge project. It appears more and more likely, however, that it will be the city council-and not the mayor-that will be forced to hash out the details of any deal that excludes a food store and promotes a living wage-something that the Bronx delegation appears eager to do, even if the mayor won't.
Bloomberg's Glass House
Picking up on our own post yesterday, Wayne Barret chimes in on the hypocrisy of Mike Bloomberg accusing anyone of flip-flopping on taxes: "What neither Mike, nor the Mike media want you to know, is that first step of the Thompson rate increase in the city personal income tax (PIT) -- from 3.65 percent to 4.3 percent for people making from $500,000 to a million -- is less than the one Bloomberg himself imposed in 2003. Bloomberg imposed a three-year surcharge on everyone earning more than $500,000, elevating the bracket to 4.45 percent, more than Thompson urges now."
But that was then-and this is now: "The Bloomberg ad also quotes Thompson's argument against a millionaire's tax, namely that "we don't want to drive people out of New York," which happens to have become Bloomberg's 2009 mantra. A Bloomberg campaign spokeswoman explained their own ad by saying "Mike Bloomberg opposes the millionaire's tax because it would drive residents out of New York, the same position Thompson had before he flip-flopped."
What unmitigated gall! Mike Bloomberg went back on his own 2001 no tax pledge-remember his attacks on Mark Green as a tax and spend liberal?-and instituted one of the largest tax hikes in NYC history. One conservative critic nails him: "In his 2002 inaugural address, Bloomberg declared: "We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot drive people and business out of New York. We cannot raise taxes." But Bloomberg proceeded to hike the city's cigarette tax rate from 8 cents to $1.50 per pack, increase property taxes 18 percent, and raise income and sales taxes."
And it is because of these actions that NYC is in such dire fiscal condition today-with small businesses sucking wind, and store vacancies at record levels. The mayor has been as unfrugal a manager as possible, and in the process has exacerbated the city's already poor business climate. Hardly an advertisement for an additional term.
As Steve Malanga also noted, a few years later: "The mayor has emerged as a guardian of the local status quo, the defender of big government and the municipal workforce. Proclaiming that forces beyond his control are compelling him, he has instituted the largest tax increase in the city’s history, apologized for even the smallest cuts in government services, declared that everything New York City’s massive government does is vitally necessary, and confidently announced that tax increases won’t drive out citizens or businesses."
But, as Gilda Radner's character on SNL would say; "Never mind." Bloomberg has enough money to re-write history, as long as he has a lazy and compliant media to cover for him. As Barrett reminds us: "But it's actually not hard to figure out who the leading New York politician was who convinced us in 2003 that a PIT hike wouldn't drive the rich out of New York, as unlikely as it is that the dailies will discover it in their own clips. "I don't think anyone's going to leave," Mike said then, "because no matter where they go, every state, every city is facing a similar situation." If Bloomberg thought that about New York in the aftermath of 9/11, wouldn't it go double now? But all Bloomberg says now is that "the first rule of taxation is -- you can't tax too much those that can move."
But did Mike learn this from his own foray into tax hiking? No way: "If you're thinking that this might be a lesson he learned from the hikes of 2003, think again. A study released in 2005 by none other than Bill Thompson revealed that the people least likely to leave the city in the early Bloomberg years, when the PIT hikes and the largest property tax boost in history were imposed, were those making $250,000 or more."
The folks who did leave were middle income homeowners who were so much refuse to be discarded by the patrician mayor when he proposed his 25% property tax hike, a raise that was later reduced to only 18% by the city council. So, given this lamentable record on taxes, anyone else would have had the grace to remain silent-and not try to go off on an opponent who changed his mind, something that our own Mr. Consistent Mayor has thankfully never done himself-at least on any important policy issue.
But that was then-and this is now: "The Bloomberg ad also quotes Thompson's argument against a millionaire's tax, namely that "we don't want to drive people out of New York," which happens to have become Bloomberg's 2009 mantra. A Bloomberg campaign spokeswoman explained their own ad by saying "Mike Bloomberg opposes the millionaire's tax because it would drive residents out of New York, the same position Thompson had before he flip-flopped."
What unmitigated gall! Mike Bloomberg went back on his own 2001 no tax pledge-remember his attacks on Mark Green as a tax and spend liberal?-and instituted one of the largest tax hikes in NYC history. One conservative critic nails him: "In his 2002 inaugural address, Bloomberg declared: "We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot drive people and business out of New York. We cannot raise taxes." But Bloomberg proceeded to hike the city's cigarette tax rate from 8 cents to $1.50 per pack, increase property taxes 18 percent, and raise income and sales taxes."
And it is because of these actions that NYC is in such dire fiscal condition today-with small businesses sucking wind, and store vacancies at record levels. The mayor has been as unfrugal a manager as possible, and in the process has exacerbated the city's already poor business climate. Hardly an advertisement for an additional term.
As Steve Malanga also noted, a few years later: "The mayor has emerged as a guardian of the local status quo, the defender of big government and the municipal workforce. Proclaiming that forces beyond his control are compelling him, he has instituted the largest tax increase in the city’s history, apologized for even the smallest cuts in government services, declared that everything New York City’s massive government does is vitally necessary, and confidently announced that tax increases won’t drive out citizens or businesses."
But, as Gilda Radner's character on SNL would say; "Never mind." Bloomberg has enough money to re-write history, as long as he has a lazy and compliant media to cover for him. As Barrett reminds us: "But it's actually not hard to figure out who the leading New York politician was who convinced us in 2003 that a PIT hike wouldn't drive the rich out of New York, as unlikely as it is that the dailies will discover it in their own clips. "I don't think anyone's going to leave," Mike said then, "because no matter where they go, every state, every city is facing a similar situation." If Bloomberg thought that about New York in the aftermath of 9/11, wouldn't it go double now? But all Bloomberg says now is that "the first rule of taxation is -- you can't tax too much those that can move."
But did Mike learn this from his own foray into tax hiking? No way: "If you're thinking that this might be a lesson he learned from the hikes of 2003, think again. A study released in 2005 by none other than Bill Thompson revealed that the people least likely to leave the city in the early Bloomberg years, when the PIT hikes and the largest property tax boost in history were imposed, were those making $250,000 or more."
The folks who did leave were middle income homeowners who were so much refuse to be discarded by the patrician mayor when he proposed his 25% property tax hike, a raise that was later reduced to only 18% by the city council. So, given this lamentable record on taxes, anyone else would have had the grace to remain silent-and not try to go off on an opponent who changed his mind, something that our own Mr. Consistent Mayor has thankfully never done himself-at least on any important policy issue.
More Bogarting Bodegas
It seems to be piling on bodega week-with the NY Post leading off calling the local neighborhood stores, "price gougers." Now we find-courtesy of Julie Currie-that the Los Angelos City Council is mulling over a zoning regulation that would prohibit the expansion of small grocery stores in certain LA neighborhoods. As the Los Angelos Times reports: "Links found by researchers between snack foods and obesity in poor communities are prompting new calls for more regulation of convenience stores in South Los Angeles."
So faced with a fatter populace, the health fascists want to limit the one economic institution in poor neighborhoods that serves the community and provides a wide range of other desirable things: "A study by Santa Monica think tank Rand Corp. published in the research journal Health Affairs last week said calories from snacks were a likely culprit of higher obesity rates in South Los Angeles. The authors also found that South Los Angeles had a dramatically higher concentration of the type of small convenience store that sells caloric snacks than other sections of the city."
So, in a manner of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, LA wants to limit the number and location of small groceries: "We need to look at a moratorium on these convenience stores," said Lark Galloway-Gilliam, executive director of Community Health Councils Inc., a nonprofit health policy and education organization in South Los Angeles. The Los Angeles City Council is set to consider a proposal that would limit the density of these small food stores in South Los Angeles, said Councilwoman Jan Perry, a proponent of regulations adopted last year establishing a moratorium on new openings of fast-food restaurants whose 9th District includes much of South Los Angeles. The proposal, part of the developing Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan, would prohibit such small neighborhood markets from being closer than one-half mile from one another unless they sold fresh fruit and vegetables."
No one is saying what will replace the lost jobs-and the fact that these stores are predominately run by new immigrants will mean that this sector will be hardest hit. But listen to what's being said: "Separately, researchers looking at the shopping patterns of schoolchildren in urban Philadelphia found that more than half the 800 students they surveyed reported that they shopped at a corner store at least once a day, five times a week. Almost a third visited a store both before and after school. On average, the students spent about $1 and purchased 356 calories of snack foods and drinks each visit. Chips, candy, sugary beverages and gum were the most frequent purchases, according to a study published online today. It also will appear in the November edition of Pediatrics, a medical journal."
So, you see, these stores are doing what stores everywhere are supposed to do-meeting the demands of their customers, and playing a key role in neighborhood economic well-being. As a spokesperson for 7-Eleven comments, in opposition to the idea: "Convenience stores, whether they be a 7-Eleven or other, provide needed products and services to communities, especially lower income or areas with high crime," said Margaret Chabris, spokeswoman for Dallas-based 7-Eleven Inc., which has 50 stores within the Los Angeles city limits. "Sometimes larger supermarkets won't venture into the tougher neighborhoods, but mom-and-pop stores, locally run convenience stores, will," she said. "They provide food, groceries, paper products, money orders, ATM services and over-the-counter medicine around the clock. They can also be a safe haven when someone on the street or in the neighborhood is in trouble and needs a place to go or make a phone call."
And even the lead researcher in the Rand study questions the tactics of this kind of ban: "Despite the studies that link snack calories with higher obesity rates in poor communities, regulating the location of stores might not be helpful, said Roland Sturm, who coauthored the Rand study with colleague Deborah Cohen..."Clearly these stores are a source of excess calories, especially in children," Sturm said, "But people need access to food that is reachable..."I would be hesitant to prohibit the development of these stores," Sturm said, because residents of the community don't have other easy-to-reach places to purchase food to be consumed at home. "
And, memo to LA City Council: a healthy neighborhood economy is as important as healthy eating-so maybe you need to pay more attention to the demand side of the equation: "In the Philadelphia study, Temple University professor Kelley Borradaile and colleagues from the Food Trust, a Philadelphia nonprofit that works to improve access to affordable, healthful food, surveyed students in grades four to six outside 24 corner stores in an economically poor part of that city. "There needs to be more education in the schools as to what is a healthy snack," Borradaile said. "These kids need to learn how to walk through the corner store and make good decisions."
Education is the key-and if consumer demand shifts, so will the product inventory of the local groceries-as we have seen time and time again in gentrifying NYC neighborhoods. These attempts to bogart local businesses and mandate certain behavior-as we have seen with the farcical calorie posting rule in New York-are abhorrent and self-defeating; and infringe on the basic freedoms that we have to make our own choices, without the heavy hand of government coercing us.
All of this can be seen as part of a dangerous trend, where those who want to expand government's role and assert more control over how we live, are using health as the lever to get the door open for further expansion of public sector control over the private lives of Americans. Junk food isn't the beginning of this unhealthy trend, and it certainly won't stop with soda, chips and Twinkies.
So faced with a fatter populace, the health fascists want to limit the one economic institution in poor neighborhoods that serves the community and provides a wide range of other desirable things: "A study by Santa Monica think tank Rand Corp. published in the research journal Health Affairs last week said calories from snacks were a likely culprit of higher obesity rates in South Los Angeles. The authors also found that South Los Angeles had a dramatically higher concentration of the type of small convenience store that sells caloric snacks than other sections of the city."
So, in a manner of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, LA wants to limit the number and location of small groceries: "We need to look at a moratorium on these convenience stores," said Lark Galloway-Gilliam, executive director of Community Health Councils Inc., a nonprofit health policy and education organization in South Los Angeles. The Los Angeles City Council is set to consider a proposal that would limit the density of these small food stores in South Los Angeles, said Councilwoman Jan Perry, a proponent of regulations adopted last year establishing a moratorium on new openings of fast-food restaurants whose 9th District includes much of South Los Angeles. The proposal, part of the developing Southeast Los Angeles Community Plan, would prohibit such small neighborhood markets from being closer than one-half mile from one another unless they sold fresh fruit and vegetables."
No one is saying what will replace the lost jobs-and the fact that these stores are predominately run by new immigrants will mean that this sector will be hardest hit. But listen to what's being said: "Separately, researchers looking at the shopping patterns of schoolchildren in urban Philadelphia found that more than half the 800 students they surveyed reported that they shopped at a corner store at least once a day, five times a week. Almost a third visited a store both before and after school. On average, the students spent about $1 and purchased 356 calories of snack foods and drinks each visit. Chips, candy, sugary beverages and gum were the most frequent purchases, according to a study published online today. It also will appear in the November edition of Pediatrics, a medical journal."
So, you see, these stores are doing what stores everywhere are supposed to do-meeting the demands of their customers, and playing a key role in neighborhood economic well-being. As a spokesperson for 7-Eleven comments, in opposition to the idea: "Convenience stores, whether they be a 7-Eleven or other, provide needed products and services to communities, especially lower income or areas with high crime," said Margaret Chabris, spokeswoman for Dallas-based 7-Eleven Inc., which has 50 stores within the Los Angeles city limits. "Sometimes larger supermarkets won't venture into the tougher neighborhoods, but mom-and-pop stores, locally run convenience stores, will," she said. "They provide food, groceries, paper products, money orders, ATM services and over-the-counter medicine around the clock. They can also be a safe haven when someone on the street or in the neighborhood is in trouble and needs a place to go or make a phone call."
And even the lead researcher in the Rand study questions the tactics of this kind of ban: "Despite the studies that link snack calories with higher obesity rates in poor communities, regulating the location of stores might not be helpful, said Roland Sturm, who coauthored the Rand study with colleague Deborah Cohen..."Clearly these stores are a source of excess calories, especially in children," Sturm said, "But people need access to food that is reachable..."I would be hesitant to prohibit the development of these stores," Sturm said, because residents of the community don't have other easy-to-reach places to purchase food to be consumed at home. "
And, memo to LA City Council: a healthy neighborhood economy is as important as healthy eating-so maybe you need to pay more attention to the demand side of the equation: "In the Philadelphia study, Temple University professor Kelley Borradaile and colleagues from the Food Trust, a Philadelphia nonprofit that works to improve access to affordable, healthful food, surveyed students in grades four to six outside 24 corner stores in an economically poor part of that city. "There needs to be more education in the schools as to what is a healthy snack," Borradaile said. "These kids need to learn how to walk through the corner store and make good decisions."
Education is the key-and if consumer demand shifts, so will the product inventory of the local groceries-as we have seen time and time again in gentrifying NYC neighborhoods. These attempts to bogart local businesses and mandate certain behavior-as we have seen with the farcical calorie posting rule in New York-are abhorrent and self-defeating; and infringe on the basic freedoms that we have to make our own choices, without the heavy hand of government coercing us.
All of this can be seen as part of a dangerous trend, where those who want to expand government's role and assert more control over how we live, are using health as the lever to get the door open for further expansion of public sector control over the private lives of Americans. Junk food isn't the beginning of this unhealthy trend, and it certainly won't stop with soda, chips and Twinkies.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Taxing Shamelessness
Having all the money in the world is always a challenge to good taste-and for Michael Bloomberg, it is a challenge that he has roundly flunked with his attack on the putative tax policies of Bill Thompson. We might even have used the old pot and kettle analogy to describe the Bloomberg gambit if there wasn't a good chance it would be wrongly misconstrued. Here's the NY Daily News' description of a new stealth Bloomberg web site: "Sure, it doesn't take a doctorate in political science to figure out that the campaign behind the ThompsonTaxHike site is that of one Mayor Bloomberg, who has lately stomped on Democratic rival Thompson for flip-flopping on the millionaires tax. But it's notable just how far you have to get into the whole presentation before you actually see Bloomberg's name: You have to click through the ad, get to the site and then actually hit "play" on the clip, which is one of Bloomberg's latest TV commercials."
Well, we do have a doctorate in political science, and we can figure out that this is as crass an attack as they come-especially given Bloomberg's own tax and spend record. Is this all simply a way to use more money to misdirect the tax paying voters away from the awareness that Mike Bloomberg has absconded with so much of their already-and will likely to continue to do so in spades if re-elected?
For those with senile dementia here's what Take a Tax Hike Mike did: "New York City (especially Manhattan) has often been criticized for its high taxes and high cost of living. In his first term as mayor (from 2002). Michael Bloomberg raised taxes, stating that he wouldn’t cut back on essential city services. In January 2003, Bloomberg was cited in the New York Times stating the following: “If New York City is a business, it isn’t Wal-Mart—it isn’t trying to be the lowest-priced product in the market,” a draft of the speech reads. “It’s a high-end product, maybe even a luxury product. New York offers tremendous value, but only for those companies able to capitalize on it.” The “New York is a luxury product” speech has been widely quoted. The “luxury product” idea is criticized by those who point out New York’s disappearing middle class."
And let's not forget that "Luxury Mike" also raised cigarette taxes by over 1800%-the largest proportional tax hike in the city's history. This tax, which we had labeled the, "bodega tax," at the time, diverted over $250 million a year from the city's small groceries to the black market-driven street sales; and continues to do so today with contraband flowing unabated from Indian retailers selling non taxed product. Needless to say, this is the kind of tax that impacts the less than luxurious among us.
So Bloomberg's attack tax ads on Thompson reek of hypocrisy-and he should be ashamed enough to admit it. In fact, this discussion of taxes is the only one that you'll hear from the mayor, whose campaign seems to have banned the word entirely from his farcical "five borough economic plan" missives. No, better to misdirect and mislead the voters by attacking someone else's-not record-but passed statements.
And we don't have to go back to 2002 to dramatize just how hypocritical this-can the folks remember the mayor's sales tax hike last spring, the one that was enacted in the middle of the deepest recession in 60 years? As we commented at the time: "What the people need to realize, however, is that with this latest sales tax hike, the mayor has transformed his vaunted five borough economic plan into an expanded campaign that now encompasses two states; and it is the Garden State and Paramus Park Malls that are now poised to reap the benefits of Bloomberg's beneficence."
So just we remember that we warned you-the tax man cometh if Mike Bloomberg gets re-elected. He has, in his latest effort to disorient the voters, neglected to let us know just how bad the state and city's fiscal condition now is. As Michael; Goodwin reminded us yesterday: "Consider this: New York state is effectively bankrupt. Tax revenues are falling faster than autumn leaves and Albany will probably soon run out of cash."
We are going to be in for a rather rude awakening in January should the mayor get re-elected. Five borough euphoria will give way to the additional tax raises-this time, however, accompanied by the knife and scalpel to the city's budget. The folks are gonna wonder what happened, because if you listened to the full panoply of Bloomberg campaign ads, you would have heard not a single discouraging word. In our view, this fact alone-the sheer and monumental dishonesty and hypocritical disregard for speaking the truth when you are not beholden to the special interests-is ample cause for giving Mike his ticket to ride.
Well, we do have a doctorate in political science, and we can figure out that this is as crass an attack as they come-especially given Bloomberg's own tax and spend record. Is this all simply a way to use more money to misdirect the tax paying voters away from the awareness that Mike Bloomberg has absconded with so much of their already-and will likely to continue to do so in spades if re-elected?
For those with senile dementia here's what Take a Tax Hike Mike did: "New York City (especially Manhattan) has often been criticized for its high taxes and high cost of living. In his first term as mayor (from 2002). Michael Bloomberg raised taxes, stating that he wouldn’t cut back on essential city services. In January 2003, Bloomberg was cited in the New York Times stating the following: “If New York City is a business, it isn’t Wal-Mart—it isn’t trying to be the lowest-priced product in the market,” a draft of the speech reads. “It’s a high-end product, maybe even a luxury product. New York offers tremendous value, but only for those companies able to capitalize on it.” The “New York is a luxury product” speech has been widely quoted. The “luxury product” idea is criticized by those who point out New York’s disappearing middle class."
And let's not forget that "Luxury Mike" also raised cigarette taxes by over 1800%-the largest proportional tax hike in the city's history. This tax, which we had labeled the, "bodega tax," at the time, diverted over $250 million a year from the city's small groceries to the black market-driven street sales; and continues to do so today with contraband flowing unabated from Indian retailers selling non taxed product. Needless to say, this is the kind of tax that impacts the less than luxurious among us.
So Bloomberg's attack tax ads on Thompson reek of hypocrisy-and he should be ashamed enough to admit it. In fact, this discussion of taxes is the only one that you'll hear from the mayor, whose campaign seems to have banned the word entirely from his farcical "five borough economic plan" missives. No, better to misdirect and mislead the voters by attacking someone else's-not record-but passed statements.
And we don't have to go back to 2002 to dramatize just how hypocritical this-can the folks remember the mayor's sales tax hike last spring, the one that was enacted in the middle of the deepest recession in 60 years? As we commented at the time: "What the people need to realize, however, is that with this latest sales tax hike, the mayor has transformed his vaunted five borough economic plan into an expanded campaign that now encompasses two states; and it is the Garden State and Paramus Park Malls that are now poised to reap the benefits of Bloomberg's beneficence."
So just we remember that we warned you-the tax man cometh if Mike Bloomberg gets re-elected. He has, in his latest effort to disorient the voters, neglected to let us know just how bad the state and city's fiscal condition now is. As Michael; Goodwin reminded us yesterday: "Consider this: New York state is effectively bankrupt. Tax revenues are falling faster than autumn leaves and Albany will probably soon run out of cash."
We are going to be in for a rather rude awakening in January should the mayor get re-elected. Five borough euphoria will give way to the additional tax raises-this time, however, accompanied by the knife and scalpel to the city's budget. The folks are gonna wonder what happened, because if you listened to the full panoply of Bloomberg campaign ads, you would have heard not a single discouraging word. In our view, this fact alone-the sheer and monumental dishonesty and hypocritical disregard for speaking the truth when you are not beholden to the special interests-is ample cause for giving Mike his ticket to ride.
Bogus Bodega Blast
The NY Post unleashed a calumny yesterday against the city's 13,000 bodegas and small groceries-accusing them, without any attempt at context, of price gouging: "What they lack in size they make up in price. New Yorkers know that bodegas hike the prices of staples such as toilet paper and milk, but they may not realize how high the markups have climbed. A Post price survey found that shoppers sometimes pay more than twice as much when they shop at their corner store compared with a supermarket. For instance, a quart of milk at the University Place Gourmet deli near Union Square sold for $2.25 last week, a dollar more than at the Food Emporium on the other side of the square."
Now what's missing here. of course, is any analysis of the cost of doing business in this town-something that Post columnist Kyle Smith underscores in an editorial in the Post yesterday: "New York City businesses that are stumbling through the recession are starting to feel like the screaming victims in horror movies (“The Devil’s Rejects” and others) who run away from the psychotic family of murderers only to be run over by an 18-wheeler. They barely survive an epic calamity to find that their taxes are being raised? The jobicidal maniacs in Albany and City Hall — The Market’s Rejects — are terrorizing business owners like Gil Cygler of Brooklyn, who owns All Car Rent a Car, one of the few locally-owned car rental businesses. He employs about 75 New Yorkers."
And Smith goes on to catalogue what Melissa Klein leaves out-a missing link that turns reporting into slanderous caricature. The fact is that the city's small groceries are going through a crisis of epidemic proportions, something that Albor Ruiz has catalogued earlier in the year: "Small, friendly and convenient, bodegas are more than businesses - they are veritable neighborhood institutions. Yet they are disappearing faster than you can say "stimulus package."
Yes, these "price gougers," are gouging so well that they are rapidly disappearing from the city as economic conditions worsen. Ruiz allows Bodega Association president, Ramon Murphy to make the case-something that the Post never bothered to do, even though they had consulted with us beforehand: "Ramón Murphy, president of the Bodega Association of the United States, and a bodega owner, is sounding the alarm about the state of the business to which he has dedicated 24 years of his life - and that has allowed him to raise four children..."Last year, 137 of them went down only along Broadway from 230th St. to 197th St.," Murphy added. "Hundreds of bodegueros [bodega owners] are throwing in the towel. Every day, two or three bodegas close in York."
So, in the middle of a real Main Street crisis, we get accusations of price gouging, go figure. But another missing piece here is that New Yorkers are at times being forced to shop at the higher priced convenience stores precisely because their local supermarkets have disappeared-and they don't have the time to go blocks out of their way to shop for a few staples. The Post captures a bit of this: "But many city dwellers are not willing to travel even a few blocks, which is why bodegas and other small groceries get away with pricey products, said Pace University marketing professor Larry Chiagouris. "The cost to the consumer is not just the price they pay at the checkout counter," he said. "It's the time they have to spend getting there, walking through the store, getting out of the store, and then going back to their home or office."
Or, in other words, we pay for convenience-just as we would if we went into the 7-11 in the suburbs. But all of this finger pointing is still in the wrong direction-and the accusations should be redirected to those elected officials who perpetuate New York City and State as the-almost-worst place to do business in the entire country.
Higher taxes, fees, and regulations continue to pile up and on the small businesses of New York-and Smith has the insight that Klein fails to bring to this discussion: "The mythical “green shoots” of the economy that we’ve been hearing about for six months? They’re getting cut down by the scissors-fingered tax man. ”The small business owner is “paying a rate that in California is reserved for millionaires, and California is the highest-tax state after New York,” says tax analyst E.J. McMahon, of the Empire Center for New York State Policy. So “stick it to the rich” turns out to mean “stick the knife in Mom and Pop.” Actually, what’s happening in New York is worse than a horror movie. You don’t have to be young and sexy to be at risk. From the low-wage workers who aren’t getting hired all the way to the midtown firms who are now paying $15 a square foot in property tax — or three times the rates of downtown Los Angeles — everyone is bleeding from the Taxes Chainsaw Massacre."
A discussion of gouging is germane-and should be a staple of the ghost mayoral campaign that has another three weeks to run before a grim reality, and honesty, reasserts itself after the brief post-election euphoria. But the gougers are really the folks we have elected to govern us-with lockjaw Mike Bloomberg at the top of the list. Has anyone heard him utter the nasty three letter word-tax?
It is past time for New Yorkers to wake up and realize that they need to put an end to five fingered discount government. If they don't, a bleak tale of two cities will be the legacy-can anyone say Detroit?
Now what's missing here. of course, is any analysis of the cost of doing business in this town-something that Post columnist Kyle Smith underscores in an editorial in the Post yesterday: "New York City businesses that are stumbling through the recession are starting to feel like the screaming victims in horror movies (“The Devil’s Rejects” and others) who run away from the psychotic family of murderers only to be run over by an 18-wheeler. They barely survive an epic calamity to find that their taxes are being raised? The jobicidal maniacs in Albany and City Hall — The Market’s Rejects — are terrorizing business owners like Gil Cygler of Brooklyn, who owns All Car Rent a Car, one of the few locally-owned car rental businesses. He employs about 75 New Yorkers."
And Smith goes on to catalogue what Melissa Klein leaves out-a missing link that turns reporting into slanderous caricature. The fact is that the city's small groceries are going through a crisis of epidemic proportions, something that Albor Ruiz has catalogued earlier in the year: "Small, friendly and convenient, bodegas are more than businesses - they are veritable neighborhood institutions. Yet they are disappearing faster than you can say "stimulus package."
Yes, these "price gougers," are gouging so well that they are rapidly disappearing from the city as economic conditions worsen. Ruiz allows Bodega Association president, Ramon Murphy to make the case-something that the Post never bothered to do, even though they had consulted with us beforehand: "Ramón Murphy, president of the Bodega Association of the United States, and a bodega owner, is sounding the alarm about the state of the business to which he has dedicated 24 years of his life - and that has allowed him to raise four children..."Last year, 137 of them went down only along Broadway from 230th St. to 197th St.," Murphy added. "Hundreds of bodegueros [bodega owners] are throwing in the towel. Every day, two or three bodegas close in York."
So, in the middle of a real Main Street crisis, we get accusations of price gouging, go figure. But another missing piece here is that New Yorkers are at times being forced to shop at the higher priced convenience stores precisely because their local supermarkets have disappeared-and they don't have the time to go blocks out of their way to shop for a few staples. The Post captures a bit of this: "But many city dwellers are not willing to travel even a few blocks, which is why bodegas and other small groceries get away with pricey products, said Pace University marketing professor Larry Chiagouris. "The cost to the consumer is not just the price they pay at the checkout counter," he said. "It's the time they have to spend getting there, walking through the store, getting out of the store, and then going back to their home or office."
Or, in other words, we pay for convenience-just as we would if we went into the 7-11 in the suburbs. But all of this finger pointing is still in the wrong direction-and the accusations should be redirected to those elected officials who perpetuate New York City and State as the-almost-worst place to do business in the entire country.
Higher taxes, fees, and regulations continue to pile up and on the small businesses of New York-and Smith has the insight that Klein fails to bring to this discussion: "The mythical “green shoots” of the economy that we’ve been hearing about for six months? They’re getting cut down by the scissors-fingered tax man. ”The small business owner is “paying a rate that in California is reserved for millionaires, and California is the highest-tax state after New York,” says tax analyst E.J. McMahon, of the Empire Center for New York State Policy. So “stick it to the rich” turns out to mean “stick the knife in Mom and Pop.” Actually, what’s happening in New York is worse than a horror movie. You don’t have to be young and sexy to be at risk. From the low-wage workers who aren’t getting hired all the way to the midtown firms who are now paying $15 a square foot in property tax — or three times the rates of downtown Los Angeles — everyone is bleeding from the Taxes Chainsaw Massacre."
A discussion of gouging is germane-and should be a staple of the ghost mayoral campaign that has another three weeks to run before a grim reality, and honesty, reasserts itself after the brief post-election euphoria. But the gougers are really the folks we have elected to govern us-with lockjaw Mike Bloomberg at the top of the list. Has anyone heard him utter the nasty three letter word-tax?
It is past time for New Yorkers to wake up and realize that they need to put an end to five fingered discount government. If they don't, a bleak tale of two cities will be the legacy-can anyone say Detroit?
Not a Nobel Endorsement
President Obama ran for, and won the presidency, by articulating a new kind of politics-grass roots oriented in a way that befitted someone who cut his teeth politically as a community organizer. So, it seems to us, that BHO should be able to stand proudly with Bill Thompson-in opposition to Michael Bloomberg, the man who is the absolute antithesis of the Obama persona.
Proud is, however, not what characterized the back hand-and shameful-quasi-endorsement that Thompson received from the White House; and not even from the president personally. As the NY Times reported: "It was an unusually lukewarm expression of political support from the White House, delivered in the conditional tense, without using the name of the candidate, and coming from a presidential spokesman, no less."
Now Obama's the guy who strong armed New York Democrats in order to insure that appointed Senator Gillerbrand could run without having to undergo the rigors of a primary; and he's also greasing the skids for David Paterson, an indication that his concerns revolve around what's good for Obama, and not the modeling of a new form of political action. He's even saying some good things about our own community disorganized mayor: "The president,” Mr. Gibbs said, “obviously has had a chance to, throughout campaigning and in his time both as a candidate and as a president, to meet, know and work with Mayor Bloomberg, and obviously has a tremendous amount of respect for what he’s done as well.”
What a disgrace! The mayor who has stood firmly opposed to the empowerment of communities-and is even now working to defeat any living wage-based community benefits agreement at the Kingsbridge Armory-and who has promoted large scale development that has enriched his billionaire real estate friends, should be an anathema to the old Obama; but maybe this Nobel Prize thing, and the non stop adulation, has really made him into a transformative figure-but not in a good way.
In our opinion, Obama has to do a lot better than this: "Mr. Gibbs at first seemed to mock the question. “New York-centric over there,” he said. “There’s more than one city.” After a few moments of playful banter, he offered this: “The president is the leader of the Democratic Party, and as that would support the Democratic nominee.”
He needs to get to New York City and demonstrate that he hasn't forgotten what gave him the spring board into politics-and the way to do this is by appearing alongside Thompson and declaring to all New Yorkers that popular referendums count for something-and that buying your way into a usurped third term is not something that any one who has the Obama pedigree can support.
Proud is, however, not what characterized the back hand-and shameful-quasi-endorsement that Thompson received from the White House; and not even from the president personally. As the NY Times reported: "It was an unusually lukewarm expression of political support from the White House, delivered in the conditional tense, without using the name of the candidate, and coming from a presidential spokesman, no less."
Now Obama's the guy who strong armed New York Democrats in order to insure that appointed Senator Gillerbrand could run without having to undergo the rigors of a primary; and he's also greasing the skids for David Paterson, an indication that his concerns revolve around what's good for Obama, and not the modeling of a new form of political action. He's even saying some good things about our own community disorganized mayor: "The president,” Mr. Gibbs said, “obviously has had a chance to, throughout campaigning and in his time both as a candidate and as a president, to meet, know and work with Mayor Bloomberg, and obviously has a tremendous amount of respect for what he’s done as well.”
What a disgrace! The mayor who has stood firmly opposed to the empowerment of communities-and is even now working to defeat any living wage-based community benefits agreement at the Kingsbridge Armory-and who has promoted large scale development that has enriched his billionaire real estate friends, should be an anathema to the old Obama; but maybe this Nobel Prize thing, and the non stop adulation, has really made him into a transformative figure-but not in a good way.
In our opinion, Obama has to do a lot better than this: "Mr. Gibbs at first seemed to mock the question. “New York-centric over there,” he said. “There’s more than one city.” After a few moments of playful banter, he offered this: “The president is the leader of the Democratic Party, and as that would support the Democratic nominee.”
He needs to get to New York City and demonstrate that he hasn't forgotten what gave him the spring board into politics-and the way to do this is by appearing alongside Thompson and declaring to all New Yorkers that popular referendums count for something-and that buying your way into a usurped third term is not something that any one who has the Obama pedigree can support.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Non Stella Performance
In a follow up to our post this morning on the shameful closing of the Stella D'Oro factory, there is a good story in the Labor Press that deserves comment-since it highlights the class limited world view of our billionaire mayor: "As politicians and labor leaders were falling over each other at a City Hall news conference to say how much they were in solidarity with Stella D’oro workers in the Bronx – and how they would “stand by” them – managers on 237th Street were shutting the plant down and putting 155 people out of work. Mike Filippou, a lead mechanic at the plant for 14 years and Local 50’s chief shop steward at the plant, described what happened when he got back up to the Bronx after the news conference ended.“When the 3pm shift left the plant, the managers wouldn’t let in the workers who had come to work the next shift,” he said. “They said, ‘you’re not working today.’ They surprised us today,” he continued. “They didn’t let anyone in to work, just a few people to pick up things from their lockers.”
Where is the mayor in all of this? Not demonstrating any concern or solidarity with the displaced workers. But who could really be surprised? This is the same guy-courtesy of the new president of Bloomberg LLP, one Dan Doctoroff-who evicted 20 minority wholesalers, and hundreds of their workers at the Bronx Terminal Market, so that his billionaire real estate buddy could build another mall with chain stores that are providing poverty wage jobs.
This is the same guy who wants to evict 250 businesses and 2500 mostly immigrant workers from Willets Point-with no relocation plan-for a mega development pipe dream that will cost the city's around $700 million even before the first shovel ever gets put in the ground.
And this is the guy who is supporting the building of another tax subsidized mall at the Kingsbridge Armory with, once again, his good friend Steve Ross of Related as the developer; while resisting tooth and nail any provision that would insure that the retail workers would get paid a living wage. In addition, this development could very well include a mega food store that would put at risk union staffed supermarkets, as well as immigrant entrepreneurs in 17 other local food stores.
So what we see at Stella D'Oro-or, not see, as the case may be-is an encapsulation of the class-based world view of a man who made his billions on Wall Street, flies in his own private jet and helicopter to his numerous properties around the country and the world; and who gets his policy perspectives talking to the stock brokers, real estate tycoons, and hedge fund managers at the various exclusive clubs he belongs to.
Unfortunately, the policies that emerge from this patrician perspective, are ones that the city can no longer afford-as the record levels of retail store closings and sky high unemployment clearly demonstrates. So when some flack from the Bloomberg campaign complains, with a straight face and no obvious sense of irony, that a Thompson development proposal is too costly, what is missing is the understanding that it is the citizens of the city-but particularly its poorest residents-who are finding that it is the mayor's existing economic policies are too costly for their own well being.
And nothing underscores this more than the mayor's silence on the Stella D'oro tragedy. Here's a guy who will go to great lengths to sting gun dealers in Tennessee, or stop smoking in the park-but can't even lift a symbolic finger for the working class of New York-except when trying to promote an economic agenda that's built on falsehoods and false promises.
Where is the mayor in all of this? Not demonstrating any concern or solidarity with the displaced workers. But who could really be surprised? This is the same guy-courtesy of the new president of Bloomberg LLP, one Dan Doctoroff-who evicted 20 minority wholesalers, and hundreds of their workers at the Bronx Terminal Market, so that his billionaire real estate buddy could build another mall with chain stores that are providing poverty wage jobs.
This is the same guy who wants to evict 250 businesses and 2500 mostly immigrant workers from Willets Point-with no relocation plan-for a mega development pipe dream that will cost the city's around $700 million even before the first shovel ever gets put in the ground.
And this is the guy who is supporting the building of another tax subsidized mall at the Kingsbridge Armory with, once again, his good friend Steve Ross of Related as the developer; while resisting tooth and nail any provision that would insure that the retail workers would get paid a living wage. In addition, this development could very well include a mega food store that would put at risk union staffed supermarkets, as well as immigrant entrepreneurs in 17 other local food stores.
So what we see at Stella D'Oro-or, not see, as the case may be-is an encapsulation of the class-based world view of a man who made his billions on Wall Street, flies in his own private jet and helicopter to his numerous properties around the country and the world; and who gets his policy perspectives talking to the stock brokers, real estate tycoons, and hedge fund managers at the various exclusive clubs he belongs to.
Unfortunately, the policies that emerge from this patrician perspective, are ones that the city can no longer afford-as the record levels of retail store closings and sky high unemployment clearly demonstrates. So when some flack from the Bloomberg campaign complains, with a straight face and no obvious sense of irony, that a Thompson development proposal is too costly, what is missing is the understanding that it is the citizens of the city-but particularly its poorest residents-who are finding that it is the mayor's existing economic policies are too costly for their own well being.
And nothing underscores this more than the mayor's silence on the Stella D'oro tragedy. Here's a guy who will go to great lengths to sting gun dealers in Tennessee, or stop smoking in the park-but can't even lift a symbolic finger for the working class of New York-except when trying to promote an economic agenda that's built on falsehoods and false promises.
Unhealthy Policy?
Dr. Gilbert Ross has an interesting Op-ed piece in today's NY Daily News that critiques the DOE decision to fill the school vending machines with only healthier snacks: "This week, the city's Department of Education is rolling out new rules for beverage and snack-food vending machines in public schools. Drinks will now be allowed to have no more than 25 calories per 8 ounces - and no artificial sweeteners or caffeine or carbonation. Drinks will be, in effect, restricted to water, seltzer or unsweetened tea. Snacks will be limited not only in calories, but also in the fraction of calories in them that comes from fat and sugar."
The doctor doesn't think that this is going to do much good-and even might do harm in the process: "These rules are wholly unscientific. Don't the city's nutrition nannies know that all calories count the same - whether from fat, sugar or protein? When did they decide that artificial sweeteners were "unhealthy" too? Did they get that off of fringe Internet sites? And what does carbonation have to do with anything? Is there a fear that the little bubbles might burn children's tongues?"
Is this science in the public interest? "Allegedly aimed at the rampant obesity among our kids, these draconian regulations are wrong-headed and counterproductive. That's right - they will more likely hinder than help the fight against obesity. Here's why. The schools' lapsed vending contract (with Snapple) brought in big bucks, which helped fund various activities, including physical education and extracurricular athletics. The new contract is expected to bring in less money because the snacks sold will be "healthier" (read: less popular). With budget cutbacks already threatening to eliminate many elective programs, that means there will be less new money to defray cutbacks in athletics and other school-based exercise - thus reducing one of the key ingredients in a healthy lifestyle."
But at least the kids will eat better, right? "Will these onerous restrictions lead to a black market in junk food, where a young entrepreneur standing in the shadows sells salty snacks and real Diet Coke to his peers, while being ever vigilant for the footsteps of the food police? Along with the de facto ban on student-sponsored bake sales, the whole campaign smacks of political agendas and moral rectitude substituting for sound nutritional science, wielded against perceived "unhealthy" foods."
When we were teaching so many years ago, the kids never ate the school lunch-choosing instead to bring chips, soda, and "nowalaters" (Now and Later candy) into class to snack on. The more you try to restrict choice, the more likely you will find a pushback-and we predict that the current healthy experiment will eventually prove unhealthy to the goal of getting our school kids more trim and, well, healthier.
The doctor doesn't think that this is going to do much good-and even might do harm in the process: "These rules are wholly unscientific. Don't the city's nutrition nannies know that all calories count the same - whether from fat, sugar or protein? When did they decide that artificial sweeteners were "unhealthy" too? Did they get that off of fringe Internet sites? And what does carbonation have to do with anything? Is there a fear that the little bubbles might burn children's tongues?"
Is this science in the public interest? "Allegedly aimed at the rampant obesity among our kids, these draconian regulations are wrong-headed and counterproductive. That's right - they will more likely hinder than help the fight against obesity. Here's why. The schools' lapsed vending contract (with Snapple) brought in big bucks, which helped fund various activities, including physical education and extracurricular athletics. The new contract is expected to bring in less money because the snacks sold will be "healthier" (read: less popular). With budget cutbacks already threatening to eliminate many elective programs, that means there will be less new money to defray cutbacks in athletics and other school-based exercise - thus reducing one of the key ingredients in a healthy lifestyle."
But at least the kids will eat better, right? "Will these onerous restrictions lead to a black market in junk food, where a young entrepreneur standing in the shadows sells salty snacks and real Diet Coke to his peers, while being ever vigilant for the footsteps of the food police? Along with the de facto ban on student-sponsored bake sales, the whole campaign smacks of political agendas and moral rectitude substituting for sound nutritional science, wielded against perceived "unhealthy" foods."
When we were teaching so many years ago, the kids never ate the school lunch-choosing instead to bring chips, soda, and "nowalaters" (Now and Later candy) into class to snack on. The more you try to restrict choice, the more likely you will find a pushback-and we predict that the current healthy experiment will eventually prove unhealthy to the goal of getting our school kids more trim and, well, healthier.
The Way the Cookie Crumbles
Stella D'Oro has closed its doors for the last time in the Bronx, without Mike Bloomberg either saying a word or lifting a finger to help-a symbol of the mayor's failed economic policies for the past eight years: "The famous Bronx maker of Italian cookies and breadsticks closed its gates as the 3 p.m. shift walked out, leaving nearly 150 plant workers jobless. "I'm very sad," said Mike Filippou, 45, a mechanic at the plant for 14 years. "After all these years, it's finally closing." "Many people didn't believe it," said George Kahssay, 51, a floor manager. "Some had a little hope that it might continue, that they must be crazy to close it."
For 78 years this factory hasa provided jobs and a distinctive bakery product for New York and the nation-and the equity firm that took it over only to gut and shut the facility-glomming hundreds of thousands of city tax dollars in the process: "The news came as the rest of the workers rallied on the steps of City Hall, demanding the city go to court to stall the plant's sale to a North Carolina-based snack food maker, Lance Inc. The workers said the factory's owner, Connecticut-based private equity firm Brynwood Partners, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in city tax abatements to upgrade machinery since buying the plant from Kraft in 2006. Now they say the city should force Brynwood to either return the money or keep the machinery, due to be moved to a nonunion Lance factory in Ashland, Ohio. "That's taxpayer dollars from New Yorkers that is now going to be moved to Ohio," said Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens). "That is an absolute disgrace and shame on the City of New York for allowing this to happen."
Mike Bloomberg told reporters yesterday that he is shocked and saddened by the move, oh wait, Mike Bloomberg was speechless-saying nothing about the theft of tax money, and probably too devastated by the job loss even to talk. But perhaps, Brynwood, being an investment firm is considered sacrosanct and above reproach from its kindred spirit down at city hall.
But to be fair, it's not possible to get the city's money back: "The city Finance Department has already said it will not attempt to recover the money. A department spokesman said there is no "clawback" provision in the abatement program. Brynwood received $425,399.26 in tax abatements since purchasing the company from Kraft."
Wow, this was a great deal! No protections for the tax payers-and the 150 bakery workers get the "clawback" but not the city treasury. In all likelihood, what this means is that there is a box store waiting to replace the factory on the side of the Major Deegan-another example of how the five borough economic plan, when it actually does manage to create jobs, replaces union workers with low paying poverty level jobs.
So the Stell D'Oro demise is emblematic of a failed set of economic development policies that have sacrificed the working class on the altar of equity capital and large real estate aggrandizement. All of which makes mockery of the concept of Mike Bloomberg as some sort of economic saviour-a needed rescuer for the city in its current job loss travails.
For 78 years this factory hasa provided jobs and a distinctive bakery product for New York and the nation-and the equity firm that took it over only to gut and shut the facility-glomming hundreds of thousands of city tax dollars in the process: "The news came as the rest of the workers rallied on the steps of City Hall, demanding the city go to court to stall the plant's sale to a North Carolina-based snack food maker, Lance Inc. The workers said the factory's owner, Connecticut-based private equity firm Brynwood Partners, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in city tax abatements to upgrade machinery since buying the plant from Kraft in 2006. Now they say the city should force Brynwood to either return the money or keep the machinery, due to be moved to a nonunion Lance factory in Ashland, Ohio. "That's taxpayer dollars from New Yorkers that is now going to be moved to Ohio," said Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens). "That is an absolute disgrace and shame on the City of New York for allowing this to happen."
Mike Bloomberg told reporters yesterday that he is shocked and saddened by the move, oh wait, Mike Bloomberg was speechless-saying nothing about the theft of tax money, and probably too devastated by the job loss even to talk. But perhaps, Brynwood, being an investment firm is considered sacrosanct and above reproach from its kindred spirit down at city hall.
But to be fair, it's not possible to get the city's money back: "The city Finance Department has already said it will not attempt to recover the money. A department spokesman said there is no "clawback" provision in the abatement program. Brynwood received $425,399.26 in tax abatements since purchasing the company from Kraft."
Wow, this was a great deal! No protections for the tax payers-and the 150 bakery workers get the "clawback" but not the city treasury. In all likelihood, what this means is that there is a box store waiting to replace the factory on the side of the Major Deegan-another example of how the five borough economic plan, when it actually does manage to create jobs, replaces union workers with low paying poverty level jobs.
So the Stell D'Oro demise is emblematic of a failed set of economic development policies that have sacrificed the working class on the altar of equity capital and large real estate aggrandizement. All of which makes mockery of the concept of Mike Bloomberg as some sort of economic saviour-a needed rescuer for the city in its current job loss travails.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Economics 101
Now, as we all know, the reason we need Mike Bloomberg for a third term is because of the fiscal crisis that, owing to his superior management skill, demands that we not change horses and bring in new inexperienced blood to lead. However, what does the record really show-and has Bloomberg earned the usurped third term?
The reality is that the city is at record unemployment, with small neighborhood businesses hardest hit-at least after the financial sector that was also truly devastated but was a victim more of national trends beyond the control of local factors. These other businesses-particularly neighborhood retailers, have been victimized not only be the escalating cost of doing business in NYC, but by a mega development policy of the Bloombergistas that have aggrandized large retail development at the expense of local firms.
Yesterday Comptroller Bill Thompson, acknowledging these trends, hit hard at the mayor's policies for exacerbating the economic downturn. As the NY Times reports: "Seeking to undercut his rival’s main rationale for a third term, the Democratic candidate for mayor, William C. Thompson Jr., issued a blistering attack Wednesday on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s economic record, arguing that he has created many low-paying jobs, crippled small businesses with fees, and relied on megadevelopments that eat up taxpayer subsidies."
And so he has. Take consumer affairs violations for supermarkets-where revenue collection has increased from around $2 million a year to closer to $16 million. And this is on top of the parking fines that wallop deliveries. One of our local C-Town stores on University Avenue in the Bronx, routinely is socked with $500 worth of tickets each time Krasdale Foods makes a delivery to the store. The city decided to move a bus stop right in front of the store so there is no place for any delivery to be made legally. The cost of this is passed on to the consumers-and the result is that it is harder for local food stores to remain competitive and stay in business.
Now the city comes forward with its Fresh Initiative that is designed to bring more supermarkets to the boroughs-yet fails to consider ways to address the loss of such markets because of its own anti-small business policies. Thompson assailed the mayor and made some proposals to redirect city resources elsewhere: "He demanded, for instance, that the city stop blanketing small businesses with tickets, which he described as “harassment.” Yet higher ticket collections under Mr. Bloomberg have provided the city with tens of millions of dollars to finance a range of services."
Stop right there! What services are being provided by these fee collections, and how many jobs are lost because these fees, and the higher taxes that accompany them, are costing the city hundreds of thousands of jobs in retail stores whose revenues are being plundered? Thompson needs to stay on this theme-and hit the mayor from the right side of the plate because the Bloomberg expansion of government has come at such a great cost to the city's economic development.
And Thompson is right to go after the mayor's edifice complex: "Mr. Thompson portrayed the mayor as a protector of the rich, who has pursued top-down economic development and taken a haphazard approach to job creation. He called the city’s $1 billion work force training system “uncoordinated and often at odds with itself.” He said the city has “operated without a comprehensive economic plan.” And criticizing the mayor’s pursuit of splashy developments, he said: “Enormous staff resources and time were wasted planning a West Side Jets Stadium that was never built. Huge subsidies went to the New York Yankees for a stadium project with little local economic impact.”
Not to mention the malling that is escalating the draining of shoppers from local retail strips-replacing entrepreneurs with low wage jobs at national retail chains. The Bloomberg response to these attacks is priceless: "A Bloomberg campaign spokeswoman, Jill Hazelbaker, said in a statement that Mr. Thompson has “failed to offer a credible plan for how to create jobs and protect middle-class New Yorkers. She added, “Today’s proposal is long on promises Thompson can’t deliver, beginning with how he plans to pay for it.”
Lyin' eyes again. It is the mayor who has presided over the meltdown-and he has to defend his record of job loss and mega development mania. And for the Bloombergistas to criticize any one else for false and expensive promises-while he continues to inundate the airwaves with wave after wave of these very same kind of ersatz proposals is risible in the extreme.
Thompson needs to keep firing this sub machine gun at the mayor's multi-million dollar cover up of the reality that has left the city worse off than when he came in in 2002. And memo to Jill Hazelbaker: We're all paying for the mayor's skewed economic focus. Have you seem the unemployment numbers Jill?
The reality is that the city is at record unemployment, with small neighborhood businesses hardest hit-at least after the financial sector that was also truly devastated but was a victim more of national trends beyond the control of local factors. These other businesses-particularly neighborhood retailers, have been victimized not only be the escalating cost of doing business in NYC, but by a mega development policy of the Bloombergistas that have aggrandized large retail development at the expense of local firms.
Yesterday Comptroller Bill Thompson, acknowledging these trends, hit hard at the mayor's policies for exacerbating the economic downturn. As the NY Times reports: "Seeking to undercut his rival’s main rationale for a third term, the Democratic candidate for mayor, William C. Thompson Jr., issued a blistering attack Wednesday on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s economic record, arguing that he has created many low-paying jobs, crippled small businesses with fees, and relied on megadevelopments that eat up taxpayer subsidies."
And so he has. Take consumer affairs violations for supermarkets-where revenue collection has increased from around $2 million a year to closer to $16 million. And this is on top of the parking fines that wallop deliveries. One of our local C-Town stores on University Avenue in the Bronx, routinely is socked with $500 worth of tickets each time Krasdale Foods makes a delivery to the store. The city decided to move a bus stop right in front of the store so there is no place for any delivery to be made legally. The cost of this is passed on to the consumers-and the result is that it is harder for local food stores to remain competitive and stay in business.
Now the city comes forward with its Fresh Initiative that is designed to bring more supermarkets to the boroughs-yet fails to consider ways to address the loss of such markets because of its own anti-small business policies. Thompson assailed the mayor and made some proposals to redirect city resources elsewhere: "He demanded, for instance, that the city stop blanketing small businesses with tickets, which he described as “harassment.” Yet higher ticket collections under Mr. Bloomberg have provided the city with tens of millions of dollars to finance a range of services."
Stop right there! What services are being provided by these fee collections, and how many jobs are lost because these fees, and the higher taxes that accompany them, are costing the city hundreds of thousands of jobs in retail stores whose revenues are being plundered? Thompson needs to stay on this theme-and hit the mayor from the right side of the plate because the Bloomberg expansion of government has come at such a great cost to the city's economic development.
And Thompson is right to go after the mayor's edifice complex: "Mr. Thompson portrayed the mayor as a protector of the rich, who has pursued top-down economic development and taken a haphazard approach to job creation. He called the city’s $1 billion work force training system “uncoordinated and often at odds with itself.” He said the city has “operated without a comprehensive economic plan.” And criticizing the mayor’s pursuit of splashy developments, he said: “Enormous staff resources and time were wasted planning a West Side Jets Stadium that was never built. Huge subsidies went to the New York Yankees for a stadium project with little local economic impact.”
Not to mention the malling that is escalating the draining of shoppers from local retail strips-replacing entrepreneurs with low wage jobs at national retail chains. The Bloomberg response to these attacks is priceless: "A Bloomberg campaign spokeswoman, Jill Hazelbaker, said in a statement that Mr. Thompson has “failed to offer a credible plan for how to create jobs and protect middle-class New Yorkers. She added, “Today’s proposal is long on promises Thompson can’t deliver, beginning with how he plans to pay for it.”
Lyin' eyes again. It is the mayor who has presided over the meltdown-and he has to defend his record of job loss and mega development mania. And for the Bloombergistas to criticize any one else for false and expensive promises-while he continues to inundate the airwaves with wave after wave of these very same kind of ersatz proposals is risible in the extreme.
Thompson needs to keep firing this sub machine gun at the mayor's multi-million dollar cover up of the reality that has left the city worse off than when he came in in 2002. And memo to Jill Hazelbaker: We're all paying for the mayor's skewed economic focus. Have you seem the unemployment numbers Jill?
Pode$ta's Perfidy
We did mention the curious endorsement that John Podesta gave to Mike Bloomberg the other day. As we pointed out: "But the subtext here, is the residual power of the Bloomberg fortune: "Since Mr. Obama’s election, Mr. Thompson, the city’s comptroller, has found his attempts to piggyback on Mr. Obama’s popularity drowned out by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has tethered himself to the president...On Tuesday, he accepted the endorsement of a close Obama ally, John D. Podesta, who ran Mr. Obama’s transition team last fall."All but forgotten is the millions lavished on state senate Republicans-and the fact that MB never even endorsed Obama last fall; not to mention all of the wooing of local Republican county leaders-along with the cash bounties that go with it. And does the endorsement by John Podesta have nothing to do with the cash nexus?"
But, as the Observer has indicated, very few Democrats spoke out against this cash-driven perfidy-except for the following outspoken candor from RWDSU's Staurt Appelbaum: "Appelbuam said Podesta “has done harm” to his reputation, and that of his think tank, the Center for American Progress..."Unfortunately, in his attempt to curry favor with the billionaire mayor of New York City, John Podesta has done harm to his own reputation as well as to the credibility of the Center for American Progress. Working people in New York are hurting while Bloomberg pursues Republican economic policies on development and finance. Mr. Podesta should come to the Bronx and see what is really going on in our city."
Curry favor indeed-another example of the corrosive effect of mega-bucks on the Democratic process. Absent Bloomberg's billions, would a John Podesta even give the guy the time of day?
But, as the Observer has indicated, very few Democrats spoke out against this cash-driven perfidy-except for the following outspoken candor from RWDSU's Staurt Appelbaum: "Appelbuam said Podesta “has done harm” to his reputation, and that of his think tank, the Center for American Progress..."Unfortunately, in his attempt to curry favor with the billionaire mayor of New York City, John Podesta has done harm to his own reputation as well as to the credibility of the Center for American Progress. Working people in New York are hurting while Bloomberg pursues Republican economic policies on development and finance. Mr. Podesta should come to the Bronx and see what is really going on in our city."
Curry favor indeed-another example of the corrosive effect of mega-bucks on the Democratic process. Absent Bloomberg's billions, would a John Podesta even give the guy the time of day?
Termination Notice?
Steve Kornacki over at the Observer is, well, observing that Mike Bloomberg-a man with all of the advantages in the world-isn't doing as well as he should be, considering the lopsided amount of resources he's able to deploy: "Lest I be accused a month from now of having had my head buried in the sand while this turned into a real contest, let me state for the record: Bill Thompson could end up making this a much tighter affair than we think."
And the reason is? Why that old bugaboo term limits-and Kornacki sees this issue as compelling as the tax issue was in the 1990 New Jersey senate race where Christie Todd Whitman came within 55,000 votes of defeating the popular incumbent, Bill Bradley: "Thompson’s hope is that term limits will be the same under-the-radar phenomenon in 2009 New York that taxes were in 1990 New Jersey. It’s rare for a single issue to become so resonant, but the Bradley example shows that, when it does, it can cancel out just about all of the advantages enjoyed by an otherwise invulnerable incumbent."
But for this issue to be the fulcrum for a Bloomberg defeat, it's gonna have to be some fulcrum: "Historically speaking, the media is on fairly sturdy ground in doing this. Bloomberg retains very healthy personal popularity among voters (a 64 percent personal favorable score, in one recent poll), enjoys one of the most absurd financial advantages in political history, and has picked off numerous key figures from his opponent’s party. Moreover, that opponent, Thompson, is barely known to voters, has almost no money to define himself, and has inspired so little confidence among his fellow Democrats that President Obama—who has happily campaigned for the two other Democrats running in high-profile races this year—is refusing to lift a finger for him."
Yet, the race still appears to be tightening despite all of this lopsidedness, and aside from term limits, what else could be the underlying rationale? "A new Survey USA poll released on Tuesday showed Thompson within 8 points of the mayor, 51 to 43 percent. Let’s assume for the sake of this exercise that the poll isn’t the outlier it might well be. Given all of his advantages—and the media’s consistent willingness to dismiss Thompson—Bloomberg should be much farther ahead than this. No doubt the brutal economy is a factor. But it might be that term limits is a bigger explanation than is generally assumed; it would explain why voters who generally like the mayor and generally approve of his performance are keeping their distance. Remember, the fact that he’s not a Democrat (while most voters are) can’t really explain his numbers: Bloomberg also wasn’t a Democrat in 2005, but he led polls then by more than 30 points. Something else is at work this year."
But it's not the term limits thing acting as a completely discrete variable here: "He didn’t merely break a pledge—he threw his weight around to change the law, one that had twice been approved by voters. He’s spent his political career (successfully) fighting the idea that he’s just some rich, transactional plutocrat who thinks everything has a price. Against this backdrop, his term limits maneuvering is far more dangerous than simply going back on a promise. It invites emotional resentment from the public."
Precisely so-and what Bloomberg did here was to undermine his carefully crafted persona-and the manufactured narrative of the non-political problem solver who transcends the tawdriness of the quotidian political world. Once you undermine your own narrative, you invite skepticism about all aspects of your message. And when you add into this the current toxic economic climate, you have created a combustible mixture.
Now, as Kornacki does point out, there's millions of reasons why the potential fire in the hole can be doused by the little Bloomberg campaign engine. Still, there is something afoot here, and it is our experience that when the folks begin to view the bedrock identity of the leader as no longer admirable, it may well prove to be Humpty Dumpty time.
And the reason is? Why that old bugaboo term limits-and Kornacki sees this issue as compelling as the tax issue was in the 1990 New Jersey senate race where Christie Todd Whitman came within 55,000 votes of defeating the popular incumbent, Bill Bradley: "Thompson’s hope is that term limits will be the same under-the-radar phenomenon in 2009 New York that taxes were in 1990 New Jersey. It’s rare for a single issue to become so resonant, but the Bradley example shows that, when it does, it can cancel out just about all of the advantages enjoyed by an otherwise invulnerable incumbent."
But for this issue to be the fulcrum for a Bloomberg defeat, it's gonna have to be some fulcrum: "Historically speaking, the media is on fairly sturdy ground in doing this. Bloomberg retains very healthy personal popularity among voters (a 64 percent personal favorable score, in one recent poll), enjoys one of the most absurd financial advantages in political history, and has picked off numerous key figures from his opponent’s party. Moreover, that opponent, Thompson, is barely known to voters, has almost no money to define himself, and has inspired so little confidence among his fellow Democrats that President Obama—who has happily campaigned for the two other Democrats running in high-profile races this year—is refusing to lift a finger for him."
Yet, the race still appears to be tightening despite all of this lopsidedness, and aside from term limits, what else could be the underlying rationale? "A new Survey USA poll released on Tuesday showed Thompson within 8 points of the mayor, 51 to 43 percent. Let’s assume for the sake of this exercise that the poll isn’t the outlier it might well be. Given all of his advantages—and the media’s consistent willingness to dismiss Thompson—Bloomberg should be much farther ahead than this. No doubt the brutal economy is a factor. But it might be that term limits is a bigger explanation than is generally assumed; it would explain why voters who generally like the mayor and generally approve of his performance are keeping their distance. Remember, the fact that he’s not a Democrat (while most voters are) can’t really explain his numbers: Bloomberg also wasn’t a Democrat in 2005, but he led polls then by more than 30 points. Something else is at work this year."
But it's not the term limits thing acting as a completely discrete variable here: "He didn’t merely break a pledge—he threw his weight around to change the law, one that had twice been approved by voters. He’s spent his political career (successfully) fighting the idea that he’s just some rich, transactional plutocrat who thinks everything has a price. Against this backdrop, his term limits maneuvering is far more dangerous than simply going back on a promise. It invites emotional resentment from the public."
Precisely so-and what Bloomberg did here was to undermine his carefully crafted persona-and the manufactured narrative of the non-political problem solver who transcends the tawdriness of the quotidian political world. Once you undermine your own narrative, you invite skepticism about all aspects of your message. And when you add into this the current toxic economic climate, you have created a combustible mixture.
Now, as Kornacki does point out, there's millions of reasons why the potential fire in the hole can be doused by the little Bloomberg campaign engine. Still, there is something afoot here, and it is our experience that when the folks begin to view the bedrock identity of the leader as no longer admirable, it may well prove to be Humpty Dumpty time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
