[Update: Due to Gatemouth's note of an error that strengthens my argument, references to 1982 have been changed to 1977 and *marked]
Every time I read yet another article, blog post or comment that contains the phrase: "Vote for Cuomo, Not the Homo," my blood pressure goes up a bit—Because I don't understand why the hell this is relevant in 2006.
First disclaimer: I am a politically active gay man, who was only 6* when these posters were put around Queens.
Any purple power out there? See the latest New York magazine:
Introducing the Purple Party
But the Purple Party wouldn’t use its populist, progressive positions on domestic issues like health to avoid talking about military policy, the way Democrats tend to do. We would declare straight out that, alas, the fight against
I’ve long believed that one of the best ways to predict a politician’s future behavior is to get a handle on what their fundamental values are. In some cases, this is difficult, as the candidates have no values other than “what’s in it for me?” or “any weapon to hand”. Thanks to the fertile memory of Errol Lewis, voters in Brooklyn’s 20th Senatorial District will have a chance to ponder deeply into the meaning of what State Senate candidate Eric Adams meant by comments which appeared in the March 26, 1995 edition of the New York Daily News, and once digested they may want to ask what those statements indicate about the values Mr. Adams embraces.
CBA should mean "city benefit agreement," not "community benefit agreement." Promises of jobs on large projects should be city-wide, not community-wide. Mayor Bloomberg should issue a policy pronouncement on this right now.
For example: a water park will be built on Randall's Island. Who lives on Randall's Island? Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has reportedly received promises that at least 300 jobs will go to residents of East Harlem. But what about jobs for the South Bronx? What if there aren't 300 qualified people in East Harlem? What if someone from East Harlem gets the job and then moves--horrors!--to Inwood or Washington Heights?
In the spring, it is said that a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. In New York City politics, however, the change of seasons is more likely to bring upon thoughts of endorsements by political clubs. In reality, the young man’s fancy is less likely to be focused upon hearts and flowers, and more likely to be concentrated upon the ways and means of getting laid. In reality, the political club’s focus is less likely to be implemented by means of elevated debates about the great issues of public policy and political philosophy, and more likely to be focused upon the necessity of packing club memberships to ensure the desired results. In both scenarios, the likelihood is that someone is going to get screwed.
So Says Quinn to Taxpayers
No mention of givebacks, no mention of Council Members paying for more of their healthcare coverage, no mention of pension adjustments or agreement to work additional hours, and no mind the working New Yorkers who have seen little to no quality of life improvements over the past decade.
Quinn wants a raise for Council Members and apparently, that's that!
Ten years ago, Bill Clinton signed into law an anti-terrorism measure, that has turned out to be one of the worst pieces of legislation impacting on the Caribbean and Latin-America. One of its provisions included repatriating immigrants-both legal and undocumented- for infractions here. It also expanded deportation programs which targeted those undocumented, even though undocumented aliens are amongst the most law-abiding (with the obvious exceptions, of course) of people living here. Within a year, some were deported for as simple a thing as jumping the subway turnstile in New York City. Initially, there were many who seemed to see no problem in all this, after all, if you are residing in a host country, it behooves you to obey the law - probably, even moreso than if you were still residing in the country of your birth. Well, not really. Only one country saw the deeper problem that this new policy would manifest. That country was Argentina.
From Saturday’s Daily News
The increases announced Thursday by the New York City Housing Authority average 10% to 44% over two years and would affect families with annual gross incomes of more than $20,000.
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer agreed the hikes would be a hardship. "These are the poorest people in the city," he said.
After the 2004 election, the Republicans seemed ascendant; this may not continue. According to a Pew study, Republicans had extensive appeal among voters in the middle of the electorate, enjoyed loyalty from its traditional constituencies, and made some inroads among conservative Democrats. Yet both parties maintain parity in party identification.
Pew periodically studies the political environment and, “sorts voters into homogeneous groups based on values, political beliefs, and party affiliation.” They find that events of 9/11 have caused security and terrorism to have a major impact and they say, “Foreign affairs assertiveness now almost completely distinguishes Republican-oriented voters from Democratic-oriented voters.” They go on to say that attitudes relating to religion and social issues are no longer as important in determining party affiliation.
Councilman Hiram Monserrate and some other Queens’ pols are seizing on the Independent Budget Office report that the city low-balled its estimates of the real cost to taxpayers of a new stadium for the Mets.
But don’t be fooled into thinking Monserrate and the others are friends of us taxpayers. Since the stadium is going to cost more than advertised, the pro-taxpayer position would be to fight to cut the City’s subsidy to the Mets. Instead these opponents to the Mets want to increase the amount of taxpayers’ dollars spent by forcing the City and the Mets to spend more on “community benefits”. Remember a fact not mentioned by the pols that are trying to shake down the Mets is that every dollar the Mets spend on Little League diamond that Monserrate wants is tax deductible!
According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau and the NY Sun, New York is now losing more people annually to out-migration than any other state in the country. With an annual average outflow of 182,886 people, we have now surpassed California to claim the position of number one loser.
In addition, the NYC metropolitan region, which includes the five boroughs and parts of Long Island, Westchester and New Jersey, is the number one loser of all metropolitan areas in America. Here, we are losing even more people at a rate of 211,014 people annually.
But because our overall population remains relatively steady, even growing slightly, many people will ignore this situation believing that everything evens out in the end. But, if we look at who we are losing and where they are going, the problem should become clear.
I thought today's story about AG Spitzer and his hesitancy to state whether he would expand the state's workforce was an interesting sidenote to the story of his endorsement by CSEA. Finally in this Governor's race, a candidate has made a common sense statement about an issue that has been on my mind. When Governor's reduce the size of government, who does the work they were doing? Are we to believe that people are really sitting around doing nothing at these government offices? If they are, can they get those people to process paperwork a little faster? I have to admit that I really believe that Republicans and conservative Dems have used this argument to actually steal money. Work previously done by government workers is now bid out to private companies to complete. I think a healthy debate needs to be had about this issue. Do taxpayers actually win when the size of government is reduced?
Who could be the next mayor of New York City? It is not too early for the question, since it takes time for a candidate to think about the option, to get their affairs in order and to get a campaign into shape. Political consultants are thinking about who to pitch and what the rationale is for the campaigns. Names of citywide and borough elected officials are mentioned, as are candidates who ran before, but it could be someone we have not yet heard about.
Manhattan Borough Presidents run for mayor a lot and often win, so there is Scott Stringer. Bill Thompson is the City Comptroller and was mentioned last time as a likely candidate, but some feel he is not interested. Betsy Gotbaum is the Public Advocate, the office Mark Green ran from in his bid to be mayor, but she has not acted like a potential candidate. The Bronx Borough President’s office gave us the last Democratic candidate and Adolfo Carrion is looking like a candidate. A strong finisher in 2001, Ferrer became the Democratic nominee in 2005, so one would have to consider Anthony Weiner to be a strong contender. This could be the Democratic list of Democratic contenders in the primary. Others may jump in and some may take a pass.
Four-term NY Republican Rep. John E. Sweeney seems to be losing the confidence of The Congressional Quarterly. CQPolitics.com just announced that his seat has been downgraded from Safe Republican to Republican Favored.
The reason? Challenger Kristin Gillibrand's latest campaign filings. Gillibrand recently reported $761,000, making her the 14th most well-funded House challenger this cycle.