Politics in New York is driven by two groups of people. Producers of public services, the public employee unions and contractors, who are always looking to provide less in exchange for more. And wealthy people and interests who do not require public services themselves, and do not want to pay for others to have them. The wealthy dominate the federal government, using it to profit at the expense of the rest of us, but the public employee unions and contractors dominate New York State government, using the power of the state legislature to cheat the less well off and the common future. That’s why we have the highest state and local tax burden in the country, but also have declining public services.
The state’s politicians don’t want to admit, to us or even themselves, that they are cheating less powerful ordinary people to benefit the interests that back them. So they seek to separate in time the sacrifices they impose from the deals they do, postponing the pain to a future they don’t care about, when they can lie and claim that it is “due to circumstances beyond our control.” And they seek with rage and desperation to ensure that the consequences of their deals and favors, for the ordinary people and the future, are kept quiet. That is why the special interests try so hard to keep control of the Office of the Comptroller, city and state. Because it is the purported job of those offices to tell the truth, loudly and passionately, and defend the future in order to force elected officials to admit, or at least consider, the consequences of their actions. Neither of the current candidates for New York City Comptroller is likely to do. Based on what Scott Stringer has done and more importantly has not done, and Eliot Spitzer has done and has not done, I fear the former is just another Albany legislator sent to the Comptroller’s office to cover things up, and the latter is a megalomaniac.
Thanks to a former Governor, anyone reading this knows that Thursday was the deadline for candidates to file designating petitions for the Democratic, Republican, Conservative, Working Families, Green & Independence Parties.
Candidates in their OWN words. Thursday night, we hosted an hour- long special on the NYC Race for Mayor on RNN-TV.
Most readers believe that Greek literature is in its entirety an exercise in the glory of war with a great deal of violent anguish and death. But a close reading reveals that the ancient texts may for the most part be an anti war message disguised as action stories.
Eliot Spitzer may be the only man in the history of Albany ever to pay for it, but compared to Anthony Weiner that doesn't seem pathetic at all.
The other day I saw a couple of guys with a Weiner sign carrying nominating petitions in front of Brooklyn Borough Hall.
Over enabling Term number Three for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, back in late April Anthony Weiner declared war on City Council Speaker Christine Quinn saying term limits was the deal breaker, he can't support Quinn in any capacity, even as the Democratic Nominee in the Race for Mayor. So much for party unity! Well Quinn is shooting back. Just the other day, here was herresponse to Weiner:
Quite often in politics seemingly insignificant endorsements eventually bear lots of surprising fruit. In this year’s NYC mayoral race, such an occurrence could be shaping up. There are five top candidates in the democrat’s September primary, and the consensus amongst political pundits appears to be that the winner of this primary will be the next mayor of New York City. I suspect that this view is being propagated by voter-registration numbers which suggest that democrats dominate the rolls; and also because a democrat hasn’t won the mayoralty since 1989.
High local spending on health and welfare functions has long differentiated New York City from local governments in the suburbs and elsewhere in the United States. Much of that money is not paid for by city taxpayers, but merely passes through the city’s after being collected by the federal and state governments, which also set the rules. There are huge issues and possibly huge changes in health care finance, but most of these involve the federal and state governments, not the city and not the Mayor.
Even leaving aside required local contributions to New York State’s Medicaid program and the Health and Hospitals Corporation, which I discussed in the initial post in this series, New York City’s health and social services infrastructure is huge. As proposed for FY 2014, the city’s Administration for Children’s Services, Department of Homeless Services, Department of Health and Mental Hygene, and Department of Social Services (excluding welfare and Medicaid payments) combined are expected to spend $7.9 billion. Of this amount, less than one-third is to be spent on city personnel, with the rest going to health and social service contractors, generally in the non-profit sectors. Given that we have just been through a national economic calamity, and given that the City of New York is facing an ongoing fiscal crisis, one might expect that spending on programs for the poor would have increased strongly. But did it?
Apologies for the staleness of some of the items. If it gets any worse, not even C-Town will stock them.
This post previously appeared on "Saying the Unsaid In New York." The data referenced is in a spreadsheet attached to this post.
New York City relies on its infrastructure for its prosperity and quality of life, and the deterioration of that infrastructure in the 1970s is one of the factors in the city’s near-death experience. The city borrowed so much money, in the Lindsay and Beame Administrations and before, for infrastructure and for other things, that by the time the fiscal crisis came around debt service was soaking up all the money, leaving no room for maintenance. It was a terrible legacy for that generation of city leaders to leave to those who followed, and the city has yet to fully recover from it. But this generation of city leaders, including the current Mayor and those running to replace him, may have repeated it. The state legislature, with regard to the MTA, almost certainly has. And while painful sacrifices would be needed to avoid a repeat of New York’s 1970s fate, that is not what any of the candidates running in New York’s rare actual elections (the one for Mayor) is suggesting. They are suggesting lots of goodies will follow if they are elected, almost none of which involve city infrastructure.
This post appeared previously on "Saying the Unsaid in New York." While the public schools account for the highest total amount of New York City spending overall, with health and social services coming in second, a substantial share of the funding for those services comes from the federal and state governments, not city taxes and fees. Of the $50.7 billion in “city funds” in the proposed FY 2014 budget, according to the “Budget Summary” document, the four so-called uniformed agencies – police, fire, corrections, and sanitation, account for $16.8 billion. The Department of Education accounts for $13.9 billion, with $10.6 billion for the health and welfare agencies and $9.4 billion for everything else put together.
While the Department of Education has been favored at the expense of other public services in this fiscal/pension/debt crisis, the uniformed agencies have been favored in virtually every crisis – the latest being no exception. While inflation will have increased 11.9% from FY 2008 to FY 2014 (and most people’s wages going up by far less), total city spending will have gone up 20.7% under the FY 2014 budget proposal. Spending on the four uniformed agencies combined will have gone up even more – by 26.9%, with much of that increase having already happened. Total New York City personal services spending is projected to have increased 11.8% from FY 2008 to FY 2014, or about the rate of inflation. The projected increase for the four uniformed agencies combined is 22.3%, or about double, including 26.0% for the NYPD. And yet the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the Uniformed Firefighters’ Association, and the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association show up at City Council hearings each year to tell New Yorkers they deserve less protection, less clean and passable streets, less work overall unless they get even more money. Why do they make such claims? Unless you are reading my posts for the first time, you know why.
Continuing my open letter to all candidates running in the 42nd Councilmanic District…
In the first post I laid out some background and delved into two major issues impacting this councilmanic district, economic development and housing development. I’ll continue on the topic of Issues Impacting the Community.
This post appeared previously on "Saying the Unsaid in New York." During the Bloomberg Administration, no public service has received a greater increase in funding, received more attention, and been the source of more conflict than the New York City public schools. As I noted in this post with spreadsheet attached, funding for the schools increased enormously from FY 2002, the last pre-Bloomberg budget, to FY 2008, just before the recession fully hit. That funding had also increased enormously from FY 1997, when the city’s share of state aid was at a low, to FY 2002 thanks to pressure from the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Lawsuit. As a result the city’s schools, which had historically been underfunded, were highly funded on a per-student basis in FY2008 – and very highly funded if one looked at spending on instructional employees alone.
Since the start of the recession city spending has continued to grow faster than inflation, as discussed in the prior post. Total spending by the Department of Education increased more than overall city spending during the FY 2008 to FY 2011 period, and less from FY 2011 to FY 2014, due mostly to the influence of the federal stimulus package and its expiration. For the entire FY 2008 to FY 2014 period, if the Mayor’s budget proposal were adopted, overall city spending will have increased 20.7%, and inflation will have gone up 11.9%, but Department of Education spending will have grown by 23.6%. More than average. Personal Services spending, which excludes the fast growing Medicaid and debt service categories, will have gone up 11.8% overall, slightly less than inflation, and 12.1% for the Department of Education, slightly more. But wages and salaries at the Department of Education, which affects how many teachers and other workers may be hired and how much they may be paid, would have actually fallen 2.5% from FY 2008 to FY 2014. So why is that?