Angry New Yorker

Semi-Daily Rants from New York City's Angry Man

"As I know more of mankind I expect less of them, and am ready now to call a man a good man, upon easier terms than I was formerly." - Dr. Samuel Johnson, Boswell, Life of Johnson, Sept. 1783

Archives


Links
Thursday, May 26, 2005
 
Angry New Yorker will be on hiatus until July 28, 2005, unless there's simply some news or development that we can't resist commenting upon. Sorry for the break, but we trust you'll use the time wisely. ;-)

posted by anonymous at 11:58 PM

Thursday, May 19, 2005
 
Full nuclear power ahead

Given the democrats' blatant spin, deceptive by design rhetoric and outright bald-faced lies lately, they frankly deserve to have the "nuclear" option rammed down their throats. This very second we're watching Senator Bill Nelson of Florida on C-SPAN, who if he isn't a liar, is an idiot, because he just said he likes every senator in the senate.

That's facially a crock, because I've yet to meet anyone who likes everyone in a group larger than 20 people. With statements like that he's simply not to be trusted. And his spin at this moment on C-SPAN is straight on the Reid-Pelosi-MoveOn.Org party line.

Hey, have it Senator Nelson. We don't like you, we don't like Reid, Pelosi, Krazy Ted Kennedy, Boom Boom Biden, Chuckee Schumer, and Hillary Clinton either, and we're not ashamed to not only admit it, but state it plainly.

posted by anonymous at 5:52 PM

Wednesday, May 18, 2005
 
The Myth of the Uncontrollables

Mayor Bloomberg, and many others in state and city politics, often point to the state and city's fixed expenses - health insurance, Medicaid, debt service - primarily in explaining away why spending can't be curbed. But the Citizens Budget Commission in a report release last week, Four Ways New York City Can Take Control of Its Financial Future and Save $2.5 Billion per Year, available here [PDF], that there are actions the mayor and city council can take to reduce these fixed "non-discretionary spending" expenses. The CBC's four proposals are:
  1. Reduce Pension Costs - by bringing pension contributions more in line with the private sector and requiring employees to contribute something. Its already been noted many times that New York's government pensions are exceeding generous by any measure.

  2. Reduce Health Insurance Costs - which would save $1.2 billion a year by sharing "the cost of health insurance premiums with workers by requiring 10 percent for individual policies and 20 percent for family policies. Retirees should be required to pay 50 percent of their health insurancepremiums, and the City should stop paying for their Medicare Part B premiums."

  3. Reduce Medicaid Costs - Soaring Medicaid expenses are the 800 pound gorilla in New York politics, yet little has been done to date, other than appointing commissions to figure out what can be done. As the CBC notes "[i]n fiscal year 2005 New York City’s local share of Medicaid will cost an astounding $4.8 billion and consume 14 percent of locally-raised revenues. Based on State policies, the City projects that its Medicaid costs will grow to $5.3 billion by fiscal year 2009" and it suggests that the city limit eligibility loopholes, pay only competitive costs to hospitals and nursing homes, introduce more managed care participation, and limit excessive personal care services.

  4. Reduce Debt Service - by 1) refinancing to convert high-interest debt to low-interest debt; 2) by reducing capital spending or building more efficiently; 3) by paying off debt already issued, thus eliminating future repayments. The recent surprising, and somewhat inexplicable, higher bond rating granted by S&P earlier thi week should help in these efforts. But the issuance of debt to pay operating expenses should immediately end.
The CBC report concludes:
These four proposals would yield the following annual savings in fiscal year 2009:

 Pension Reform $549 million
 Health Insurance Reforms $1,197 million
 Medicaid Cost Containment $454 million
 Debt Service Reduction $290 million

 Total Savings $2,490 million

The total savings of nearly $2.5 billion would leave the City with a much
smaller budget gap or permit investments in other needs. (See Table 4.)
Confronting the myth of “uncontrollable” budget items head-on is vital to
the City’s financial future.

posted by anonymous at 10:05 AM

Tuesday, May 17, 2005
 
More Multi-Cultural Madness

What a crock this will turn out to be. In addition to enabling parents to continue to avoid learning basic English, it adds an untold new city contractors and union employees at an unknown cost, and further panders to the non-English crowd. Translations of all "important" school documents into eight languages? What qualifies as an important document? How many more languages will be steadily added to this initial batch -- because you can rest assured that every language group will start the petition to add them to the initial eight. City provided interpreters at all parent-teacher conferences? Here's a question: why can't parents assume the responsibility to find someone in their own family circle who speaks English and bring them to a parent-teacher conference?

We at Angry New Yorker continue to again throw up our hands over this entire issue because it, like many social programs, ratchets only one way -- expanding constantly. From today's NY1.com:

Council Weighs Bill Requiring Translation Of School Documents
May 17, 2005

City lawmakers will hear from non-English speaking parents of city school kids both inside and outside City Hall Tuesday as the City Council's education committee weighs a bill requiring that all important school documents be translated when necessary.

Some immigrant parents say they have a hard time keeping track of their children's educations, because they can't understand the materials sent home with students, including report cards and notices.

Parents will rally again on the City Hall steps Tuesday to urge passage of the Education Equity Act. The act was introduced last year and calls for translation of all important school documents as well as interpreters at parent-teacher conferences.

Parents, immigrant advocates and Department of Education officials are expected to testify at a hearing about the bill Tuesday.

The DOE created a new translation and interpretation unit this year and says it's planning to do more.

posted by anonymous at 1:24 PM

Tuesday, May 10, 2005
 
McMahon on Bloomberg's Budget - $4.4 Billion in the Red in 2007

McMahon sees the real picture when it comes to NYC spending. In his editorial, Two Faces of Mike, in today's New York Post, available here, he notes:

TWO FACES OF MIKE
By E.J. MCMAHON

May 6, 2005 -- LISTENING to Michael Bloomberg present the fourth budget of his mayoralty yesterday was like listening to a man having an argument with himself.

The former CEO in the mayor's office made a strong case for doing more — much more — to downsize the city's exceedingly vast array of costly public services.

But the candidate for re-election didn't seem to get the message.

Bloomberg the pol naturally wants to highlight the good news about life in today's New York. And so the Fiscal 2006 edition of his annual Executive Budget slide show put plenty of emphasis on the city's record tourism activity and rising hotel-occupancy rates, declining office vacancies and low unemployment — not to mention the continuing drop in crime and the apparent resumption of the downward trend in welfare rolls.

But Bloomberg the no-nonsense CEO is congenitally incapable of blurring the bottom line. And so the mayor also matter-of-factly volunteered that "this city spends more money than it takes in, in an average year." Some $3.7 billion more next year, to be exact, once you adjust for all the gimmickry and lucky breaks the city has depended on to balance its budgets over the past few years.

The underlying structural imbalance in the city's financial plan has gotten $3 billion worse since Fiscal 2001 — as helpfully detailed by Bloomberg the media mogul in a Powerpoint slide that Bloomberg the pol would probably just as soon gloss over.

* * *

Bloomberg the candidate was happy to trumpet the revelation that revenues for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends June 30, are now expected to come in a whopping $1.3 billion above the estimate of just four months ago. This enabled him to roll a bigger cash-flow surplus from the current year into the coming year — plugging a $1 billion gap and leaving a little extra for spending restorations and token tax cuts.

But in almost the same breath, Bloomberg the businessman pointed out that the revenue surge includes an unusual billion-dollar burst in transaction taxes generated by a super-heated real-estate market. New mortgage underwriting activity in the city is even now tailing off, he noted, and those taxes can be expected to subside to more normal levels over the next few years.

* * *

Indeed, despite this year's revenue growth, the projected budget shortfall for Fiscal 2007, the first year of the next mayoral term, has grown to $4.4 billion — New York City's largest projected "out-year" gap ever, at this stage in the budget process. The claim that such gap projections are meaningless "is not true," CEO Bloomberg said; the hole is real, and will have to be filled when the time comes.

Unfortunately, the businessman mayor isn't always so tough-minded. Unwilling to challenge City Hall's big-government status quo, CEO Bloomberg is all too willing to parrot the politician's alibi that most city spending is beyond his direct control and due to the "non-discretionary" costs of pensions, Medicaid and debt service.

But this is only partly true. While pension benefits are dictated by state law, they also reflect the number of employees the mayor chooses to hire and the amount he agrees to pay them. And while the Legislature in Albany shapes Medicaid programs, Bloomberg's own bureaucrats are the gatekeepers to the city Medicaid rolls, and his administration is proudly maintaining a massive public hospital system that is also the city's leading Medicaid provider. As for debt service, it ultimately is a factor of the city's capital budget, which Bloomberg the politician is pushing up to record levels.

With a tax base heavily dependent on personal and business tax revenues generated by the volatile financial sector, New York City is especially vulnerable to economic downturns and unpredictable disasters, man-made or natural, affecting financial markets.

* * *

E.J. McMahon is the director of the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy.

posted by anonymous at 9:35 AM

Monday, May 09, 2005
 
We like it! And agree fully with Deroy Murdock, NRO Contributing Editor, here,
that it's past time to scrap the "Freedom Tower" as well as its designer, Daniel Lebiskind,
in favor of:

Twin Towers II Design
by Kenneth Gardner and Herbert Belton • www.TwinTowersII.com • www.MakeNYNYagain.com •



posted by anonymous at 10:36 PM

 
The Mayor's Budget of Creamy Goodness For All

As we noted, posting between now and July 29th is going to be sporadic. Trust us -- between what we have to do and posting here -- we'd much rather be posting here. But life is what it is, and there's no use whining about it. Here's something to actually whine about:

Photo of Mayor Bloomberg
 Mayor Bloomberg Presented FY '06 Executive Budget
Thursday, May 5, 2005
arrowRead the press release
arrowRead the presentation (ppt)
arrowRead budget publications
arrowWatch the presentation in dial-up or broadband

posted by anonymous at 10:22 PM

Friday, May 06, 2005
 
A friend writes in...
"More Pandering Pieces of Political Pulchritude From the NYC Council

Dear City Council,

I recently read Intro No. 628, Voting By Non-Citizen Residents. Intro 628 available here

Non-citizens should not be granted a right to vote period. End of story.

The arguments for: that they pay taxes, they have a stake, etc. are puffery. That historically non-citizens were, at times and places, granted the right to vote in certain local elections is neither support for, nor evidence that, non-citizens in 2005 should be allowed to vote in NYC elections where their tremendous numbers would no doubt sway issues and elections and dilute the votes of permanent U.S. citizens.

I and millions of others in this city as U.S. citizens are increasingly tired of the "immigrants rights" movement and their vocal supporters -- who view everything as a right, everything in opposition to their goals as "rascist," and brook no reasonable discussion.

Both my two parents and my wife's mother and father emigrated to the U.S. in the 50's and 60's LEGALLY, and became naturalized citizens shortly thereafter. All four went on to be extremely productive members of society without bilingual education and the raft of services and programs today's immigrants expect and demand (such as city services in 109 languages and ballots printed in 10 languages). I've asked all four of them for their view of Intro No. 628, and all four view non-citizen voting proposals as sheer madness.

I strongly concur, and will do everything possible to fight the passing of this pandering piece of political pulchritude."

posted by anonymous at 6:38 PM

Tuesday, May 03, 2005
 
More Empiral Evidence that Bloomberg is Wrong About NYC's Population

... when he says that people continue to flow into NYC from other parts of the country. We were just putting together a guest list of family members for a little party we're organizing this summer, and noted that of the 35+ siblings, cousins and close friends we're inviting, who all lived in New York city as children, only three still live within the five boroughs. The rest have relocated to the 'burbs or moved out of New York state entirely. Now why would this be Mr. Bloomberg? And we recently learned two more will be moving to Crestwood in Westchester from Forest Hills shortly. The future did once happen here, to quote the title of an excellent book on cities. It no longer does, and won't as long as politicans like Bloomberg et al. spout their nonsense.

posted by anonymous at 2:41 PM

Monday, May 02, 2005
 
Tamar Jacoby & The Wall Street Journal Are Completely Wrong About Immigration

We're not sure why Ms. Jacoby is at the Manhattan Institute. Seriously. We agree with 99% of the Manhattan Institute's views as written about in City Journal, but we've disagreed with Ms. Jacoby on virtually everything she's had to say about immigration in the past five years. With columns like hers in today's NY Daily News, "They Should All Be Legal," available here, she reveals why we think she's a card-carrying member of the "open the borders now" crowd.

She writes, for example, that illegals can hold a job here and do other things,
"[b]ut try to get a driver's license or enroll your kid in college or bargain with your boss or even just take a vacation in your home country - all things that most of the rest of us take for granted - and you will suddenly be reminded: Though Americans are happy to look the other way while you work hard to help grow our economy, we also are determined to punish you for entering the country illegally. "
Excuse me, Ms. Jacoby, but your logic is fatally flawed. Increasingly angry and vocal Americans throughout the country are demanding federal and state governments stop looking the other way, and that the lax border enforcement that's grown up due to liberal hand-wringing and pandering by politicians who can't even bring themselves to verbally separate illegal aliens from "immigrants" come to an end. (See, e.g., Janon Fisher, Killing Leaves Suburbanites Wary of Immigrant Workers, N.Y. Times, May 5, 2005, available here (noting in story about recent rape and murder of Rockland county mother by a suspect described as a "Guatemalan immigrant," that "[t]he crews who ride the trucks and do the work are largely immigrant, some legal and some not" -- leaving one to speculate regarding how many of that "some not" contingent are illegal, a word not found once in the article itself)).

Jacoby goes on to say:
"But it hardly makes sense to deport 11 million people. Just imagine the dragnets and roundups and forced family breakups. It would also devastate the economy, both locally and nationwide. As poll after poll shows, what Americans want is control: a secure, orderly, legal immigration system. But we can't build that new, sound structure on a rotten foundation - so we've got to do something about the illegal immigrants already here."
Here again, Jacoby conflates one goal with another. We certainly want a secure, orderly, legal immigration system. And no one disputes the impossibility of deporting 11 million people -- though frankly a few dragnets and televised dragging of illegals out of apartments wouldn't hurt; however, the need is to send the message to those illegals here and those planning to come here via illegal methods that we're sincere, active and determined to prevent illegals from establishing a U.S. beachhead, or remaining. And you would only need to deport a tiny fraction of that 11 million to forcefully send that message.

Further, we fundamentally disagree with Jacoby that enforcing immigration laws would "devastate the economy" either locally or nationwide, and we've yet to see any empirical evidence from Ms. Jacoby to the contrary. The WSJ's been a constant proponent of open borders and guest worker programs (see Editorial, Immigration Reality Check - The economy intrudes on the restrictionists, Wall St. J., May 3, 2005, available here). Since the majority of illegals cluster in three states - NY, CA, and Texas, are we to believe that the economies of the other 47 have been devastated by the fact that they aren't brimming with illegal aliens? (See previous post, here, arguing "illegal aliens have had a destructive effect on pay levels and our work ethic because they've swept entire job areas into jobs that then become self-defined as jobs that 'only illegal aliens do.'") And even if our economy would be devastated, a point we again strongly dispute, shouldn't that decision be up to the American people?

UPDATE: The suspect in the murder mentioned above, turns out to not be Dennis Herrera, 39? Why? Because the suspect arrested carried a stolen id, and is actually a 29-year old illegal alien. Surprise. He remains the main suspect. More details as they become available. But if we seriously policed, caught and deported illegals would that murdered Rockland county woman be alive today? Albeit purely speculative, but we think it's more likely than not that she'd be alive today if rounding up illegals in Rockland was addressed with the same seriousness that other matters in New York are treated; say, oh, Bloomberg's fetish with smoke-free bars and other politicians' obsession with DWI crackdowns.

posted by anonymous at 2:08 PM

Sunday, May 01, 2005
 
The Give Peace a Chance Contingent Meets Again In Manhattan

The group United for Unrealistic Idealism, also known as United for Peace and Justice, "took to the streets" this weekend in manhattan to "protest the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq and on nuclear weapons proliferation," according to NY1. Hey, have it.

posted by anonymous at 4:02 PM

HOME
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?