Angry New Yorker

2011 Will Set the Course

2011-01-08T14:38:00.000-05:00

It's rather stunning that we're already one week finished with 2011, leaving only 51 in which to fight the unholy troika juggernaut of ennui, inertia and politicians' inclination to spend more as an "investment" in the future. 2010 was, I'll be blunt, the worst year, personally, since 2001 - and that's actually really saying something.

But in 2011 I'm somewhat (that's a tentative and qualified 'somewhat') hopeful, because I think more and more people are waking up to the collective cataclysmic dangers facing us. The flipside, however, is whether this awakening is challenged into focused productive action or merely becomes a fatalistic impulse to stir up a new martini, pull up a deck chair and listen to the band run through its final chorus of Near, My God, To Thee, before the deck tilts, the stern rises and the waters ultimately close again.

Bloomberg Beclowns Himself

2010-05-04T16:48:00.000-04:00

Bloomberg Beclowns Himself

I've long thought that the only reason anyone voted for Michael Bloomberg is that the alternatives were so much worse. Time again he's proven to be a big-spending, nanny statist with virtually no understanding of how the average family lives in the non-Manhattan boros of NYC.

Yesterday he highlighted his clownish, yet again, stating without any evidence, without any factual basis, and without any knowledge that the Time Square failed bomber was likely “Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something.”

Doesn't like the health care bill??!? Surely, if these were the Mayor's top three and best guesses of NYC's mayor he has beclowned himself on an entirely different level than he has before.

Why do so many politicians feel the need to spout on topics that they have literally no knowledge of?

2009-10-28T21:24:00.002-04:00

NY 23

What to say about the debacle upstate in the 23rd Congressional district. Suffice to say, Mr. Hoffman has our nod, for what little it's worth. Newt Gingrich is blowing a hole below the waterline in his ship of self with his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava. As Richard Brookhiser notes, the "contest in NY 23 is what the New York Conservative Party was made for."

As Mark Steyn quips, Dede Scozzafava "isn't RINO but DIABLO - Democrat In All But Label Only. It's not one of those "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" bi-swinger deals — not when you're pro-'stimulus', pro-cash-for-clunkers."

Enough is enough.

2009-10-28T21:19:00.001-04:00

A Must Read:

Steven Malanga
Small Businesses to NYC: Get Off Our Backs!
The city’s crushing burden on job-creating entrepreneurs is getting even heavier.

2009-10-28T21:07:00.002-04:00

No shortage of bad and expensive ideas. Our country is in the best of hands. I can tell you this is they try to impose this where we live civil disobedience shall be the order of the day:

Feds to Convince DC Area Taxpayers to Embrace $4.8 Billion Mileage Tax
Washington, DC regional officials seek federal gas tax money to study political implication of $4.8 billion mileage tax on motorists.

Officials are looking to convince residents in the Washington, DC metropolitan region that converting every local streets into toll roads would be good for them. The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board last Wednesday voted to seek federal gas tax funds to bankroll a $400,000 study on how best to sell the public on a controversial per-mile tax proposal that would raise up to $4.8 billion in new revenue.

2009-09-30T11:27:00.002-04:00

What next? Stalin's Birthday?

Has the moral decay set in this deeply? We would have thought it impossible, but alas we are often chagrined at our naivite when it comes to the depths. From National Review Online:

A sickening light in the New York sky, By Jay Nordlinger
Several readers have asked me to comment on what the Empire State Building is doing: The people in charge are lighting up the building red and yellow, in honor of Communist China. The PRC is marking its 60th anniversary. This regime, of course, is responsible for the physical destruction of tens of millions of people. This is a country with a gulag, called laogai. It is a country that deprives people of rights that we in the Free World take for granted. It is a country against which very, very credible charges of organ harvesting have been made. Etc. I thought of calling up some friends of mine in the Chinese democracy movement, to see what they think of what the Empire State Building is doing. I decided not to: I know what they think. And this sort of thing simply torments them. It is disgusting. And, to them, bewildering: Why would people in
a free country honor a police state?

You can drop a comment to the people owning/running the Empire State Building here - http://www.empirestatebuilding.com

2009-09-09T13:35:00.002-04:00

We should be ruled like China. At least according to Tom Friedman. I get royally tired of beating the Tom Friedman piniata but the guy demonstrates cultural and historical blind spots the size of a red giant star. I'd be embarrassed to showcase such blinding ignorance. Yet, he no doubt considers himself rational, reasoned and supremely educated. He is none of these, and is in fact, wait for it, a "liberal fascist" who deserves no audience for his fervid mutterings larger than that of his own wide-eyed visage in the bathroom mirror each morning. I've said it before, but I have to remind myself of it constantly:

Be extremely wary of those who want to "save" something, or do putatively "good" things for one group or another unless they either have a direct and immediate dog in the fight or are following their well-understood & established religious tenets because otherwise there is always a hidden agenda at work. But in some cases there is no longer even an attempt to hide the subcurrent agenda.

To whit today's firestorm regarding Friedman's column, One-Party Democracy, in today's NY Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1

While our current system is substantially broken (repealing the 17th Amendment and getting rid of partisan gerrymandering would go a long way toward fixing our federal systemic woes), no less a luminary than founder and 4th president James Madison, often called "the father of the Constitution", wrote in Federalist 10: “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.” Or, in more up-to-date terms ala Churchill, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones that have been tried."

Friedman's column yearns for snuffing out of "factions" - that is interest groups - in the interest of furthering his goals. But if tried it would, as Madison noted, extinguish liberty. We should all be very wary of Tom Friedman and like-minded minions.

The Firm Hand of the Benign Strongman [Mark Steyn]

The New York Times's Thomas Friedman finally gets to where he's been wanting to go all these years. Everything would be so much better if we could just submit to the benign rule of an enlightened elite:

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.

Thomas Friedman is a Liberal Fascist [Jonah Goldberg]

Mark beat me to it, but I must put in my two cents. Thomas Friedman writes:

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Our one-party democracy is worse....

So there you have it. If only America could drop its inefficient and antiquated system, designed in the age before globalization and modernity and, most damning of all, before the lantern of Thomas Friedman's intellect illuminated the land. If only enlightened experts could do the hard and necessary things that the new age requires, if only we could rely on these planners to set the ship of state right. Now, of course, there are "drawbacks" to such a system: crushing of dissidents with tanks, state control of reproduction, government control of the press and the internet. Omelets and broken eggs, as they say. More to the point, Friedman insists, these "drawbacks" pale in comparison to the system we have today here in America.

I cannot begin to tell you how this is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s. It is exactly the argument that was made in defense of Stalin and Lenin before him (it's the argument that idiotic, dictator-envying leftists make in defense of Castro and Chavez today). It was the argument made by George Bernard Shaw who yearned for a strong progressive autocracy under a Mussolini, a Hitler or a Stalin (he wasn't picky in this regard). This is the argument for an "economic dictatorship" pushed by Stuart Chase and the New Dealers. It's the dream of Herbert Croly and a great many of the Progressives.

I have no idea why I still have the capacity to be shocked by such things. A few years ago, during the worst part of the Iraq war, I wrote a column saying that Iraq needed a Pinochet type to bring order to Iraq and help develop democratic and liberal institutions. To this day, I get vicious hate mail from liberal and leftist readers for my "pro-dictator" stance. Meanwhile, Thomas Friedman, golden boy of the NYT op-ed page, is writing love-letters to dictatorships because they have the foresight to invest in electric batteries and waterless toilets or something. It looks like there's reason to hope I was wrong about Iraq (I certainly hope I was). But at least I favored a dictatorship of sorts — for another country! — because I thought it would lead to a liberal democracy. Here, Friedman lives in a liberal democracy but has his nose pressed up against the candy store window of a cruel, undemocratic, regime and all he can do is drool over the prospect of having the same power here. It's disgusting.

Update: A friend IM's:

great post ; you know whoe specially hates the argument Friedman makes? Indians. They hear that argument all the time — from Indian communists; but smart indians I talk to want to stab your eyes out when they hear you say this argument since they know democracy — as messy as it is — is a huge strength for them. You would think Bangalore Tom might understand this.

More on Friedman's Enlightened Despots [Jonah Goldberg]

Dan Blumenthal at the EB:

Just in the past few months Tom Friedman’s “reasonably enlightened group” of Chinese dictators has jailed blogger Wu Baoqun for posting information that the government forced Chinese peasants to sell their land at extremely low prices, so that the Communist Party could auction that land off for a hefty profit.

But complaining about government expropriations from peasants is not all the CCP has been up to. Let’s take one of Mr. Friedman’s pet issues, the environment. His favorite enlightened despots have sent Sun Xiaodi , a Gansu environmental activist and recipient of the 2006 Nuclear-Free Future Award and his daughter Sun Haiyan, to re-education-through-labor camps for exposing official corruption and nuclear waste pollution in Gansu Province. Likewise, the CCP has sent activists Wu Lihong and Tang Zhirong to jail for for complaining about industrial pollution.

It appears that for the enlightened dictatorship that rules China, one is free to build electric cars and solar panels, particularly if these products can make a hefty profit for the CCP and businessmen connected to the Party. An added bonus for Chinese producers of alternative energy is positive press in the New York Times. But if you are just an ordinary Joe (or Zhou) seeking some recourse against industrial pollution and hazardous waste, jail time is the most likely outcome.

This reminds me. I'm not a great student of what's going on in China, and I don't have its enlightened rulers on speed dial the way Friedman does. But I just find the idea that China is a great environmental steward absurd beyond ken (or barbie). China chokes the planet with more industrial smog than we do. Whole cities exist in perpetual dusk. China's factories are constantly sneaking lead and other poisons into their — and our — food and toys. The country is turning into a desert at a terrifying pace because of their land and water policies. Lord knows what horrors the Chinese are keeping off the books. I simply do not believe Tom Friedman et al when they say that China is beating us on the environment. No totalitarian regime has ever been a better steward of the environment than an advanced industrialized democratic regime. I have a hard time believing the Chinese are an exception to that rule.

Update: Kenneth Anderson via Volokh.com calls Friedman's column "monstrous". (h/t NRO)

Kenneth Anderson at Volokh:

It is characteristic of Thomas Friedman's thought to move from particular issues of policy to sweeping conclusions about the Nature of Man and God and the Universe, typically based around some attractively packaged metaphor - flat earth, hot earth, etc. Rarely, however, has he been quite so clear about the directness of the connections he sees between his preferred set of substantive outcomes, his contempt for American democratic processes that have, despite all, managed to hang in there for, I don't know, a few times the length of time between the Cultural Revolution and today, and his schoolgirl crush on autocratic elites because they are able to impose from above.

Let me just say for the record that this is a monstrous column. When faced with American public defection from elite preferences outcomes on certain policy issues that involve many difficult tradeoffs of the kind that democracies, with much jostling and argument, are supposed to work out among many different groups, Friedman extols the example of ... China's political system, because it's both enlightened and autocratic? Who among us knew?

Update: More from Will Collier.

Client 9 Speaks on Gun Control

2009-08-13T10:58:00.002-04:00

New York's former and disgraced governor, Eliot Spitzer, is today a columnist at Slate.com, the webzine founded by Michael Kinsley and funded by Microsoft. In an era where the concept of personal shame has evaporated Spitzer is trying to rehabilitate his shredded reputation. A few months back in April, we apologize for not spotting this sooner, Spitzer co-authored an editorial entitled "Gun Control Without Gun Laws: How Obama can use government procurement regulations to limit gun violence" available here.

It's worth a read if only to ponder that Eliot Spitzer is an object lesson: sometimes the universe does give people the justice they deserve.

Why anyone still listens to this fool of unbridled chutzpah, arrogance and self aggrandizement is beyond us? Here he is on how the government can blithely still accomplish gun control without those pesky little things called "laws." We've yet to see a more telling example of raw unbridled power than his statement below that:

"more fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public... * * * If government cannot legislate the conduct it wants, then it can use market power to buy it. For the money we are spending, we should buy not only guns but some peace from gun violence."

Oh? For the children, right? Under what actual legitimate authority, you know "derived from the consent of the governed", are you talking about here Mr. Spitzer? Or do mean the same type of authority that you exercised to get your hooker to take the train down to DC for you? Here's the thing, Spitzer: If govt cannot legitimately legislate in an area it is overreaching its rightful confines if it works consciously to reach the same result through other means. (Which is why so many lawyers and constitutional scholars, like me, have very very deep seated problems with the constitutionality of federal tax and spending coercion on the states - thank you oh soooo much Supreme Court for South Dakota v. Dole (which was also a case "for the children"). )

Spitzer is also wrong on the facts. Drug dealers didn't "pioneer[] the use of 9-mm guns" the government did as part of switching from the long standard .45 over to 9mm pistols in order to use the same ammo as Nato forces. And Spitzer calls for magazine safety disconnects... maybe he should talk to those self-same police and military folks whose buying power he wants to harness... none of the guns they buy have them (for good reason too long to go into here).

And witness first hand the oft derided but very real slippery slope in action:

"If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands?"

Why not indeed? Government. Weight. Largest.
Behold the truism in action: a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

Finally, let's flip one of Spitzer's final sentences around and apply it to the govt in the way he applies it to private gun manufacturers. Spitzer quips:

"This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?"

To which our retort simple question is:

"Why do we trust any government that permits its officials to constantly lie to citizens, confiscate ever increasing amounts of hard earned wealth, bankrupt them, their children and their grandchildren yet is allowed to continue to peddle old discredited ideas as if they were bound to work this time around?"

2009-07-06T12:28:00.002-04:00

CityJournal's Steven Malanga is digging again in NYC and NYS finances noting:

"Over Bloomberg’s tenure, the city has, thanks to annual spending increases,
expanded the budget on an inflation-adjusted basis faster than any mayor since
John Lindsay, whose spending pushed New York to the edge of bankruptcy (see “New York’s Next Fiscal Crisis,” Summer 2008)."

Remember this when "Mayor Mike" starts blustering about cost-cutting and his fiscal responsibility - neither of which are true in any meaningful fashion.

Malanga's full article is here: The City’s Finances: Budget-Cutting Made Simple

2009-07-06T12:20:00.002-04:00

Frederic U. Dicker finally gives up on NY. And he was one of the holdouts.

See http://www.nypost.com/seven/07052009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/albany__i_give_up_177689.htm?&page=0

Money quote:

"After three decades as a journalist covering state government, if I had to
do it all over again, I'd find another job.

I've covered Govs. Hugh Carey, Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson and for New York to wind up like this after 35 years of modern leadership, it's clear to me that my real job has been to chronicle the devolution -- the decay and decline -- of New York state."

2009-05-05T08:56:00.003-04:00

New York in Decline.

Steve Malanga's op-editorial, Shackling New York: Why State is in Decline, in today's New York Post highlights why New York, unless it changes course, is doomed to steady and ultimately perhaps irreversible decline.

Malanga notes "New York state is dead last in the freedom index 'by a wide margin,'" according to a recent study by George Mason University's Mercatus Center. The Mercatus Center study, Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom, is available here [PDF]. Malanga queries, and rightfully so in our opinion, as to the consequences of this lack of freedom and states,

"[t]he best way to judge is to look at the collective condition of the states with the worst rankings. (New Jersey is in 49th place, following California and Rhode Island.)
Together, New York, New Jersey and California face some $65 billion in budget deficits in 2009, amounting to more than two-thirds of the budget gaps faced by all 50 states. These states' stratospheric spending and taxes have stifled economic growth and left them scarily unprepared for the economic downturn."

Further, Malanga reports on the contrast with the study's freest states: New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota, Idaho and Texas, which have unemployment rates at or below the national average. (New Hampshire's is 6.2 percent, or two full points below the nation's, according to recent Labor Department statistics.) You decided whether it is also a coincidence that each of these states is a net winner in terms of domestic migration, with far more citizens entering than leaving.

The Mercatus' Summary of the Study states:

This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres. We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual’s ability to do the same.
This study improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states in three primary ways: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens’ rights to educate their own children, own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (2) it includes far more variables, even on economic policies alone, than prior studies, and there are no missing data on any variable; and (3) it uses new, more accurate measurements of key variables, particularly state fiscal policies.
We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear. As for freedom in the different regions of the country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall while the Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal freedom. Regression analysis demonstrates that states enjoying more economic and personal freedom tend to attract substantially higher rates of internal net migration.
The data used to create the rankings are publicly available online at www.statepolicyindex.com, and we invite others to adopt their own weights to see how the overall state freedom rankings change.

2009-04-06T14:24:00.002-04:00

Danger, Will Robinson!! [h/t David Freddoso in NRO's Corner]

Behold the death of the American experiment. For if this idiot's thinking because further pervasive, as it appears to be, there is no end but disaster, disunity and division. As Freddoso, notes "Cook County Board President Todd Stroger recently explained cigarette tax increases in an unexpectedly candid radio interview.

Host John Williams asked: Isn't it unfair to keep targeting smokers with tax increases?

"That is the American way," Stroger replied. "And the way that it's generally done is, you find some group that's small enough where they can't beat you up, and you tax them and you tell everybody else, 'See? We didn't tax you.' "

And it's our experience that the local and state level are following suit. Of course, this is President Obama's bedrock philosophy too in his "share the wealth" program. There's fewer [rich, producers, energy companies, etc.] than poor voters, ergo, tax, tax, tax Group A to get votes of the poorer. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. (At least until your hair falls out completely).

2009-04-06T08:57:00.003-04:00

From "protect and serve" to "wait and report"

The recent upstate Binghamton shootings revealed a disturbing trend in police operations (which isn't just limited to the U.S. as Mark Steyn has noted) where police in responding to 911 "emergency" calls arrive and then... wait. But it highlights that in a real emergency you're on your own - and should plan and react accordingly. Jack Baeur isn't coming to come bursting through the window at the 11th hour to save the day.

As "Jack Dunphy" notes in The Corner:

Even if the gunfire had ceased, the people already wounded deserved an all-out effort to provide them with medical care as quickly as possible. I expect we’ll be learning that some of the victims bled to death while waiting for the help that came too late. Knowing how police departments function as I do, I have no doubt that there were officers ready and willing to enter the building within minutes but were prevented from doing so by superiors who, in ordinary circumstances, make no decisions weightier than selecting which desk tray to place a piece of paper in. These people had to be prodded from their desks when the trouble started, and their presence at the scene merely clogged up the decision-making process.

2009-01-11T15:19:00.002-05:00

Gaza Ruminations

Human suffering should never please another human. That is the goal. Hamas, however, is anti-human, in that it's official position is the affirmative suffering and the continuation of suffering and death. As such, the only possible way to defeat them is to grant their wish and deliver such suffering and death that the pain of waking each day, the heavy anguish of ongoing suffering, the soul killing understanding of the ruination and rubble resulting from their death wish, finally, finally delivers the message that their ideology is defeated.

Without receipt of this message only pain and suffering lie ahead. And the faux "humanitarians" who wring their hands about a "humanitarian crisis" will have the blood of future combatants on their well-meaning but idiotic hands. Complete defeat of Hamas is the only option. If the population that voted for them continue support, then they, too, need to be defeated. Completely. Until their spirit is utterly broken, their lives ruined, and the hearts emptied of the will to fight.

As harsh as this is history and human nature have time and time again shown that, sadly, this is the only viable resolution. Anything else is a wistful pipedream born of liberal wishes and an ignorance of human folly.

2009-01-11T11:36:00.002-05:00

Grabbing the Brass Ring.

When we were children, several decades back, it never entered our minds that our goal should be "to grow up and go work for the city." The fathers of several friends worked for the city - as sanitation men, fire fighters or in some unknown civil bureau. Other than a mentor who went to work for he NYC court system and the father of the friend who worked for the DEP on the NYC water system we felt mildly sad for those men went to work for the city; as if circumstances and some failing conspired to push them into the arms of the city civil service as a last resort.

Working for the city was for those who either weren't able to or couldn't finish college or find a "decent" spot in the private sector. The examples of people we personally knew who'd gone to work for the city included a childhood friend whose girlfriend got pregnant at 18 and who dropped out of college to honorably support his sudden family by joining the transit cops; a friend who couldn't make it at college and joined the fire department, etc.

In our view a city career was a safety escape hatch. You'd virtually always have a job, but you'd be limited to a small apartment over a deli or an attached house in a distance part of Brooklyn or Queens. Your day would be drudgery, your hours, conduct and promotions fixed by minute and dry rules and regulations.

Today, however, those who went to work for the city at the time we were in or finishing up college are retired and living off hefty guranteed city pensions while the value of our 401Ks have dropped like a rock. We're in our third career at the moment and get home each night around 9:30 now, after having been laid off twice in the past two years. The economic
news each day is paralyzing. And those people that we felt mildly sorry for as having to settle for working for the city had the last laugh. This is no way to run a railroad.

From today's NY Times:

City Employee Pay Is Outpacing Private Sector, Report Says. “Bolstered in part by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s spending, the average New York City employee cost the city $107,000 a year in wages, health insurance, pension and other benefits in the 2008 fiscal year, an increase of 63 percent since 2000, according to a new report.

City worker compensation grew twice as fast as that of employees in the private sector and elsewhere in the public sector during the same period. . . . The increase was driven by contractual raises that outpaced the inflation rate, and by the rising cost of health insurance and pension benefits, said the commission, a business-backed research group.

* * *
Critics also say that Mr. Bloomberg has not been forceful enough addressing soaring health and pension benefit costs. Those costs have jumped by 182 percent since 2000, according to the Citizens Budget Commission, in contrast to a 52 percent increase for other state and local governments, and a 40 percent increase for private industry.
Part of the reason that health benefits have jumped so much, the report said, is the city’s longstanding practice, unchanged by Mr. Bloomberg, to pay 100 percent of health insurance premiums for employees and their families, as well as for retirees and their spouses. The report noted that “Most other employers require their workers to pay some share of the premium.”

* * *
Over all, the report found that city employee pay rose to an average of $69,000 annually as of last June 30, up from $52,000 in 2000, an annual increase of 3.6 percent, while inflation rose an average of 3.2 percent during the same period. Average benefits now cost almost $38,000 a year, up from $13,000 a year.
Thanks to overtime and other supplemental payments, firefighters have an average annual compensation package totaling $186,000, the highest among city employees. Department of Education employees cost the city almost $99,000 annually."

2008-12-28T23:56:00.002-05:00

Merry Christmas.

We can't wait for this year to end. 2008 has been a very, very rough year from start to finish, personally, professionally, politically and pecuniary, for us here at Angry New Yorker. We can only hope 2009 is better. Given the growing storm we've been caulking the hull, tightening the capstans and fixtures, checking the rigging and basically making ready for the arrival of full gale forces. We pray the storm will pass far from us, but as always hope is not a strategy.

As for New York, the eye of the storm is certain to pass over it to the echo of a million strong chorus of "I told you so's". People are rightfully withdrawing their trust and faith in government, whether state or federal, at levels not seen in the United States in generations, and the consequences could be grim. No one wants to the be that last "sucker" - the last man still following the rules and laws when those all about him flout with impunity what he has determined to be the course.

I'm sure the citizens of Rome were dumbfounded when the empire finally fell. Augustine's epic City of God goes into some tangential detail, but ironically, as noted in The God that Did Not Fail, by Robert Royal, many citizens in the outer Roman lands were relieved when the high burdens of Roman taxation and regulations dissipated.

One idea we were mulling over during the weekend's reflection was that with the closing of the frontier and the civilizing of the western U.S. there was no where for a man to "escape" to build a life anew and leave the baggage of his past failings behind. While this certainly is for the better in many instances (how many conman, crooks and charlatans escaped justice by heading west in previous centuries can never be known), but how amazing would it be to create a "new frontier" right within the U.S. where regulations were few, taxes minute and people chose to accept fewer governmental "services" in exchange for more freedom? More on this in future posts after I decide if this is merely too many holiday alcoholic beverages speaking or worth exploring.

2008-12-17T08:12:00.000-05:00

Slash & Burn? More like Nick & Slightly Warm

So Governor Patterson announces a budget that news outlets described as a "slash and burn" effort. Excuse me? Patterson says we are in the most severe economic climate since the Depression and the governor's budget cuts... Wait for it... spending to only a 1% increase over last year's budget.

Now we realize that in NYS, addicted to year over year compounded spending increases far higher than inflation, this represents draconian cuts. But it is hardly a "slash and burn" budget by any measure.

Patterson is quickly learning that NYkers are sick and tired of being nickled and dimed to death. As longtime readers know we moved outside NYC to Connecticut last year, so we can watch NYS with a bit more detachment (though CT is in no great budgetary shape), but the outrage we've seen to Patterson's proposals center heavily on the increase in petty fees and NOT his "cuts".

2008-11-20T17:54:00.003-05:00

Ok. Passions that were running red-hot here at Angry New Yorker in the aftermath of Nov. 4th have sufficiently cooled. And the responsible reaction given that the economic and political climate has worsened in only two weeks since the election with the stock market is at new lows seemingly daily is FULL FRONTOL ENGAGEMENT.

The available material for comment is endless.

2008-11-04T23:00:00.003-05:00

President Obama? Not me. To hell with him and those who voted for him. Never thought we'd say that about a President or other Americans. But a lot happened in 2008 that we would have never thought would happen either.

We're planning going John Galt. ~~Be back in 2010.~~ After we stock up. On sundries.

Fortune favors the bold (and the stalwart)

2008-10-24T20:40:00.002-04:00

We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight

Battles are won as much by keeping up one's morale as by fielding superior strategy and tactics. So the non-stop onslaught of Obama and his gasous minions, not to mention the festoon mushroom-like springing up of Obama/Biden (a/k/a "stand up Chuck") lawn signs and bumper stickers has been enough to generate in even the most Lion hearted a stutter step pause and shaky hand while clearing one's breech and fixing bayonets.

History is written backwards while life is lived forwards and the two only intersect in this fleeting moment we call the present. But the present is the only place our actions can matter. And so we look to the past for guidance, the future being unknowable and malleable. And Lincoln is always there for times such as these. The fight can only be won if we show up! Vote proudly (and often - if you were registered by Acorn ;-)

Bill Kristol's editorial in The Weekly Standard, "McCain Versus the Juggernaut," here, is a call to arms to those of us facing the gale of Obama's hot air.

"If Obama wins, we wish him well. But for now, we can only echo the words of the 30-year-old Abraham Lincoln. On December 26, 1839, responding to the confident prediction of one of his political opponents "that every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the next Presidential election" and that Lincoln's opposition to the Van Buren forces was therefore bound to be in vain, Lincoln responded:

'Address that argument to cowards and to knaves; with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; if it must, let it...The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just... Let none falter, who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if after all, we shall fail, be it so.'

2008-09-30T16:56:00.003-04:00

And so democracy ends not with a bang, but with a whimper - term limits are for little People

As NY1 reports, "the controversial term limits extension bill passed by the City Council will likely be law next week. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has scheduled a bill-signing ceremony for Monday. The bill allows the city's elected officials to run for three consecutive four-year terms – up from two. The council narrowly passed the measure last week by a vote of 29-22 over the objections of opponents who said it should be up to voters to decide."

We applaud the 22 who voted against this heinous overruling by fiat of not one, but two, public referenda.

After 9/11, Rudy's hinting of seeking a brief term-limit repeal and third term was met with great caterwauling. "Mike" Bloomberg is a, however, a liberal beloved by the NYC intelligentsia.

Compare and contrast.

2008-09-29T22:07:00.003-04:00

Subversives for Omaba

If the following is documented as true Obama will lose the upcoming election in the most historic lopsided defeat in American history. In other words, we hope it is true.

A few months ago, a claim was made by former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton that Obama had been funded through Harvard law school by Khalid Al-Mansour, a ‘mentor’ to the founders of the Black Panther party and advisor to ‘one of the world’s richest men,’ Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal. It was Prince Alwaleed whose $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan after 9/11 was refused by New York mayor Rudy Guiliani because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.

According to this story by Kenneth Timmerman, Camp Obama denied this claim -- and referred to a story on Politico.com in which reporter Ben Smith wrote that ‘a spokesman for Sutton’s family, Kevin Wardally’ said that Sutton had been mistaken when he made those comments. But when contacted, Sutton’s family not only denied that Sutton had misspoken but also said they had never even heard of Kevin Wardally – who appears to work for a Harlem political consulting firm.

So the claim that Obama was funded through Harvard by a radical Black Muslim activist with ties to the Saudis remains on the table.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2178136/subversives-for-obama.thtml

2008-09-29T21:53:00.003-04:00

From The Volokh Conspiracy

ILYA SOMIN: "The stock market's record 778 point drop today will no doubt lead many people to conclude that the House of Representatives was wrong to vote down the bailout plan backed by both the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership. Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already made that argument. Here's why I think such claims are wrong."

In a just world, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Schumer would be cleaning chimneys or growing turnips. In this world they somehow have their hands on the levers of power. Then, on the train today I saw a doofus liberal attorney with an Obama sticker on his bag. But we were once like him - he probably doesn't have any understanding of the New Deal and that a federal govt this size is an abberation in American history. The Forgotten Men are about to get even more forgotten I fear should Obama slither his way into the White House.

And this (h/t Instapundit)

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS:
"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

2008-09-11T13:24:00.003-04:00

9/11/08

We remember.

And not with hate, but in steely resolve and confidence in our principles, our culture and our Constitution, we shall defeat the barbarians who would bring a new dark age to the world.

2008-08-20T20:11:00.003-04:00

Mayor Bloomberg <=> Rocket Scientist

Ah, Mike, what's the problem? Human nature is why we're in favor of terms limits. Because no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how much expertise is developed in one area, no matter how noble, every politician after a certain point just can't resist hearing themselves talk. Now the Mayor is still far from Joe "I love to hear the sound of my voice" Biden or Barry "We are the ones" Obama territory, but he's been developing troubling signs of heading down the same road. His latest scheme is wind power, as he hops on the T. Boone Pickens bandwagon.

We're in favor of all energy sources that make sense, and perhaps wind farms far off the coast of NYC will prove economic, but does the Mayor grasp how much total power NYC demands? As of May 2008, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) estimated total peak demand in NYC would reach 33,809 megawatts. That's 33,809,000,000 watts. Peak usage in the summer of 2007, according to NYISO, was 32,169 megawatts.

To put that in perspective, the two nuclear reactors at Indian Point, run by Entergy, together have a maximum power generation capacity of 2,069 megawatts. (See Entergy 2007 Investor Report at http://www.entergy.com/content/investor_relations/pdfs/2007_final_IG.pdf).

The world's largest wind turbine, the Enercon E-126, has a peak power generation rating of 6 megawatts, and the E-126 is a monster with a rotor diameter of 413 feet. And, of course, it only produces peak power when there's a steady wind of, we believe, 17 knots. Commercially available GE wind turbines are rated at, depending on the model, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.6 megawatts of peak production power. (See GE Energy - Wind Turbines at http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/index.htm).

With this in mind, the New York City subway system uses, according to the IEEE, approximately 500 megawatts during peak rush hour usage. (See IEEE-USA Today's Engineer at http://www.todaysengineer.org/2004/Oct/history.asp).

Therefore, to run the NYC subway alone, it would take from 84 of the monster E-126 turbines to 333 of GE's current 1.5Mw models. And that's assuming the wind is blowing steadily at a peak production speeds; add in an additional 50% capacity to account for turbines out of production for maintenance, lower wind velocity, etc., and you wind up with, conservatively a need for 122 to 500 turbines for the subway alone. Now, Mr. Mayor, where exactly at you going to put these? If offshore, where do the transmission lines comes ashore?

Our brainiac Mayor can put all the pinwheels he wants up on the Brooklyn bridge, on top of every skyscraper and in Lady Liberty's torch, but they won't make a dent in the city's powers needs. Which highlights that the green coalition has no viable answers to our actual current energy needs. But hey, if we could harness the power of good intentions we'd have solved the energy problem long ago.

2008-08-06T16:01:00.002-04:00

Gotham. Today's Babel.

In the Bible, which unfortunately fewer and fewer people have any cogent familiarity with or understanding of, the Tower of Babel appears fleetingly in Genesis 11, tucked between a great deal of begatting, and has commonly been understood as mankind's overreaching attempt to reach God's domain via earthly efforts. As punishment (admittedly Genesis 11 is not a model of clarity), God decides to "confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.* * * Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth."

Well, as Deroy Murdock scathingly notes, Mayor Bloomberg, is building a Babel in Gotham, whereby "America’s largest municipality soon will conduct official business not only in English and Spanish — which is bad enough — but also five more foreign languages: Russian, Chinese, Korean, French Creole, and Italian." Bloomberg nonsensically heralded on July 22nd, as he signed the edict, that “[t]his Executive Order will make our city more accessible, while helping us become the most inclusive municipal government in the nation.”

Pardon? Government offices gabbering away in seven languages will do what now? Will people have to press 7 for Creole? The actual Executive Order is available here as a PDF for your amusement.

Murdock delivers a full broadside:

Are today’s immigrants too feeble to learn English, as did the 12 million immigrants who filed through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954? Since when have Italians, of all people, become too wretched to fathom English? Is it too much to ask today’s Italian arrivals to speak America’s common tongue, as did the forbears of such distinguished New Yorkers as Giuliani, former governor Mario Cuomo, Home Depot co-founder Kenneth Langone, and Academy Award–winning director Martin Scorsese?

Bloomberg is a rich man with good intentions. He's also a numbskull in many ways who can't pass up any opportunity to do for others what they should be doing for themselves.

2008-07-24T15:01:00.002-04:00

I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!

There Will be Blood was a lousy movie. Great acting and cinematography, but the plot (such as it was) dangled more lost opportunities than your average Christmas tree has decorations. But there were a few memorable lines, the title to this piece being one.

And now that New York city and state have collectively emptied our milkshakes there's panic in the air because the glasses are bone empty. The front page of today's NY Post carries several stories about NY's impending self-imposed fiscal crisis (see Mayor Bloomberg Warns of $2.3B Gap in City Budget, and Gov. Paterson: Worst Crisis Since '70's). I have no sympathy for Paterson or the Mayor, or any NY elected officials. I do feel for NY's taxpayers and families, who will be sorely pressed even more so than they already are.

But a bit of examination is order. The 2008-09 New York State budget, as enacted, runs $80.5 billion dollars. Over the past 20 years officials have jacked state spending up annually at two or three times the inflation rate, largely due to the headlocks by unions leading to stiff increases in education and health-care spending. New York City has suffered the same fate. While Mayor Bloomberg has often been hailed as a practical businessman, he's been complicit in the steady increases in the city's budget and foolishly calling NYC a luxury product (as in, if you have to ask what it costs you can't afford it) highlighted his "che sara sara" attitude.

We've read enough reports about New York's Potemkin village-like finances, year in and year out, to have seen this coming a mile away. In fact, it's one reason we finally decided to move out of New York City, as have millions of others over the past decade (to be replaced by the never ending flow of low-skilled "immigrants").

But "we told you so" is never a gracious thing to say. Instead, we'll give the NYC Comptroller's just issued Budget Report, the final word:

Furthermore, in most years of the Financial Plan period, risks identified by the
Comptroller’s Office outweigh potentially favorable developments. On net, the City is
likely to experience a gap of $68 million in FY 2009, additional resources of
$295 million in FY 2010, and increments of $538 million and $334 million to the gaps in FYs 2011 and 2012, respectively. As a result, the Comptroller’s projected FY 2010 gap narrows to $2.049 billion while the FY 2011 and FY 2012 gaps widen to $5.696 billion and $5.442 billion, respectively.

The accompanying Press Release notes, dryly:

At the forefront of Thompson's concerns is the increasing burden of debt service on City taxpayers. Debt service is expected to increase 7.6 percent per year from FY 2008 through FY 2012, growth fueled by General Obligation debt borrowing that will average $6 billion per year and push the City’s debt burden from 13.8 percent in FY 2009 to 15.1 percent in FY 2012. New York City’s gross debt outstanding exceeded $7,000 per capita in FY 2007.

Any questions?

2008-07-18T11:11:00.005-04:00

Accidental Governor. Intentional Buffoon.

We had hopes for Governor Paterson. After all, with the shame of Governor Spitzer preceding him as a touchstone virtually any comparison could only be positive. Unfortunately, as is wont in New York, Governor Paterson has and continues to demonstrate that not only is he not up to the massive challenges facing New York, but he remains enthralled to the usual Albany suspects (i.e., lobbyists, unions, campaign contributors, perpetual grievance mongers, etc.).

As the inimitable Henry Stern has highlighted at NY Civic, Paterson has raised $3.3 million in contributions since March and in the process discarded Spitzer's self-imposed $10,000 limit on contributions (which standing alone is indicative of nothing nefarious). However, his office expenditures, at a time of severe budgetary constraint is a shameful mockery of spending restraint. As The New York Sun noted yesterday, in its editorial, Bloat in Albany:

62 of Governor Paterson's aides earn $100,000 a year or more. The result is a governor's office annual payroll of $15.6 million. Massachusetts manages with a governor's office payroll of $4.8 million, Florida with $6.8 million. Texas, which has a larger population than New York, manages to staff its governor's office by spending about half as much money as New York does. In California, only 46 of the governor's aides earn $100,000 a year or more.

The sheer bald-faced lack of shame and abundance of gall in New York politicians today is utterly astounding. Some of us are still of the opinion that public service should be accompanied by some level of humility and recognition that the "public" is to be served and are not merely potential revenue sources for one's fiefdom.

Even with all this, however, Governor Paterson raised the bar on his ballooning buffoonery with his idiotic (there's no other word for it) speech before the NAACP, a once proud organization that today has degenerated into utter illegitimacy and demagoguery. We couldn't find a copy of Paterson's NAACP speech on his official website at http://www.ny.gov/governor/index.html, as the link provided for speeches only lists speeches made between Mar. 17th and April 25th, 2008 (one would think that with the legions of staffers someone could update the site on a timely basis). However, as reported in the New York Sun, the Governor " lash[ed][] out at the press for describing him as an 'accidental governor,' implying in a speech that the term's frequent usage was motivated by racial bias."

Excuse me, Sir? You ARE an accidental Governor. No one voted you Governor, and your ascension to the Governor's mansion is due only to the self-destructive implosion of Governor Spitzer. And to state that use of this term is somehow motivated by racial bias is paranoid buffoonery of the highest order.

Indeed, as the New York Sun states, Paterson's charge that few others in the analogous situation were dubbed "accidental" is contradicted by the facts:

Richard Codey, who filled in as governor of New Jersey for James McGreevey after the latter resigned in a sex scandal, was described as an "accidental governor" by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Observer (in a story headlined "the Return of an Accidental Governor), the Washington Post, the Star-Ledger (in several articles), the Associated Press, and the New York Times.

President Johnson was the subject of a 1967 book by Robert Sherrill called "The Accidental President." A 2001 book about President Bush and the 2000 election race by David Kaplan was titled, "The Accidental President: How 413 Lawyers, 9 Supreme Court Justices, and 5,963,110 Floridians (Give or Take a Few) Landed George W. Bush in the White House."

Playing the race card in such a manner is a disgrace. Worse, the Governor went on to then "suggest[] that the defeat of Senator Obama by Senator McCain in the presidential contest would be a victory for racism."

My God! if simply voting one's convictions against Obama is a "victory for racism" than precious little one does in everyday life is free from the taint of this noxious charge. If we decide to go to McDonald's, because we like their Angus burgers, instead of the Burger King next door, which happens to have a manager who is black, is this a "victory for racism" as a result?

Governor, you do yourself and New York no favor with this line of racial pandering and paranoia. And you damage your already tarnished image as Governor of the once great state of New York.

2008-07-05T01:07:00.003-04:00

Happy (belated) Fourth of July!!

As always, each July 4th we re-read the Declaration of Independence and marvel at its majesty, wrought despite its ultimate creation by committee. Despite our many readings, we always wryly note the grievance of "[h]e has created a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance" in light of the massive growth of federal and state governments.

Happy July 4th, and not to be missed on this day is Roger Kimball's July4th essay Thoughts on July 4, America and multiculturalism.

2008-06-10T00:21:00.005-04:00

And now for something completely different...

In our day jobs we work with contracts. A great deal. As in daily. As in our livelihood depends on our ability to draft, parse, modify and negotiate contracts. We print out dozens of contracts a month. For fun. As education tools. In short, we do contracts and always, and we mean painfully always, we click on every "Terms and Conditions" and "Privacy Policy" link on any website we visit. We do. It's annoying to those around us. But it's who we are.

And so we came across The New York Sun's "Terms of Use" page. We like the Sun. In a liberal island of madness it's a beacon of sanity (except for it's inordinate and ineffable recent crusade to get Bloomberg in the White House. Sorry, fellas, it was doomed from the start - and rightfully so. Of course if the Mad Marxist, a/k/a Obama, gets in to the Whitehouse, sheesh; don't get us started).

Anyway, the Sun's Terms of Use is quackery. We hate to denigrate a fellow practitioner's handiwork, but there's elegant and then there's effluvium. And this, sir, is effluvium. When more time presents itself we'd like to do a Ken Adam-like annotated exegesis of the Sun's ToU, but for now, behold this clause: "It is prohibited to link other sites to this Web site without The New York Sun's prior written permission."

As in YOU can't link YOUR site to us without OUR advanced written by your leave. Sort of defeats the purpose of this little thing called, ahem, the World Wide Web. Don't cha think? We have a saying for this kind of baloney. But this is a family website and we shall refrain in the interest of good taste and maintaining a civilized discourse.

The Sun's legal brain trust then goes on to proclaim "If you link to this Web site, we require that you follow these guidelines. You may link only to the home page, and not to any other page, directory or subdomain of the Web site." Really? Do tell. You require that we follow these guidelines, else what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark they shoot bees at you?

Gentlemen, I suggest you delve deeper into 17 U.S.C. 107. I also imagine you have registered each posting with the U.S. Copyright office. Right? It's a big Internet out there, and frankly, users do not NEED or require permission to comment, link to or reference your website and its pages for other legitimate fair use purposes.

And here's another term you no doubt ran across in Contracts 1: "unconscionable". As in this indemnification clause included in your ToU:

User agrees to defend, hold harmless and indemnify The New York Sun and its business partners and affiliates, and each of them, against and from any and all third party claims, liabilities, damages, fines, penalties or costs of whatsoever nature (including reasonable attorney's fees and costs), arising out of or in any way connected with: (i) any breach by you of these Terms of Use; (ii) any claim based upon your ultimate use of the Content or services available on this Web site in any unauthorized manner and (iii) any content or materials submitted by you.

Good luck enforcing this in any court, anywhere, state, federal or otherwise. Words matter. And such usage mocks our craft shamelessly. We shall not even entertain the matters contained with your Governing Law and General Terms section.

And, finally, for the record, we do not agree to your terms, nor consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in New York county, nor to indemnify anyone associated with your operation, and for completeness, and therefore our continued visits to the website are expressly unauthorized. You may send your cease and desist notice to rhlqc at hotmail.com.

2008-06-06T09:42:00.003-04:00

June 6, 1944 - D-Day
Sixty-four years ago (can that much time really have passed), the greatest amphibious invasion in history began, and with it the liberation of western Europe. We have nothing but the utmost admiration, gratitude and respect for all those who took part, military or civilian.

The best D-Day website, with photos, audio and many links to other memorials, is the U.S. Army's own site at http://www.army.mil/d-day/
The home page notes:

June 6, 1944 - 160,000 Allied Troops landed long a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which “we will accept nothing less than full victory.” More than 5,000 Ships and 13,000 aircraft supported the D-Day invasion, and by day’s end on June 6, the Allies gained a foot-hold in Normandy. The D-Day cost was high -more than 9,000 Allied Soldiers were killed or wounded -- but more than 100,000 Soldiers began the march across Europe to defeat Hitler.

It should also be noted that Google, which continues to rightly catch flak for ignoring momentous American holidays and events, is on its homepage graphic iconography today highlighting Diego Valezquez, as at left. Who? Exactly.

2008-06-03T22:53:00.003-04:00

Barack-eth Giveth, and Barack-eth Taketh

Well, leave it to the Democrats to nominate the most inexperienced, least qualified, most liberal and now, after revelations of all his questionable associates and judgments, the most bloodied candidate. We don't care that Obama is black. Truly. We'd vote for the best candidate we believed embodied the majority of our beliefs and goals and if that person happened to be black then he's black. But the Democrats have demonstrated in spades what their endless ethic, gender and racial slicing and grievance mongering leads to -- internecine knives fights for the spoils of victory. We'd never vote for Barak because we don't believe he would be good for America. Period. His ultra-liberal socialistic stance, his vacuous rhetoric, his barely concealed sense of entitlement, his antipathy towards limited government & textualist Constitutional interpretation and his expansive view of the role of government are all anathema to us.

Now McCain wasn't our first choice by any measure. We endorsed Fred Thompson here, based primarily on his view of governmental limitations, judicial and constitutional jurisprudence and the fact that he vocalized a tough affirmative stand on the war against Islamist ideology and we stand by that endorsement. McCain may be the luckiest candidate in history because right now we think he's going to clean Barack's clock Old School style. And if Hillary's supporters maintain their current righteous indignation Obama may lose in a historic landslide.

And, frankly, on a knee-jerk note, we just hate the name Barack. President Barack? President Obama? Not on our watch if we have anything to say about it.

2008-05-28T22:23:00.003-04:00

Governor Patterson, who when he isn't admitting affairs or getting eye surgery, seems to think that there are higher priorities than attending to NY's precarious financial situation and dysfunction in Albany. Apparently it's almost summer and the living's easy.... Not quite. But the Governor still has time to direct, according to NY1.com, "all state agencies to revise policies in order to recognize same-sex marriages," with this decision apparently coming in response to "to California's decision earlier this month to legalize gay marriage."

Funny. Why a baldly activist 4-3 court decision in California, which hinged purely on the CA state constitution, should provide some sort of magical impetus for executive branch action in New York escapes us. More so because, as the New York Court of Appeals correctly put in back in 2006 in Hernandez v. Robles, "the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature." The L-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-u-r-e. You know, the branch of our tripartite form of government that has the actual authority to pass legislation and make laws, such as those redefining marriage.

The Governor's clearly acted beyond his Constitutional authority here. But in New York it's so hard to actually tell, given the way laws, rules and regulations crafted in Albany are always "enforce for thee, but not for me."

UPDATE: Others have taken note of Paterson's overreaching:

Emperor of the Empire State
Bill Duncan from the Marriage Law Foundation calls the Paterson move "outrageous":

The legislature has had the opportunity to act and has not; the state's highest court rejected any claim that the state constitution requires it and now the governor has made an end run around these decisions by broadcasting that New York couples can go to California and get married, then return home and have those marriages recognized. His opinion, however, can only effect executive branch agencies and there are still a couple of cases pending in New York courts on whether the court system will recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages and whether recognition is mandated by law. The first of the cases to get to the appellate level ruled in favor of recognition but it will probably still be a while before that becomes a settled matter.

(h/t National Review Online)

And:

Paterson’s unilateral action on same-sex ‘marriage’ bypasses the will of the people’s elected representatives

New York State Catholic Conference Executive Director Richard E. Barnes made the following statement today in response to Governor Paterson’s unilateral decision to recognize same-sex “marriage” in the state:
“The administrative action by Gov. Paterson compelling all state agencies to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ performed in other states is an unwelcome bypassing of the state legislature. Unfortunately, this unilateral move without legislative input is not in keeping with Mr. Paterson’s promises upon taking office of a collaborative and bipartisan governing style.
“As we have said many times, the definition of marriage pre-dates recorded history. No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose. The state has a compelling interest in holding up marriage between one man and one woman as the societal model. What our biblical ancestors knew instinctively holds true today: Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to assure the stable rearing of children and the flourishing of society. It should not be treated as simply one more lifestyle choice, equal to any other, because it is not.
“Homosexual men and women must be treated with dignity by all. In cases where unjust discrimination occurs, it must be remedied. However, just as the state cannot declare a man to be a ‘mother’ or a woman to be a ‘father,’ it can not declare a same-sex union to be a ‘marriage.’ To use a distinctly New York expression, ‘It is what it is.’ ”
The Catholic Conference represents New York State’s Bishops in matters of public policy.

2008-04-01T07:26:00.003-04:00

The NY Sun headline this morning reads "Albany is Next Stop for Congestion Pricing." We expect Albany to rubber stamp the Mayor's foolish idea and then, after 100 years of free East river crossings the captives in Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island will be further penalized for deigning to enter Gotham proper. Other headlines we see in our quick scan read "$9 Million Tax Hikes for Banks" and "Cigarette Tax Hike: Gold Mine for Smugglers."

Good luck, New York. You're going to need it.

Update: Mirabile dictu. Congestion pricing failed to pass - a clear win for NYC. Bloomberg's quixotic quest that all wishing to enter the sanctum santorum of midtown pay tribute to the city and the MTA went out with a whimper. What next, Mayor?

2008-03-19T08:26:00.002-04:00

Confederacy of Dunces

We've refrained from comment on the sordid Spitzer affair; silently rejoicing, however, that a man with a dangerous view of the law, statutory interpretation and enforcement has ended his career in both politics and law enforcement. Of course, as always, the people of NY are left holding the bag.

But, now, only a day following his elevation to the governor's mansion we are fed the tawdry tale of David Patterson and his wife's multiple affairs. Query: Can anyone in Albany government keep their pants on? Across the river the gay ex-governor's disclosures induce cringing nearly daily, while the state budget is due in two weeks and is virtually guaranteed to contain unnecessary, unsustainable and unexplainable spending far beyond the fiscal means of the state and its citizens.

Confederacy of dunces, indeed.

2008-03-08T14:29:00.003-05:00

Shame on Bloomberg and Schumer

We know it's often difficult to shame politicians, who, by definition, are generally beyond all shame. Nevertheless, we thought that the blind-eye, anything-goes treatment afforded to one Mr. Magassa, an illegal alien practicing polygamy in New York City, who, after a fire tragedy last year in the Bronx that claimed the lives of (one of) his wife and several of his children, details here, nonetheless had big guns such as Senator Schumer (NY-D) stepping in on his behalf in apparent direct opposition to the rule of law to not only prevent his deportation but to allow his re-entry into the U.S. after he finished transporting and burying his deceased family members in his native Mali. While a tragedy by any measure the aftermath was another stunning example of liberal relativism that equates no preference to U.S. citizenship, and is both passively willing to and actively engaged in granting non-citizen illegal aliens favoritism at the substantial expense of legal U.S. residents and citizens. We don't know about you, but we consider our status as a U.S. citizen to be one of the most valuable of possessions. Yet, Senator Schumer, of course, in acting on Mr. Magassa's behalf was only hewing to the liberal pantheon of positions.

All of this is but preamble, however, for it was with no small amount of sadness, shock and, yes, outrage, that we noted that NY1 was heralding, "Malian Victims of Bronx House Fire Remembered One Year Later," here, noting, matter of factly, in recounting how Mr. Magassa is fairing in the past year that:

A year later both men who are from Mali, West Africa are rebuilding their lives. They are devout Muslims. Magassa, who has other children says his religious beliefs allow him to have two wives. Over the last year, both women have given birth.

"We are doing fine, we are doing pretty much good. Everyone is happy and myself also, because I have had two, three new children. So, I guess, thanks Allah for that,” says Magassa.

Well, well, how nice for him and his many "wives." The fact that "his religion" allows him to have two wives would seem to conflict directly with both New York and U.S. law, and it seems the authorities should be doing something about this, no? After all NY Penal Law, Section 255.15, states that: " A person is guilty of bigamy when he contracts or purports to contract a marriage with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse. Bigamy is a class E felony."

In addition to his earlier and ongoing violations of federal immigration law, a violation that Senator Schumer was eager to put aside, Mr. M. is apparently an open and notorious felon under New York state law. NY Penal Law, from our quick search, doesn't directly address polygamy, because no doubt in this day and age what rational legislator would believe it necessary to address a vestige from days long gone by? Unfortunately, it appears that in 2008 we do. And Mr. Magassa appears to have gotten over the loss of his "wive" and children quiet nicely, thank you very much, adding another "two, three" children, at least from the article's phrasing -- he's not sure. We know it must be tough to keep track when you have so many wives and so many children in your "family unit," but still, one wonders.

As the National Review's Corner blog recounted, very perspicaciously, here:

Polygamy Here and Now [Lisa Schiffren]
My piece here tells the story of Moussa Magassa, an illegal immigrant from Mali of various occupations, who came to the attention of the New York media, city government and readers nationally last year when he lost several children in a tragic fire exactly one year ago. It turned out that he had been living quite nicely, with both of his wives and all of their children in the house that burned. Mr. Magassa's family has grown quite a bit in the intervening year — and not just the usual ways.
It also turns out that there is a large community of West Africans here in New York who have brought with them their Islamic practice and tribal culture of polygamous marriage to the U.S. They bring in additional wives on false visas, they hide the practice, and the mediating institutions of the state, which should be inculcating our cultural practices and laws— welfare bureaucracies, schools, fire departments — turn a blind eye because they do not wish to deal with this practice, despite the harms and loss of freedoms to at least some of the women involved. Why not? Because acknowledging the practice would require legal action: polygamy is grounds for deportation, (and a jail sentence.) This willing disregard of the law by everyone from the Mayor on down is a step by step enactment of "Sharia creep," as Mark Steyn calls it. It is also a direct result of the government's complicity in illegal immigration.
The 1856 GOP platform spoke directly of the "twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." We fought a bloody war to end slavery, and the federal government undertook a decade's long legal enforcement effort to eradicate polygamy among Mormons a few years later, capped by the 1879 Supreme Court case Reynolds vs. the U.S.. To this day, when the government uncovers cases of slavery, it takes vigorous action, including jail time and deportations. Unless we wish to become like Western Europe — colonized, and forced to support, with our tax dollars, laws and practices we find abhorrent — it's time to take similar action when we uncover cases of polygamy.

It's time we stood up to this nonsense and insisted that "multiculturaism" does not trump the rule of law. Otherwise we are in for some very rough times ahead.

2007-10-31T12:28:00.000-04:00

Eliot "Schadenfreude" Spitzer - or Fractured Fairytales from the Empire State

We must say, we rather enjoy the mess Governor Spitzer has created for himself. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Today the steamroller is not only out gas, but appears to have run over his own foot in recent months before coming to a halt on the shoulder. Despite Spitzer's campaign pledge that everything would change, recent months have revealed nothing appears to have changed, and as the State and New York City begin facing the reality that tax revenues are DOWN (we muse sotto voce whether the fact that residents, not counting illegal aliens hoping to get driver's licenses, are leaving the state have had an effect), the music chair of the coming budget fandango should be amusing to behold to all but NY taxpayers as the long line of interest groups Spitzer has made promises to knock on his door to collect.

2007-09-11T17:23:00.001-04:00

"The World Needs Anger."

You've probably never heard this statement voiced in polite company in recent time. Yet the common man of just two generations or more ago would have understood it. We here at Angry New Yorker know it to be true. The world DOES need anger. But not the blind, fist-pumping, burn-an-effigy anger all too common in many corners of the world and B-roll footage. Rather, the world needs "righteous anger" that takes umbrage at evil and injustice and channels the angry energy into appropriate action. It's the type of anger we try to cultivate here. So we were pleased to note on an essay by David Rusin in today's Pajamas Media that makes just this point on the anniversary of 9/11. The essay is worth a read, and is entitled "Looking Back in Anger" and quotes Father Bede Jarrett who understood well that, "The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough. "

Six Years Ago

2007-09-11T11:31:00.000-04:00

When I was a kid the big question in NYC was, "where were you during the blackout of '77?" In the 21st century the generational question now is, "where were you on 9/11?"

I'm sure each of us remembers vividly where we were that morning, though, as to be fully expected, some in America have either unconsciously forgotten or decided consciously to forget. Time has a powerful way of healing all wounds and wounding all heels. And every disaster that in its time "changed everything" eventually faded, regardless of those who'd prefer they didn't. Memories were designed to fade, and it's probably better they do, else much of life would be unbearable. Who today even knows about, let alone actually commemorates or remembers, the General Slocum disaster in NYC?

2007-08-13T15:35:00.000-04:00

After spending upwards of 40 years as citizens and residents of New York city it's actually a bit stunning that we're leaving. That's right, we're moving out. Good bye NYC, so long New York State. Of course, we aren't exactly moving, unfortunately, to "red state" country -- only up I-95 to Fairfield, CT. But still, it's OUT OF NEW YORK CITY.

One expected benefit going forward is that our perspective, removed from the eye of the tumult, will henceforth be more measured, more prospective and introspective, than it has been to date as the rain upon rain of inanities and misguided policies flowed down on our collective heads year after year. Without having to keep one hand on the umbrella and the other guarding our wallets both hands will now be free for more productive endeavors.

There's a tremendous amount we'll miss -- after all NYC is in our DNA -- but still more that we won't. Nevertheless, with many many friends and family members firmly ensconced in NYC and surrounding environs we'll be back, often. However, for now... the new issue of

City Journal is out.

A quarterly magazine of
urban affairs, published by
the Manhattan Institute,
edited by Brian C. Anderson.

A PREVIEW OF THE SUMMER 2007
ISSUE OF CITY JOURNAL:

John Robb
The Coming Urban Terror
Systems disruption, networked gangs, and bioweapons

Steven Malanga
The New Privatization
States and cities are selling their roads, bridges, and airports for eye-popping sums.
CJ PODCAST: Steven Malanga discusses this story

Heather Mac Donald
The Abduction of Opera
Can the Met stand firm against the trashy productions of trendy nihilists?

David Gratzer
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.

Sol Stern
Grading Mayoral Control
Lauded in the press, Bloomberg’s education reforms are proving more spin than substance. Parents are losing patience.

Myron Magnet
In the Heart of Freedom, in Chains
Elite hypocrisy, gangsta culture, and failure in black America

Arthur C. Brooks
What Really Buys Happiness?
Not income equality, but mobility and opportunity

Judith Miller
On the Front Line in the War on Terrorism
Cops in New York and Los Angeles offer America two models for preventing another 9/11.
CJ PODCAST: Judith Miller discusses this story

Theodore Dalrymple
Delusions of Honesty
Tony Blair’s domestic legacy: corruption and the erosion of liberty

War and Peace Studies

Victor Davis Hanson
Why Study War?
Military history teaches us about honor, sacrifice, and the inevitability of conflict.

Bruce Bawer
The Peace Racket
An anti-Western movement touts dictators, advocates appeasement—and gains momentum.

Nicole Gelinas
An Inconvenient Solution
Carbon trading, the increasingly accepted answer to global warming, will cost far more than we’re being told.

Departments

In Prospect

Soundings

Street Cleaning in Philly
Do Immigrants Still Nourish Cities?
Four Score and Seven Manatees Ago
Time Out Londonistan

Letters

Contributors

Jerry Weinberger
Lansing Diarist
Giving Up the Hog

2007-04-20T12:36:00.000-04:00

The new issue of City Journal is out!

A quarterly magazine of
urban affairs, published by
the Manhattan Institute,
edited by Brian C. Anderson.

A PREVIEW OF THE SPRING 2007
ISSUE OF CITY JOURNAL:

Christopher Hitchens
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
America’s first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nation’s character.

Peter W. Huber
Germs and the City
Two centuries of success against infectious disease have left us complacent—and vulnerable.

Adam D. Thierer
The Media Cornucopia
It’s a Golden Age of media—but not for long, if the Left has its way.

Guy Sorman
The Empire of Lies
The twenty-first century will not belong to China.

Nicole Gelinas
Baghdad on the Bayou
To recover from Katrina, New Orleans must defeat the criminals who terrorize its streets.

Steven Malanga
Cory Booker’s Battle for Newark
A bold reformer takes on entrenched crime and corruption.

Kay S. Hymowitz
The Incredible Shrinking Father
Artificial insemination begets children without paternity, with troubling cultural and legal consequences.

Sol Stern
Save the Catholic Schools!
They work miracles with inner-city kids, but without help, their own future is uncertain.

Stephen B. Presser
Reading the Constitution Right
Clarence Thomas’s fidelity to our founding documents is making its mark on the Supreme Court.

Urbanities

Christopher Hitchens
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
America’s first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nation’s character.

Stefan Kanfer
Love and Glory in East Aurory
Elbert Hubbard, an American original

Departments

In Prospect

Soundings

Time for the Truth About Black Crime Rates
Out-in-Left-Field Trips
Engineering Souls
Many Happy Returns
The Most Reckless State
Ban the Bats, Hold the Fats
Broken Windows Turns 25

Theodore Dalrymple
Oh, to be in England
A Drinker of Infinity

Letters

Contributors

Andrew Klavan
Santa Barbara Diarist
The Big White Lie

2007-01-31T14:00:00.000-05:00

A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Myron Magnet.

A PREVIEW OF THE WINTER 2007
ISSUE OF CITY JOURNAL:

Nicole Gelinas
Help Us, Governor Spitzer!
This crusading reformer has his work cut out for him.

Heather Mac Donald
Elites to Anti-Affirmative-Action Voters: Drop Dead
The University of California has spent a decade wiggling around Proposition 209.

Kay S. Hymowitz
The New Black Realism
A new generation sees opportunity in America—and
seizes it.

Steven Malanga
Yes, Rudy Giuliani Is a Conservative
And an electable one, at that.

Christopher Hitchens
Facing the Islamist Menace
Mark Steyn’s new book is a welcome wake-up call.

Victor Davis Hanson
Mexifornia, Five Years Later
The flood of illegal immigrants into California has made things worse than I foresaw.

John Kekes
Reflections on the Revolution in Hungary
After half a century, does it seem worth it?

John Leo
Free Inquiry? Not on Campus
And the college speech police threaten the liberty of us all.

Heather Mac Donald
No, the Cops Didn’t Murder Sean Bell
And here’s what decent black advocates would say.

Sol Stern
This Bush Education Reform Really Works
Reading First, though much maligned, succeeds in teaching kids to read.

Urbanities

David Garrard Lowe
The Houses of Worship That Hallow New York
A tour through three centuries of history and architecture

Departments

In Prospect

Soundings

The Truth About Poverty
Muslim Mau-Mauing
Dhimming the Light
Bonus Boom, But . . .
Rewarding Bad Behavior
The Real Meaning of Barbarism
The Big Lie, Clothbound
The Garden State Wilts

Theodore Dalrymple
Oh, to be in England
How Not to Do It

Letters

Contributors

Theodore Dalrymple
Shropshire Diarist
The Eternal Present

2007-01-13T14:45:00.000-05:00

New boss, same as the old boss.

Now that Eliot Spitzer is Governor, and the rather oily Andrew Cuomo is, amazingly, Attorney General, it's a depressing time for New York republicans, who more and more are essentially stuck "behind enemy lines" here.

But like the commandos in WWII, there's still much we can accomplish. Stay tuned.

2006-09-11T10:14:00.000-04:00

September 11, 2006 - In New York City, five years later, we're still angry. Very angry. We've not forgotten; nor forgiven.

2006-08-24T15:16:00.000-04:00

A must read from the Belmont Club blog...

The Usual Suspects

What's remarkable about Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Laureate Tom Schelling, and Hassan Nasrallah is that they probably agree with Keyser Soze, the legendary fictional villain of The Usual Suspects on one subject. Part boogeyman and part urban legend, Soze was a near-metaphysical example of implacable retribution. Soze's presence exists entirely offscreen until the final scene, but his legend is created in a an early bit of movie dialogue.

Read the entire thing, here.

2006-07-25T21:46:00.000-04:00

The Summer 2006 City Journal issue is out.

A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Myron Magnet.

Why Today’s Immigrants Don’t Flourish

Steven Malanga
How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy
A handful of industries get low-cost labor, and the taxpayers foot the bill.

Heather Mac Donald
Seeing Today’s Immigrants Straight
Advocates of “comprehensive immigration reform” let ideology blind them to the dispiriting facts on the ground.

Sol Stern
The Ed Schools’ Latest—and Worst—Humbug
Teaching for “social justice” is a cruel hoax on disadvantaged kids.

Gerry Garibaldi
How the Schools Shortchange Boys
In the newly feminized classroom, boys tune out.

Nicole Gelinas
Is There a New York Housing Crisis?
Only when government creates one—as Mayor Bloomberg is doing now.

Heather Mac Donald
New York Cops: Still the Finest
Bucking a national trend, Gotham’s crime rate keeps dropping. Here’s why.

Urbanities

Kay S. Hymowitz
Desperate Grandmas
Now sexagenarians, narcissistic feminists are still seeking the Best Sex Ever.

Theodore Dalrymple
The Terrorists Among Us
It’s not just Islam, but the tension between Islam and Western modernity, that makes them tick.

Steven Malanga
The Last Full Measure
Gotham may not know how to honor the 9/11 dead, but the suburbs do.

Departments

In Prospect

Soundings

Crime Capital
Reorganizing the Reorganization
Fixing the CDBG
Soccer Louts
Crime and Indulgence
Stop Storm Dallying
Blame Israel Always

Theodore Dalrymple
Oh, to be in England
Real Crime, Fake Justice

Letters

Contributors

Edmund Janko
Dean’s Office Diarist
It Still Leaves a Bad Taste

2006-07-25T18:48:00.000-04:00

Level Lebanon if Necessary

The middle-east is a land of constant tears, thanks to human failings. And while we pray for the safety of truly innocent civilians, if need be the Israeli army should level every manmade structure in Lebanon to root out Hizbullah once and for all and let the empty wasteland stand as a example to all with the Lebanese people wandering the earth like modern-day Ancient Mariners telling their sad tales to any party-gather who will listen.

History, Heart, Human Nature

2006-07-03T11:26:00.000-04:00

Our big "three h's" speech gains more background each week it seems. Oneof these days we'll get around to posting it up here, but until then, this tidbit in the history and human nature columns, (hat tip to Instapundit):

IN THE ASIA TIMES, a look at primitive authenticity:

Two billion war deaths would have occurred in the 20th century if modern societies suffered the same casualty rate as primitive peoples, according to anthropologist Lawrence H Keeley, who calculates that two-thirds of them were at war continuously, typically losing half of a percent of its population to war each year.

This and other noteworthy prehistoric factoids can be found in Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn, a survey of genetic, linguistic and archeological research on early man. Primitive peoples, it appears, were nasty, brutish, and short, not at all the cuddly children of nature depicted by popular culture and post-colonial academic studies. The author writes on science for the New York
Times and too often wades in where angels fear to tread. [3] A complete evaluation is beyond my capacity, but there is no gainsaying his representation of prehistoric violence.

That raises the question: Why, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, does popular culture portray primitives as peace-loving folk living in harmony with nature, as opposed to rapacious and brutal civilization?

I think it has something to do with the new misanthropy, and with the same kind of voyeuristic idealization that led Marie Antoinette to play peasant.

2006-04-30T20:12:00.000-04:00

Dicky Durbin -- How'd this guy get to be a Senator?

Showing why he's garned the fitting admonition "Dick Durbin before he dicks You", Senator Dick Durbin on today's Meet the [de]Press[ed] displayed not only a complete lack of basic Economics 101 understanding, but a total anti-capitalist philosophy.

Durbin: "Am I the only one of your guests here that think that profit taking is a problem?"

Earth to Durbin! Come in, Durbin. "Profit taking" is the bedrock of capitalism. Dope. Here's the transcript and the podcast so you can get the entire flavor of Durbin's nuttiness.

2006-04-30T19:14:00.000-04:00

Can we get out of this State in one piece?

We ask ourselves this question with depressing frequency these days, and it makes us very angry. We were born in New York and have lived here all our lives -- through good times and bad. But the thought there is likely no affordable and viable long-term future for our children in this State, the result of a generation of entrenched malefeasance and unbridled union greed, combined with the stranglehood of legislative disfunction and the sense that our politicians ultimately believe -- in action if not in word -- that no level of taxation is too high for New Yorkers, often leaves us wondering why we bother acting some Cassandra and publicizing the obvious facts.

Well, last week New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi's office released a report (Property Taxes in New York State - Local Government Issues in Focus, Vol. 2, Issue 2, April 2006, available at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/propertytaxes.pdf as an Acrobat PDF) that by all rights should have the streets filled with marchers, no, not illegal aliens clamoring for "rights", but property owners and citizens of New York storming toward their local state politician's office with pitchforks, torches, and some tar and a few feather-filled pillows.

Here's the fact again: New York State is in a slow-motion fiscal implosion, which means two things: (1) there's still time to get beyond the shrapnel's kill radius, and (2) there's still time to limit the damage, but whether its enough to result in the New York ship of state merely brushing the reef as opposed to our current full-speed ahead course toward the coral remains to be seen.

Some highlights from Hevesi's report:

New York taxpayers have the highest combined State and local tax burden in the nation, with atotal tax bill of $131 for every $1,000 of personal income in 2002, nearly 26 percent higher thanthe national average.

New York’s high tax burden is entirely driven by high local taxes – State taxes are about average, at $64 per $1,000 of personal income, versus $62 for the nation as a whole.

Local taxes are the highest in the country, at $67 per $1,000 of personal income, 60 percent higher than the national average of $42. Maine is the next highest state at $55 – nearly 20 percent lower than New York.

The property tax is by far the largest tax imposed by local governments in the State, representing 79 percent of all local taxes outside of New York City.

Per capita property tax burdens in New York are 49 percent higher than the national average and property taxes measured as a share of personal income are 28percent higher.
This disparity is even greater for taxpayers in most of the State, sinceNew York City’s property taxes are relatively low compared with other localgovernments (because it collects revenue from a number of other local taxes,including a personal income tax).
Local property tax levies grew by 60 percent from 1995 to 2005, more than twice the rate of infl ation during that period (28 percent). Most of this growth occurred in the last 5 years – when property tax levies increased by 42 percent,compared to infl ation of 13 percent.
Levy increases have moderated somewhat in 2006, particularly for counties,which benefited from last year’s Medicaid cap. However, growth rates continue to be substantially above infl ation for most classes of government.
Property taxes add to the overall high cost of living in downstate suburbs,where property taxes per $1,000 of personal income average about $65 (comparedto the State median of $53), and are a major contributor to higher housing costs.

The report concludes, with dramatic understatement:

New York’s property tax is large and growing fast, as it tends to do when growth slows in other revenues or costs increase for local governments. The property tax is stable and easy to administer, but it has some serious fl aws, including a weak system for ensuring professional and equitable assessments. STAR and related rebates will not fi x these fl aws, and may indeed magnify them, as they may encourage growth in spending, particularly in higher-wealth, higher-spending areas. A rebate payment or State-funded tax exemption is a transfer of tax burden, not a tax cut, and should be considered in the context of overall tax policy in New York. While short-term property tax relief may be the perceived effect, the long-term outcome may well be an overall increase in State and local taxes. Future research and policy analysis should be directed toward structural changes and systemic reforms for the property tax.

A show of hands. How many people out there believe we can achieve a "systemic reform for the property tax" before this entire house of cards comes crashing down? One, two... three. Yeah, that's pretty much what we thought. See you out West somewhere. We'll send a postcard.

Ad Astra Per Higher Taxes

2006-04-19T00:02:00.000-04:00

Excelsior! NYS has the highest gas taxes in the Nation

Pretty much the only thing New York State leads the country today in is figuring new ways to tax us. Yet Schmucky Schumer is out there calling for windfall tax on the oil producers. Utter mendacity fills every room he enters. To whit:

New York leads the nation with the highest state gasoline taxes while Alaska has the lowest, according to the American Petroleum Institute. On top of New York's state tax of 8 cents per gallon , it charges 8 percent state sales tax and a Petroleum Business Tax of 15.2 cents per gallon . There is also a spill tax of 0.3 cents per gallon and a petroleum testing fee of 0.05 cent per gallon levied on gasoline.

In short, roughly 62 cents for every gallon you buy are siphoned away by taxes. And, on top of all the NYS taxes listed above, there's a U.S. Federal Excise tax of 18.4 cents a gallon. But wait there's more. That 8% NYS sales tax is paid after the Federal Excise Tax is applied, so you pay a tax on the tax itself. Isn't that just peachy.

To see how absolutely crazy anyone who says we aren't taxed to death is, consider the following example. Say you make ten dollars. On that you pay FICA, Medicare, NYS, NYC and Federal income taxes, leaving you maybe $5.80 net. Then you take that nearly 6 bucks to the local NYC gas station to buy two gallons of gas to get to your job (yes, we know gas is nearly $3.00 a gallon), and on that two gallon purchase you've paid $1.63 in taxes (62.9 cents per gallon to NYS, plus 18.4 cents per gallon to the Feds times two). So on that original $10.00 that you worked hard to make, you were actually able to spend only a bit over $4.00. That's not only pathetic, it's nearly criminal in our book.

2006-04-17T14:49:00.000-04:00

From the let them eat cake files....

Bloomberg disappoints again and again. He's a RINO's RINO, truly. Illegal aliens can find jobs, but these people can't?

"Most eligible adults between the ages of 18 and 49 can only receive food stamps for three months every three years, but big cities with high un-employment rates can apply to waive that restriction. Chicago, Seattle and Washington have already done that.

According to the report, the demand for food stamps has slowly risen across the five boroughs over the past decade, jumping to just over one million people in February.

Mayor Bloomberg's support of the waiver is a sharp departure from his previous term. Bloomberg had followed in the foot steps of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani whose welfare reform plan to get people off public assistance has been followed in other big cities around the country."

UPDATE: Bloomberg's backed off and decided NOT to apply for the waiver. When one of our members recently enrolled his kids in public school in NYC (yeah, we know) he refused to sign up for the "free" lunch program, which the school itself was pushing, saying it was too much of a hassel to collect the $1.25 a day, or whatever the amount was, from parents. He said, too bad -- you collect my money, I'm not taking your "free" lunch for my kids.

2006-03-26T22:42:00.000-05:00

Illegal Immigration Madness

Some days we wonder if somehow we were in a car accident or knocked unconscious years ago, or simply feel asleep under a sycamore like some modern day Rip Van Winkle and awoke TODAY in a by comparison distant crazy future. How else to explain recent mass rallies by illegal immigrants whereby those here ILLEGALLY -- as in unlawfully, as in breaking the law -- somehow put forth the proposition that they're entitled to not only gather enmass, but in doing so make demands on the rightful citizens of the sovereign country of the United States. It's madness. We can't imagine going to say, Bermuda, staying illegally and then getting on a soapbox in the town square to tell the people of Bermuda they should give us a cabana on the beach, benefits and a path to citizenship. The thought of it, the sheer gall required, would never enter our heads.

On the plus side, these marches by illegal aliens are working to ensure they sign their own deportation orders, because marches by illegal aliens do NOTHING but harden citizens against them and guarantee passage of stricter immigration laws. We'd certainly vote to deport the lot, no matter the cost, were it put to a referendum. Out you go, and don't let the door hit you on the way.

2006-03-19T14:04:00.000-05:00

It's been a long time since the "Empire" state lived up to its moniker. And the past twenty years of legislative and executive leadership have done precious little in real terms to address the issue. Harsh? Maybe not harsh enough. Read this:

"New Yorkers, lured by more lucrative opportunities elsewhere, have been voting with their feet: from 1995 to 2004, New York lost nearly 1.7 million residents to other states.[5] New York’s rate of outmigration was well over the northeast region’s average and the worst of any state from 2000 to 2004, according to census estimates.[6] An influx of foreign immigrants and their higher birthrates have kept New York’s total population from dropping, but the relative loss of residents to the rest of the U.S. has been severe enough to cost the state ten congressional seats since 1980.[7]"

The full depressing report, Albany Inc., is available here. [3MBPDF]

2006-03-14T17:16:00.000-05:00

More Legislative Madness from Our Knee-Jerk State Legislature

Get this, according to NY1 the "highly-publicized death of Manhattan grad student Imette St. Guillen has inspired a new piece of legislation. The bill called 'Imette's Law' calls for every business with a state liquor license to install security cameras at all entrances and exits of their buildings. St. Guillen's former boyfriend, also a student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, proposed the idea to Assemblyman Felix Ortiz who sponsored the legislation."

First, why is Assemblyman Ortiz giving special weight to the suggestions of her "former" boyfriend? Though we don't know if the boyfriend was rendered "former" because she's deceased, or that was his status prior to her untimely demise, but in either case, who the hell cares what he is? He's not family, he's not blood, he's not even a "life partner."

Second, whoever started this now full-fledged trend of naming laws after unfortunate victims should be hunted down and flogged. Enough of Amber's Law, Bambi's Law, Little Tiny Baby Snuggles Law! Enough! No mas. Laws apply to all people, and creating laws based on the single tragic consequences of one victim is a trend that is destined to lead us all steadily to ultimate disaster.

Third, let's hope this piece of pandering doesn't pass to begin with, but what would it accomplish? It wouldn't prevent any such crime. It, in theory, might make it somewhat easier to track down someone like the killer here, but hey, the cops didn't have much trouble tracking him down as it is did they?

But since the legislature's only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail to them. As the good folks over at Power Line noted this past week, "[o]ne of the basic problems in our society is that nearly all informal sanctions have been forfeited, so that there is hardly any middle ground between passive acceptance of antisocial behavior and a felony prosecution. Legislation and criminal prosecution are blunt instruments that cannot be brought to bear against every deviancy that may arise." 'Tis true.

And the Last Shall Be First (to be sued)

2006-03-02T17:34:00.000-05:00

And the Last Shall Be First (to be sued) [From Gotham Gazette]

Voting Lawsuit

The Justice Department sued New York State yesterday for failing to modernize its election system and replace its aging voting machines. After the 2000 presidential elections, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, which requires states to comply with new voting guidelines. New York has accepted $221 million in federal funds for overhauling its system, but decisions about which voting machines to purchase have stalled in Albany. It is the first lawsuit of its kind. The federal government says New York ranks last among states when it comes to implementing the guidelines.

2006-02-26T14:11:00.000-05:00

Sharia law - Coming soon to a country near you!

As the ever prescient Mark Steyn notes in a column in today's Sun-Times

"Simply as a matter of fact, every year more and more of the world lives under Islamic law: Pakistan adopted Islamic law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. Four decades ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it's in the grip of sharia, and the other half's feeling the squeeze, as the death toll from the cartoon jihad indicates."Mark Steyn, Needing to wake up, West just closes its eyes, Sun-Times, Feb. 26, 2006, available at http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn26.html.

Gee, and everytime a country takes on Sharia law things go straight downhill. Wonder why?

Riots over this??

2006-02-15T12:17:00.000-05:00

Memo to Fanatic Muslims:
Grow up already! The answer
to every perceived "outrage" is
not "let's riot and burn something
down." Got it?

2006-01-31T15:54:00.000-05:00

The end of the line...

Well, Mayor Bloomberg, increasingly a disappointment to those who held out hope of NYC's out-of-control spending throttling back, though admittedly he's still better than the rabid democrat quasi-socialists who challenged him for mayor back in November, rolled out the 2006-07 budget the other day. (press release here; documents here, and video presentation here).

Bloomberg's budget is, surprise, up again over last year, to $52,200,000,000 -- that's $52.2 billion, or $6390.52 for every man, woman and child in New York City. I've studied the New York State and New York City fiscal situation long enough to be very afraid right now for the future. Unless the situation changes drastically in the next five to ten years this state is pretty much fiscally cooked. End of story. I don't get any pleasure in relating this conclusion. But the chronic financial chicanery, the ballooning tax-eaters, the unions' stranglehold on the fisc, the increasingly mobile state of capital, the flight from New York city by the middle class beyond Manhattan, and the total picture is not bright.

More to come...

To a better 2006

2005-12-29T13:31:00.000-05:00

As 2006 gets off to a good start, here's hoping we can get back into the swing of things. Frankly, there has been so many things to comment on since we went on hiatus -- of necessity -- that it's been difficult to know where to dig in again. From the NY City Council of Dunces, to Bloomberg's increasingly liberal bloviating, to the governor whose become an embarrassment after squandering 12 year in office, to a State Assembly leader who's monotone knee-jerk dronings are a veritable caricature, to a Junior U.S. Senator who is a greasy partisan hack of the highest order, to members of the NY Congressional delegation who are basically unemployable elsewhere, well, I think you start to see the dilemma posed by a surfeit of targets to skewer. But into the breach again we go this week....

2005-10-14T14:37:00.000-04:00

We're working on several detailed posts concerning the upcomng election resolutions -- in short, vote no on the transportation bond issue, and we're digesting the other resolution.

In the meantime, what's next from Mexico? It gets more nuts all the time down there. Frankly what about the "human rights" of the U.S. citizens forced to pay for the 11 million illegal aliens now believed to be in the U.S.? To whit:

Mexicans fear US border control will lead to human rights violations
at 2:32 PM ET

[JURIST] The Mexican
government [official website] is concerned that Texas Gov. Rick Perry's
"Operation Linebacker," a pledge of $9.7 million to beef up security along the US-Mexico border, will lead to human rights violations. In a statement released
late Wednesday, Mexican officials said that their government remains committed
to combating crime on both sides of the border, but fears that militarizing the
border will lead to violations of humanitarian law [ICRC backgrounder]. Perry's "Operation Linebacker" [overview; press release] will provide the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition with $3 million to hire additional deputies, $3 million for overtime pay and $3.7 million for other initiatives. Mexico also called for the US to establish new mechanisms that would allow legal migration that respects human rights."

2005-09-01T00:04:00.000-04:00

We pray for you after Hurricane Katrina

Now, two days later, its clear the near miss wasn't. Rather, the glancing blow spread the devastation far, far beyond New Orleans. Our hearts break and we're trying to learn all the lessons we can for future reference.

One troubling development is the apparently rampant looting and criminality ongoing in New Orleans. We hoped it was merely driven by urgent need for food, water and medicines, but it rapidly became clear utter lawlessness and larceny was the order of the day in areas. So, we found the LA Governor and CNN's misguided claim that the "police need to focus on rescuing people now not property loss" coming home to roost. Sorry, folks, but without order your rescues are going nowhere.

And so now the Mayor of NO has, as we expected, ordered all the police off rescue and to restoring order. Didn't we learn with the looting in Iraq after the fall, or did we hope/expect that Americans under stress would be different? So, regretfully, though politically unpalatable in our age of umbrage, the order should have gone out to shoot looters on sight. After the first rounds of looters gunned down order would have returned virtually instantly. Instead now we have reports of looters trying to break into Children's hospitals. Yet, I have heard absolutely no mention of shooting looters. Why are we so afraid to put order at the top of the list?

2005-07-30T17:31:00.000-04:00

We're back!

So much has happened since our hiatus that we wanted to comment on. But there'll be no shortage of material to cover going forward. Why? Because things are just starting to heat up. Thanks for revisting. We're now back on the job.

2005-05-26T23:58:00.000-04:00

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. ;-)

2005-05-19T17:52:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-05-18T10:05:00.000-04:00

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:

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.
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."
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.
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.

2005-05-17T13:24:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-05-10T09:35:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-05-09T22:36:00.000-04:00

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 •

2005-05-09T22:22:00.000-04:00

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:

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

2005-05-06T18:38:00.000-04:00

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."

2005-05-03T14:41:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-05-02T14:08:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-05-01T16:02:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-04-30T12:02:00.000-04:00

We're shocked, shocked to find New York paying too much to government worker union pensions! Shocked!

From NY1.com

Report Finds New York State Pension Payouts Are Excessive
April 30, 2005

A new report shows New York taxpayers are funding fat pension payouts for government retirees.

The report by the Citizens Budget Commission concluded that retirement packages offered to New York City and state employees are more generous than those provided by other governments or the private sector.

The CBC says that by 2008 pension contributions are projected to grow to more than $$4.5 billion and health-insurance payments will increase to more than $$3.4 billion.

Cutting pension benefits for current employees would require an amendment to the state constitution, action by two successive Legislatures, and a voter referendum.

2005-04-29T18:49:00.000-04:00

You Don't Think We Have An Illegal Alien Problem? Mira!

What about this billboard for KRCA-TV Channel 62 that Gov. Schwarzenegger railed against yesterday in a radio interview, here, as promoting illegal immigration. The billboard clearly crossed out CA and instead has Los Angeles, Mexico on it instead, in apparent support of the "reconquista."

In response a California radio station posted a billboard that says:

And latest update is some patriots took the situation into hand and modified the LA, Mexico billhoard per below:

2005-04-28T20:43:00.000-04:00

And this guy almost became president? The fact he was thwarted may actually be proof God does exist. ;-)

From LittleGreenFootballs.com:

Gore Leads the Way

In a speech to the wacko-leftist group MoveOn.org, Al Gore showed that the Democratic party has moved on from those primitive “Bush=Hitler” talking points, and now believes the best way to appeal to the base is by portraying “right-wing religious zealots” as a monolithic threat, far more dangerous than Islamic radicalism (what’s that? huh?): Gore Blasts GOP Bid to Block Filibusters.

“What makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government,” Gore said of the GOP in a speech. “They seek nothing less than absolute power.” ...

“This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place,” Gore said as many in the audience stood and applauded. The speech was sponsored by the liberal group MoveOn’s political action committee.

2005-04-28T17:27:00.000-04:00

Asian Long-Horned Beetle Alert!

We're nearly fanatical tree-lovers (not to be confused with tree huggers). As a result, the report that the devastating asian long-horned beetle was found again in Central Park today (having already caused much damage in Queens and Brooklyn over the past years) was not good news. Stay tuned.

2005-04-28T16:23:00.000-04:00

An update and some other thoughts...

First, we wanted to let our readership know that posting between now and July 28th will be somewhat fitful. We have some other business-related committments that will require more of our time than usual, and business comes first (well after God, family, and country, of course. ;-)

However, there are two items we wanted to highlight now.

First, it drives us nuts when pundits spout the dribble that illegal aliens come here and do jobs that "Americans won't do." Oh, really? We don't buy it. In fact, rather than benefitting Americans and our culture, these 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."

Case in point is one of our neighbors. No they're not illegal aliens, but they live in a small plot house, as do several of us here, and their front "yard" is roughly 25 feet x 15 feet -- certainly no more. One of their three kids is a strapping young lad; athletic and more than capable of physical work. Yet, this family has a lawn service come by weekly. A truck pulls up; several Spanish-speaking men disembark with their blowers, mowers and rakes and in a few minutes they've handled the front "lawn" without breaking a sweat. Beyond letting their now slothful son get away with no external chores, what sort of example lesson is this setting for our youth and their work ethic development? That only illegals cut lawns anymore? That their is some work that is beneath one?

At the risk of dredging up a hoary "when I was a lad" tale, I handled the lawn work (and the snow shoveling in winter) at my childhood homes until I finished college, and even then I continued to cut the lawn (and shovel the snow) for several years at the four-family house where I rented an apartment (at market rates) from my parents after moving. And the four-family house was a large corner house with a front lawn of about 80 x 25 feet. I certainly didn't feel the work was either too much, or beneath me. I felt it was my duty. Are we breeding a sense of duty out of our kids these days?

Second, Mayor Bloomberg and company continue to spout the nonsense that people are "coming back to New York in droves." First, demographically it's simply not true -- except for a very small segment of people, centered in a very small area of Manhattan. And as one of Bloomberg News' own columnists notes in an essay today, Sprawl and "Slurbs" Are the Wave of the Future, available here, the theory posited by Richard Florida of "the creative class" as cities' salvation is empty; the theory does not hold water I believe, despite its embrace by those on the left who envision themselves as "creative", because, as urbanologist Joel Kotin notes "[y]ou can't build a long-term civic culture around transient populations.'' Kotin's statement is so fundamentally concrete that arguments against border on irrational. But the reaity that urban centers are NOT gaining force is a fact that does not bode well for NYC's long-term health, and the quicker we face the reality, the quicker we can adapt. Read the whole thing:

	Sprawl and `Slurbs' Are the Wave of the Future: Andrew Ferguson April 26 (Bloomberg) -- When author and historian Joel Kotkin travels around the U.S. in his role as a consultant to city planners, he hears his clients repeat the same misconceptions again and again. He calls them urban legends. ``The one you hear most often is, `Cities are on the rebound! People are moving back to the cities!''' he says. ``It takes different forms. The latest one I'm hearing is: `Empty nesters are flocking back to the cities!''' There's a problem with legends, of course. They're not true. And so it is with the urban legends Kotkin keeps hearing. Consider those empty nesters -- parents whose children have grown up and moved out. No matter how much civic boosters may wish it to be true, this affluent and highly desirable demographic is not returning to live in U.S. downtowns. ``If anything, the data show just the opposite,'' Kotkin says. ``If empty nesters decide to sell the family house in the suburbs, they move to a condo -- in the suburbs. Or they move to the Sun Belt -- to a suburb.'' The same goes for one urban legend after another, those little fairy tales that urban planners tell to convince themselves that cities are making a comeback. Urbs versus Burbs Is it true, for example, that gentrification is inspiring companies to put their headquarters in cities? Is it true that cities can cultivate a vibrant and viable civic culture without middle-class families? Is it true that most companies require an urban setting to do business in? The answers, says Kotkin, are: No, no, and probably not. An urban setting, he concedes, just might help you do business, depending on what business you're in. ``I suppose some kind of companies need to be in a city,'' he says. ``Bail bondsmen need to be near the courthouse. But that's about it.'' You can understand why city managers, urban planners and ``metropolitan elites'' repeat the urban legends, mostly to one another. They're deflecting an uncomfortable truth. And the truth is that in the great struggle between cities and suburbs, raging now for a century or more, the verdict is finally in: Cities lost. The vast majority of people prefer the ``burbs.'' The long-predicted comeback of the traditional city isn't in the cards. `Dream World' For those of us who love cities, it's hard to believe that the future of civilized life lies in the suburbs. You call that civilized? ``Metropolitan elites live in a dream world,'' Kotkin says. ``If 1,000 people move into lower downtown Denver in the last year, the elites think it's a trend: stories in the newspaper, panel discussions, general celebration. Meanwhile, 10,000 people leave the city for the suburbs, and the elites ignore it.'' Traditional U.S. cities stopped growing 50 years ago and are now shrinking. Since 1950, almost all the growth in U.S. metropolitan areas has been beyond the city limits, in suburbs -- sprawl, in a word. And the trend seems to be accelerating. Census data released earlier this month show that during the 1990s, one city after another lost population, even as the counties surrounding them grew. In Ohio, for example, Cincinnati's Hamilton County shrunk by 2.4 percent. Neighboring Boone County, in Kentucky, grew 49.3 percent. Even further out from the city, Grant County, Kentucky, grew by 42.2 percent. From Washington to Cleveland to Denver, the trend was the same. Hip and Cool There are lots of obvious reasons for the cities' decline -- the decentralizing effects of telecommunications, the loss of manufacturing jobs, the inconveniences of public transit -- but Kotkin is more appalled by the steps urban planners take in hopes of reversing the decline. ``They think they can revive their cities if they make them `hip and cool,''' he says, referring to the street festivals, cafes, arts fairs, high-end boutiques and other yuppie delights that attract the young and single, the childless and rich. ``But that's not how cities last,'' he says. ``You can't build a long-term civic culture around transient populations.'' What any healthy city requires is a stable base of middle- class families. But the conditions necessary for attracting and keeping families are precisely what city planners ignore. ``They've forgotten the basics,'' Kotkin says. ``Are the schools good? Are the streets clean and safe? It's a lot easier to satisfy the yuppies with no kids than to fix the schools.'' And so city life, once the backbone of civilized social arrangements, devolves into just another ``niche lifestyle.'' Mixed Evidence But can suburbs perform the essential functions of acculturation and community-building that cities once did? It's a question Kotkin explores in his latest book, ``The City: A Global History,'' [ed. note - published this month, April, 2005, by Modern Library Press] and he says the evidence for now is mixed. Kotkin calls most of suburbia ``slurbs,'' vast stretches of undistinguished space choked with traffic and lined with commercial strips lacking character, charm, or -- most important of all -- a sense of civic identity that can bind their residents together. On the other hand, some suburbs now reflect the influence of the new urbanists, planners who favor suburbs with walkable downtowns, open space and accessible cultural institutions. `Not in the Cities' Even so, for many of us, the suburbs will require a lot of getting used to. What's to happen to those ``hip and cool'' city- lovers who, over the next generation, may be pulled to the suburbs by professional necessity, as the social and economic center of gravity continues to shift? At Southern California Institute of Architecture where Kotkin teaches, he says, ``I hear my students talk about all the great projects they're going to do in cities after they graduate. And I have to tell them: Wait a minute. You're architects and designers and urban planners. Where do you think you're going to be working in the 21st century? Sorry, but it's not in the cities.'' He says they look at him, disbelieving and horrified. They have seen the future. And it's the suburbs. As for Kotkin, he was born in New York City and now lives in a suburb of Los Angeles.
	Print

2005-04-25T15:31:00.000-04:00

Some Good News For A Change

We tend to highlight the many, many things wrong in New York State politics, culture and financial matters, but when good news comes along we're the first to happily trumpet it. So, when we heard that New York City's murder rate is approaching a 40-year low, that's certainly good news in the midst of a culture that's still defining defiancy down.

From today's NY1.com, here:

City's Murder Rate On Track For New 40-Year Low

April 25, 2005

A dramatic drop in the number of homicides in some of the most dangerous precincts is putting the city on track for the fewest homicides in decades.

With almost a third of the year already past, the number of homicides in the city is on pace to be about 450 for the year – the lowest number in at least 40 years. That’s a drop of 12 percent from last year.

Helping the trend, some notoriously dangerous precincts, like East New York's 75th and East Flatbush's 67th, have seen far fewer homicides so far this year. Police credit programs like Operation Impact, which floods high-crime areas with rookie officers.

However, one borough is bucking the trend, according to Newsday. So far this year, the Bronx has seen a 50 percent increase in homicides over the same period last year. The Bronx district attorney's office attributes the rise, in part, to an increase in gang-related killings.

2005-04-24T12:23:00.000-04:00

A Few Brief Points And Then We're Off...

Newsweek's Eleanor Clift is an amazing idiot. If's even more amazing that she has a high-level job at a national "news" magazine.
Senator Biden has become such a crank nutcase he should be voted out by the people of Delaware.
The left's attacks on Pope Benedict XVI are both inane and unworthy of comment. Don't like the Catholic church's positions? There are plenty of other religions for you -- from those gentle wacky Wiccans to the self-combusting Islamists.

Aside: Why is that the Catholic Church is the only faith that is constantly admonished to "reach out" and be "inclusive?"

An interesting tidbit we came across yesterday is that in the 2004 election Congressional District 9, once Chuck Schumer's district and now Anthony Weiner's district, who's just as if not even further left than Schumer, had the largest swing toward the republicans in percentage change in voters of any district. We believe he's vulnerable to a strong republican challenge now that he's clearly more interested in running for mayor than staying in congress.

"[t]he 'single biggest pro-Bush swing' anywhere in the U.S. came in the Brooklyn-Queens CD of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) -- a 25 point swing. In '00, Al Gore won the CD by 37 points, while in '04, John Kerry won by just 12 points."
(National Briefing Bush: They Might Call It "Ground Zero of the '04 Election?", American Political Network, The Hotline, Vol. 10, No. 9 (Apr. 22, 2005)).

The best political advice we ever received was from one of our criminal procedure professors, who advised us to "always expect ingratitude."
Report: Water Bills Could Rise 40% By 2009, April 24, 2005

New Yorkers’ water bills reportedly could be as much as 40 percent higher within four years. According to the New York Post, the city's Water Board is projecting steep increases in rates over the next few years. The board has proposed a 3 percent hike this year, but that's nothing compared to the estimated future costs.

The paper says the board projects another 5.6 percent hike in 2006, followed by 8.7 percent increases in each of the following three years.

The proposed hikes would be the largest in 15 years. The board tells the paper the increases will help offset the $14 billion in debt carried by the city Department of Environmental Protection and pay for the agency's $10 billion five-year capital plan.

Public hearings on water rate hikes will begin May 2.

2005-04-21T16:17:00.000-04:00

Dem Babies Continue to Bash Bolton

We're really at a loss at to what the issue is here regarding the accusation that John Bolton, nominee for U.S.'s U.N. Ambassador, was "verbally abusive" and chased a woman staffer around a hotel throwing things at her. First of all, at the risk of being undiplomatic, we don't care. In New York verbal abuse is almost the state pastime. So if some wallflower ten years ago was traumatized and couldn't take a dressing down -- deserved or not -- without quivering in her Legg's we're most definitely not getting teary-eyed about it.

Granted, no one enjoys working for a jerk -- and there's no shortage of those in either New York City or in the broader work world. But we've also worked with plenty of idiots, incompetents and deadwood, and there are times when lighting a bonfire under someone's lazy ass is just what the doctor ordered.

2005-04-20T11:51:00.000-04:00

HABEMVS PAPAM - BENEDICTVM XVI

We've long been a fan of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (bio here). His intelligence, his doctrinal faithfulness, and his close relation to John Paul II all weighed in our hope the college of cardinals would select him to follow in the footsteps of John Paul II. (Watch interview by Raymond Arroyo with then Cardinal Ratzinger here). We were not disappointed, and the caterwauling of the left in response only brings a broader smile to our face as we greet the new Pope.

Apostolic Blessing "Urbi et Orbi"

Vatican Live Television here

2005-04-20T10:39:00.000-04:00

The Dems Keep On Taxing...

People ask us why we're so angry here. After all life in New York and New York City is "pretty good" compared to life in other countries and cities, right? That depends what your frame of reference is. That is are you comparing your new life here in NYC to the life you had in Columbia, or the life in New York City you have now compared to the life you had a kid growing up here or somewhere else in the U.S.?

If a neoconservative is a liberal that's been mugged, we're former democrats who were mugged by how the democrats and the left have acted since 1999, and most notably post 9-11. It was the 9-11 attack that provided a final tipping jolt to jog us into a top-to-bottom review of the democrats' positions and beliefs and what we learned repelled us, because in having minds apparently so "open their brains fell out", the left revealed itself as both morally bankrupt and a threat to the actual values they professed to hold -- a dangerous twosome. And today's standard bearers of the democrat party - Pelosi, Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Rangel, Reid, the list goes on - are so often so over the top, and so distorting on average, that even when they're speaking a rare truthful tidbit it's impossible to take them seriously.

Which brings us to the recent NYC democrat mayoral debate, which was a real carnival of clowns, with Ferrer offering a shocking new stock transfer tax that would guarantee an exodus of the exchanges to New Jersey, and Weiner offering to slap higher taxes on everyone above the "middle class", which he has never and continues to refuse to define, but which basically in his lexicon means anyone earning more than $150,000. Everyone living in NY knows $150K is by no means "rich" for a family with a few kids and mortgage in a city where even a basic house can cost $450,000 while still needing eighty-thousand dollars of work to whip into shape.

So a little bit of advice to Weiner and his fellow tax-o-crats: keep on taxing if you want to drive us all out.

2005-04-18T09:18:00.000-04:00

Another Carpetbagger As Our Salvation?

What is it with recent arrivals to New York? They're here for a few years, or in some cases, not even, and suddenly they have the answers to save New York. First there was Robert Kennedy back when, then Hillary, Bloomberg, and now the oily former democrat Senator from Nebraska, Bob Kerrey, is making noise about running for mayor. Hey, Bob? Can we call you Bob? What about your home state of Nebraska? Tired of having been the governor and senator from the great plains?

We have to admire the cajones on Kerrey for thinking we'd vote for him. But it once again highlights the upper westside liberal echo chamber as the cacophony booms forth from their small liberal fishbowl. Good luck, Mr. Kerrey. May you have as much success in your mayoral bid as that other detestable senator with the homophone last name had recently in his quest for higher office.

2005-04-05T23:52:00.000-04:00

The Unbearable Buffoonery of Being Thomas L. Friedman

Remember the saying "better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and have all doubt removed"? Whenever we hear this epigram the prolix pundit Thomas L. Friedman comes to mind. After reading his breathless book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, back in 2000 we realized "here's a man smart enough to be able to read the map, but not smart enough to realize his map is often upsidedown." That's a very dangerous combination.

And apropos of nothing we were killing a few minutes this evening when we spotted the ever energetic Mr. Friedman regaling Charlie Rose with his bullet-point world view presentation. [ed. note - you'd think with a guy this tight with the intelligentsia someone would sign him up for presentation lessons by now, because while chewing the cud with Charlie he was hopping in his seat and flailing his arms like an overly-caffeinated palsy sufferer. ]

But we digress. Here's a tip for spotting a blowhard pundit: eventually they all come around to the conclusion "we aren't graduating enough people in engineering and science." As corollaries to this earth-shaking theorem, the windbag spouting this inevitably isn't in engineering or science; doesn't work with engineers or scientists; and doesn't realize that, hey, we don't really need 50 million engineers and scientists in a country of 295 million to keep the lights on, computers humming and to come up with a few dozen good ideas each week.

Then, as surely as electrons repulse each other what happens is once we climb on the "won't someone churn out more engineers" train the next boom cycle derails and suddenly untold legions of unemployed and unemployable programmers, physicists, engineers and bushels of other scientists are standing on street corners.

In the spirit of global sharing, we have a tip for good Mr. Friedman: "what we need, Thom, are more people with good business ideas and business models so we can keep the engineers, chemists, biologists, researchers, physicists and other scientists we have happily and productively employed." However, to drop a dime in your krazy kitty we'd be more than happy to send you back to school to get an engineering degree. We'll even give you a choice of CalTech or MIT; that's - Calcutta Technical Institute and Mitrandishia Institute of Technomics. Just let us know which you'd prefer and, then, say hello to the rest of the Class of 2007!!

2005-04-03T19:19:00.001-04:00

Steadily Putting Us in the Poorhouse

Our illustrious state legislature, never one to leave a dime unspent, has just finished patting itself on the back for passing the first ontime budget in 21 years. (See Assembly Completes Passage Of Fair, Balanced, On-Time Budget, NY State Assembly, Press Release, Mar. 31, 2005, available at http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/Press/20050331b/). Let that sink in for a minute : an entire generation passed before NY State had an on time budget.

Does this mark a rebirth of The Empire State? Hardly. This $105- to $106,000,000,000 (that's BILLION with a B) dollar budget includes various increases at three-times the inflation rate -- not exactly penny pinching -- and raises a wide variety of "fees." (See E.J. McMahon, Budget Hoax, N.Y. Post, Mar. 30, 2005, available here (detailing fiscal machinations in current budget process)).

If New York State and New York City continue spending on their current trend we predict there will be many more people like Mrs. Helming of Long Island, below, who has thrown in the towel and called it quits. Her letter was printed in the Mar. 21, 2005, issue of Newsday, here, and recently read on the floor of the NYS Assembly during the budget process last week. It certainly speaks to the experience of many people in New York who are screaming "enough!" Not a week goes by without us wondering here at Angry New Yorker if NYS is the best place for our children to work and live when they're grown, and its increasingly difficult each year to convince ourselves it is.

We hope Mrs. Helming doesn't mind if we reprint her letter here, too.

Sad to go, but so long to the cost of LI living,
BY JODI HELMING
Jodi Helming lives in Holtsville.

March 21, 2005

Dear Long Island:

We are leaving you. It is sad, but true. First of all, we cannot afford to live here anymore.

My husband and I both work full-time and have two young children. We purchased a three-bedroom home, much in need of a number of renovations, for almost half a million dollars. Our property taxes are so high that our monthly payment has become a financial burden we can no longer manage.

What has cost us half a million dollars here on Long Island will cost less than half of that in other parts of this country. So we must ask ourselves the difficult question: Why should we stay on Long Island when housing is simply unaffordable? [ed. note - this is a question every member of the state legislature in the New York City area should ask themselves daily.]

In addition, the recreational activities in which we'd like to participate all have a cost attached. As we venture out on a Saturday morning, looking for a free or low-cost activity, we notice one thing - fees, fees, fees. Fees to ride the carousel in the mall ($2 per child, two children, at least two rides around = $8). Fees to visit a children's museum ($8 per person = $32 for our family). Fees to go to a petting zoo ($12 for adults, $10 for children = $44). Fees to park our vehicle in a lot to go to the beach or a park ($8, unless you can make it there before 8 a.m. in the summer).

So it is not just about affordable housing. It is about affordable living. [ed. note - another mantra the state legislature should sear into their Albany desktops.]

Life here then too often is fraught with complications and therefore becomes a constant struggle. Our weekdays are already complicated. Since it was nearly impossible to find affordable housing close to where we work, we have a long commute (80 miles round-trip) to work each day. [ed. note - See Americans Spend More Than 100 Hours Commuting to Work Each Year, Census Bureau Reports, Press Release, Mar. 30, 2005, available here (noting "[o]f the 231 counties with populations of 250,000 or more covered by the ACS, Queens (41.7 minutes), Richmond (41.3 minutes), Bronx (40.8 minutes) and Kings (39.7 minutes) – four of the five counties that comprise New York City – experienced the longest average commute-to-work times."); Patrick McGeehan, The Long and Winding Road, to Work: Many Travel 90 Minutes or More, One Way, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 2005, available at here (detailing recent Census report's findings that "six of the seven counties in America with the highest concentration of extreme commuters [with one-way commutes of 90 minutes or more] were in New York" and that "[a]mong residents of big cities, New Yorkers had the longest average commutes, clocking in at 38.3 minutes.")]. Since we must both work to manage the financial burden of our monthly mortgage payment, we take our two young children to a day-care center. And so we want our weekends to be simple.

Yet, they are just as complicated as we work to try to find ways to combat the cost of recreation on Long Island (not to mention the traffic).

In many other parts of the country, the living situation is different - much more affordable, much simpler, much less of a daily struggle. Families (who have purchased a home that is most likely much more reasonably priced than one on Long Island) can visit museums, brand new parks with well-maintained, updated, safe playground equipment, clean and new picnic facilities and beautiful gardens - all for free. [ed. note -- again, are you listening Governor, Assembly, Senate?]

We are looking for a better and a simpler life for us and for our children. We think we have found it. So do hundreds of other families whose moving trucks are lined up in back of ours, set to leave Long Island. Give us reasons to stay here, and we will turn our moving trucks around.

Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

2005-03-30T02:44:00.000-05:00

New York Shoots Itself In the Foot Again

We'll have more on this tomorrow:

New York State Telecommuter Ruling May Have Wide Implications
Associated Press
March 29, 2005 1:04 p.m.

ALBANY, N.Y. -- A telecommuter who lives out of state while working by computer for a New York employer must pay New York tax on his full income, the state's highest court ruled Tuesday in a case that could have wide implications in the growing practice.

The Court of Appeals ruled that computer programmer Thomas Huckaby who lives in Nashville, Tenn., owed New York income tax for his full salary, not just the time he spent working at the New York offices of the union for which he worked.

Mr. Huckaby paid tax on about 25% of his income over two years for the time he spent working in New York state. But the court upheld a state tax department ruling that all his income should be taxed. That amounts to $4,387 plus interest. However, the ruling could lead to much greater income for the state as it is applied to the growing field of telecommuting.

The decision in question the Matter of Thomas L. Huckaby v. New York
State Division of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Tribunal, et al., is
available here:
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/mar05/8opn05.pdf

2005-03-27T23:23:00.000-05:00

The Nanny State Marches On - Booster Seats for All!!

Most of us here at Angry New Yorker are of sufficient age that we can remember when the first seat belt laws came into effect. Even back then we recognized these laws as the first push at the top of the slippery slope toward a final nanny state where insurance companies ruled everything by proscribing what we can do. [Ed. note - while we're at it, can we please stop naming laws after people? E.g., Kendra's Law, Megan's Law, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. It's both tiresome, unnecessary, and frankly distressing, as it's much easier to pass a law billed as "cute little young tragically dead child's law" than the same law under it's descriptive title. Back to our topic already in progress....]
It isn't that wearing seat belts or helmets aren't a good idea -- we know enough physics to understand it's the change in momentum impulse when you decelerate that kills you unless a seat belt or air bag operates to stretch out that delta t by a few life-saving milliseconds to lower the peak applied forces. So it isn't that we don't know the science. But when the state gets into the business of mandating all things good and fine for your health, then there is truly no natural stopping point; or if there is we haven't seen it yet.

Flash forward to 2005 where we're well on the way to the creation of the dreaded great nanny state. For as we last noted back in Nov. 2004, here, after our sterling NYS legislature passed a law requiring kids under 14 to wear a helmet when skateboarding, the present trend means one day in the future it's not farfetched that our hand-wringing legislature would pass "a law requiring everyone just walking down the street to wear a helmet . . . ." Laugh if you will... we do in fact hope the joke is not on us, however.

In service of the great and holy cause of "protecting our children" the New York State legislature -- that self-same legislative body which is currently seeking to add billions of expenditures to Gov. Pataki's already bloated $105+ billion dollar budget, that hasn't passed a budget on time in 21 years, that can't tame out-of-control Medicare spending bankrupting counties and throttling our competitiveness, that can't accomplish anything of meaningful progress in Albany apparently, except adding more zeroes to the payouts given to unions -- still has found time to care about our children in passing S.217 to amend "subdivision 5 of section 1229-c of the vehicle and traffic law" [NY VTL 1229-C - Operation of vehicles with safety seats and safety belts] to mandate that children over four and up to seven years of age, unless over 4'9" in height or over 80 pounds, must be in a specialy designed "booster" seat [while children less than four are still required to be in child safety seats].

I don't know about most kids at age 7, but I know it would have been very difficult to keep me in a "booster seat" at seven. At that age I'd frequently sit on phone books, while seat belted in the front seat, and read maps as our navigator on family trips -- but today I couldn't even do thatin states that prevent kids from sitting in the front.

As justification for this law the NYS sponsors note:

Information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration reports that in 2002, one-half of children ages 14 years and younger fatally injured in traffic accidents were completely unrestrained. In addition to this problem, children also face greater risk of serious injury when restrained in safety belts designed for larger persons rather than appropriate child safety seats. To address these concerns, New York has enacted Chapter 509 of the Laws of 2004 which will require, starting March 27, 2005, that children age four or older, but less than seven years of age, be placed in an appropriate child restraint system (booster seat). Under this new law any such child who is 4' 9" in height may instead be secured with the vehicle's safety belt, recognizing that their size makes use of the regular safety belt appropriate.

How severe is this "greater risk of serious injury"? The NHTSA notes in a Traffic Tech memo, Number 253, Aug. 2001, available here, that "the occupant fatality rate for children between the ages of 5 and 9 has declined 10.6 percent in the last twenty years" and in 1999 "272 . . . fatally injured children were unrestrained . . . ."

So, would using a booster seat mean those 272 deaths could have been prevented? No. And let's remember that in 2002, the NHTSA states that 43,005 people were killed in car accidents in 2002. meaning that any way you slice it, child deaths from car accidents are a very small slice of total car fatalities. Further, the NHTSA's 2002 report "A National Strategy: Increasing Booster Seat Use for
4-to8-Year-Old Children," October 2002, available here, recognizes in its Executive Summary, that:

Under Section 14(i) of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, the Secretary of Transportation is required to, "…develop [a] 5 year strategic plan to reduce deaths and injuries caused by failure to use the appropriate booster seat in the 4 to 8 year old age group by 25 percent." While this is a highly desirable goal, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) research shows that a 25 percent reduction in deaths and injuries would not be attainable through the implementation of a program designed solely to increase proper use of belt-positioning booster seats. This view is borne out by the following data:

Virtually 100 percent restraint use by booster seat age children would be necessary to achieve a 25 percent reduction in total fatalities for this age group; and,

Only about 21 percent of 4- to 8-year-old children are reported as unrestrained in non-fatal crashes. Therefore, the number of unrestrained children is insufficient to produce a 25 percent reduction in the number of injured children, even if all were restrained.

The Agency's research also shows that the lack of any restraint use in a motor vehicle is the greatest risk to 4- to 8-year-old passengers. In 2000, almost half of the 4- to 8-year-old passengers killed in crashes were reported as totally unrestrained. In addition to the high number of fatalities, thousands of children were seriously injured in crashes because they were unrestrained.

Look, seat belts are a good idea for everyone; and smaller kids should be in child safety seats; but what kills the overwhelming majority of adults and kids alike in accidents is not having any restraint system. And the final question is how far does the state step into to mandate certain practices and "safety" equipment for either children or adults?

I wear my seltbelt everyday. But I don't do it because there's a law requiring me to do it. I snap in because the laws of physics will kill you in a crash in 1/10 of a second. Maybe if more people understood the fundamental Newtonian formula of F=MA, or more relevant to a car accident, the formula's reformulation as:

Force * (change in time) = Mass & (change in velocity)

In layman's terms, in an accident your change in velocity is extreme (from x mph to zero) in a very small amount of time. Your mass stays constant during this period, so what has to be huge to balance the equation is the force applied to stop your body in the extremely short time where you impact the steering wheel or dashboard. Add a nylon seat belt to the equation and the belt's stretching force increases the length in time by two orders of magnitude of more, which translates into much lower force applied over that time to bring your body to rest. See? Physics is not only fun, it can save your life.

2005-03-22T09:13:00.000-05:00

Ending Gerrymandering

The brain trust at Angry New Yorker views gerrymandering, as widely used to carve out "safe" districts for one party or the other, to be perhaps the single most destructive device to democracy known. While we're strongly republican/conservative, we believe every election should be fiercely contested. Yet, in the last election nearly fully 25% of state-wide elections listed only one person on the ballot. That's not an election in our book.

To address this electoral abomination, New York State Assemblyman Michael Gianaris recently introduced a bill, which if enacted, would enable a committee of 8 people (4 chosen by the 4 legislative leaders, and 4 chosen by the Chief Judge, AG, and Comptroller) to select a pool of 40 individuals with geographic distributional requirements and requirements that certain numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and non-major party/independent voters be included. The Brennan Center for Justice described the proposal, thus:

From that pool, each of the 4 legislative leaders selects 2 members of a reapportionment commission. Those 8 members then select 3 members from the original pool. No more than 4 members can be enrolled in any one party. That reapportionment commission then draws the district lines for both state and congressional offices. The bill provides several specific criteria to be followed in that drafting process, including a preference for competitive districts.
The legislature must vote on the plan that is produced, and if it does not pass, the commission can do another version. If the third plan drawn by the commission does not pass, the Legislature can pass its own plan. But the Legislature's plan must serve the bill's criteria. If the plan ends up in court (which the bill virtually guarantees), then the bill instructs the Court of Appeals to select that plan which best serves the stated criteria.
In sum, this bill is not perfect, but it would be a tremendous step forward in bringing a measure of independence and rationality to the reapportionment process. It does by legislation what really should be done by constitutional amendment, but the chances of its passage are thus much greater. While it preserves significant control for the Legislature, it also would likely produce a Court of Appeals decision that would select one of the commission's plans over that drawn by the Legislature itself. For these reasons, the Brennan Center and several other good government organizations, including the Citizens Union, strongly support the bill.

We likewise support the bill as a first step to bring elections back to the intended goals -- not to provide a rubber-stamp on sinecures for partisans, but as direct referendums to decide our representatives.

Write your Assembly person and tell them to support the bill. Don't know who your assembly representative is? Don't worry. Even policy wonks like us often forget. Look your's up here.

2005-03-20T21:15:00.000-05:00

Even The Left Starts Second-Guessing Its Own

We didn't comment on the ridiculous imolation ongoing within Harvard's faculty, because, well, others have dissected the Summers brou-haha with more depth, aplomb and perspicacity than we can muster on the topic, which basically boils down to a parody of those reality "when animals go bad and attack" tv shows, only here under the marketing slogan of "When Leftists Attack and Eat Their Own."

But when Dave Winer, noted technologist, former Harvard fellow, and ultra-democrat supporter, with whom members of the Angry New Yorker Brain Trust crossed swords during the last election season, suddenly realizes that, hey, white males aren't all evil and should be supported against the acid dripping destructiveness of uber-feminist commandos, well, it's indicative something is definitely rotten in the Leftist state of Denmark -- to mangle metaphors. He noted on his scripting.com blog Friday that:

Yesterday I picked up a funny graphic from Jonathon Delacour's site, with a picture of Alfred E Neuman, next to a slogan "White, male and damn proud of it!" I like to laugh at myself, so why not laugh at my gender too. Almost anything with the What Me Worry kid is funny. Let's have a good laugh, then settle down, and do some positive PR for our gender and our race. Sure, lots of terrible people were white and male, but so were a lot of great people, heroes, martyrs. People who cured diseases, and stood up to tyrants. Artists, teachers, comedians, people who served as role models for boys and men, even some sons of feminist women (like me, for example). I know some women are offended by this, I've heard from them, but this isn't about you, it's about us. So I'm going to start running an occasional positive image of white maleness on Scripting News, for no other reason that to help white men, like myself, feel like we have permission to do good things and serve as role models for young men, and for ourselves.

Gee, what a concept; that "white men . . . have permission to do good things and serve as role models for young men. . . ." That it's come to this demonstrates more effectively how insanely off track the radical feminist train has traveled than anything else we can think of now.

2005-03-19T17:40:00.000-05:00

The Moonbat Contingent Speaks Up

Harsh title? Well, those folks who took to the streets this weekend to protest the second anniversary of the Iraq war are certainly entitled -- after all it's their First Amendment free speech right. Right? Up to a point, absolutely.
However, over the past few years we've been frankly amazed at how many people have utterly no idea -- other than a weak, diluted, populist "it's a free country" understanding of what the First Amendment speech clause protects, what it means, and what "rights" it provides against governmental action. More commonly you'll find people saying "I have a right to say such & such", or "XYZ is being punishing for speaking out", or crying "censorship!" when the underlying issue has no bearing on areas the first amendment covers.

As a result, we hope to do a very preliminary "first amendment" primer compilation here soon, in an effort to educate those New Yorkers who the public school system has failed.

2005-03-16T14:25:00.000-05:00

In New York Temporary Means Virtually Permanent; and Taxes Means Give Me All of It

In New York we've learned from painful experience that whenever anything is labeled "termporary" there's a better than 90% chance it will be temporary only in the sense that the universe itself is "temporary" -- that is there's some finite period to its existence. I remember driving by Queens College for upwards of 25 years, and noticing the "temporary" classrooms set up in the '70's using Quonsehut-like barrick buildings. They only came down a perhaps five years ago.
And now, as E.J. McMahon notes, our sterling state Legislature is likely going to make a variety of "temporary taxes" embedded fixtures in the fiscal landscape. Let these *!)@#* know that this kind of nonsense is not why they're in Albany.

N.Y.'s Road to Ruin
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/42626.htm

March 16, 2005 -- ONCE the Legislature adopted a "temporary" personal-income-tax increase in 2003, it was only a matter of time before someone in Albany moved to make the tax hike permanent.
Sure enough, the heavy-spending budget resolution approved by the state Assembly this week includes an open-ended extension of the state's 7.7 percent flat rate on taxpayers with incomes over $500,000. The proposal will now be on the table in budget negotiations between Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans — who have their own big spending appetites, and who supported the temporary rate hike just two years ago.
If enacted, this would be New York's first permanent increase in the income-tax rate in more than 30 years. And it would send a troubling signal to investors and business decision-makers that the era of pro-growth tax reduction is over in the Empire State.
* * *
Not so long ago, the relationship between taxes and economic growth was better understood by Democrats as well as Republicans in Albany. In fact, over the past quarter-century, the greatest reductions in state income-tax rates have been signed into law by Democratic governors.
Hugh Carey cut the top rate from 15 percent to 10 percent during his last term in office. And Mario Cuomo saw the top rate decline further, to 7.875 percent. (Cuomo reneged on further, scheduled cuts.)
Pataki's 1995 tax-cut package brought the top rate down to 6.85 percent — lowest since the '50s. But even at that level, the vast majority of middle- and upper-income New Yorkers were subject to the heaviest state income-tax burden in the region.
And for New York City residents, the combined state and local income tax rate now tops out at over 12 percent — highest in the country.
Because many small, closely held firms and partnerships are subject to the state personal income tax rather than the corporate tax, what the Assembly is proposing is not just a higher permanent rate on individuals but a tax hike for employers.
The deductibility of state and local taxes on federal returns is often cited as an argument in favor of raising New York's income tax. But deductibility isn't what it used to be.
Thirty years ago, when the Empire State's top rate was 15 percent, the top federal rate was 70 percent. This meant the effective state-tax bite on the highest-earning households was only 4.5 percent. Today, with the federal top rate set at 35 percent, the post-deductibility cost of a 7.7 percent state rate is 5 percent.
Plus, many high-income New Yorkers are subject either to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which doesn't permit deductions, or to a cap on itemized deductions. Either way, the deduction is worth the least to those who send the most to Albany. (And deductibility itself may not survive the next round of tax reform in Washington.)
And it's not as if some of New York's wealthiest taxpayers lack any other reasons to leave. The phase-out of the federal estate tax is having the effect of making New York's state "death tax" exceptionally high. Lawyers and financial planners are already advising their New York clients to move to states such as Florida and South Carolina, which have no estate tax at all.
Even putting aside the economic considerations, the Empire State is dangerously over-reliant on its personal income from high-income households. In 2001, for example, state residents with incomes above $500,000 represented barely 1 percent of taxpayers but paid more than 30 percent of the taxes.
The downside of depending so heavily on such a small number of taxpayers should be obvious: It means that when the wealthiest New Yorkers have a bad year, the entire state suffers inordinate fiscal stress. This is precisely what happened between tax years 2000 and 2002 — when all of the decline in state income-tax revenues was concentrated in high-income households.
Financing popular programs with higher taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers may be smart politics. But shifting even more of New York's steadily rising public sector burden to roughly 65,000 footloose tax filers with volatile incomes would make for truly dumb policy.

I think that about says it all, no?

2005-03-15T02:32:00.000-05:00

Justice Scalia Speaks On His Originalist View of Constitutional Interpretation

I'm a big fan of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. In fact, he's my favorite Supreme Court Justice, because his view of constitutional interpretation via "originalism" is very flexible - as it leaves the political process to run its course whenever possible, rather than freezing issues by "constitutionalizing" wide areas. Despite the fact that many legal minds and most law school students I've run into view Scalia as an extremist on the right-wing, I dissent with their view.

Watch a recent speech by Justice Scalia detailing his view of constitutional interpretation here in a 58 minute speech - as RealMedia.

2005-03-14T21:27:00.000-05:00

Always More Money to Move Around NYC

New, and of course higher, tolls went into affect today on the cities bridges and tunnels. The anger is palpable, for as the New York Times notes "[t]hey unleashed a tirade of complaints: higher tolls (the second increase in two years), exorbitant insurance (among the highest in the nation), expensive parking (as much as $30 a day), and rising gas prices ($2 and up). The squeeze, they said, just never seems to stop."

Indeed, it never does stop. The MTA should be immediately taken over and investigated from top to bottom. It's painfully clear it is both unaccountable and unaccounted. In fact, the MTA was created primarily for both these purposes by Robert Moses to provide him with a source of revenue and the means of ramming through projects. The MTA webpage say, here, it is:

"A public-benefit corporation chartered by New York State in 1965, the MTA is governed by a 17-person Board. Members are nominated by the Governor, with some recommended by New York City's mayor and the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam counties, with the members representing the latter four casting one collective vote. The Board also has six rotating non-voting seats held by representatives of organized labor and the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee (PCAC), which serves as a voice for users of MTA transit and commuter facilities. All Board members are confirmed by the New York State Senate."

Well doesn't this just inspire confidence. Six non-voting seats serve "as a voice for the users of MTA transit and commuter facilities" -- in other words "sit there, listen and shut up because we're not interested in what you say, because YOU HAVE NO VOTE in what we do." Nice.

The New York Times details today's price increases, ranging from a 50 cent hike for the Throgs Neck Bridge, the Midtown Tunnel, and the Whitestone Bridge, bringing a one-way toll on these crossings to $4.50. And the Verranzo-Narrows Bridge popped from $8 to $9 (one-way). That's a stiff nut.

I've also thought it was unconscionable to have no free crossing between boros of the same city. There's no way to cross directly from Staten Island to Brooklyn without paying; no way to cross from Queens to the Bronx without paying; and if there was some way for the MTA to slap a toll on people driving between Brooklyn and Queens, which are adjacent to each other, you can be sure they would.

We're angry alright.

2005-03-08T12:27:00.000-05:00

Partying like it's 1999... spending like it's ....

A solid look at the fiscal situation New York State finds itself in -- due to the near malfeasance of our spineless elected officials.

“EXCELSIOR” OR BUST?
FISCALWATCH MEMO March 7, 2005

Governor George E. Pataki says the last four years have been “the worst … since the Great Depression”[1] for New York’s finances.
You wouldn’t know it from looking at the state budget, though. Since the end of the 2001 fiscal year[2], state funds[3] spending has risen 18 percent. That’s a growth rate of one and a half times inflation – despite the fiscal fallout from a national recession, a nasty Wall Street bear market and the destruction of the World Trade Center.
In fact, as explained below, New York State has exerted somewhat less fiscal discipline in the 2001-05 boom-and-bust cycle than during a comparable period in the early 1990s.
Recent state spending trends underscore the high stakes in Albany’s fiscal 2006 budget negotiations. Despite the widespread media focus on “cuts,” especially in health care, Pataki’s proposal calls for net state funds spending growth of 5.5 percent – twice the rate of inflation. If the Legislature is allowed to make significant additions and restorations to the Governor’s budget, New York will be hobbled by state budget shortfalls for years to come.
Déjà vu all over again
Notwithstanding the governor’s frequent allusions to the 1930s, the state’s latest economic and fiscal travails aren’t completely unprecedented. Indeed, there are striking similarities between the early 2000s and the early 1990s. During both periods:
New York experienced an economic recession more severe than the national average.
Medicaid costs skyrocketed.
New York’s budget gaps were closed in large part with tax hikes, increased borrowing and fiscal gimmicks.
The Legislature set new records for tardiness in adopting a state budget.
No two economic cycles are exactly alike, of course. For example, the state lost more private sector jobs during the early 1990s, while the revenue losses were much greater after the 2001 recession.

Read the entire article here.

2005-03-03T14:44:00.000-05:00

40 Minutes To Wal-Mart

At last weekend's Angry New Yorker Roundtable the topic of Wal-Mart in Queens was on the agenda. Reasoned perspectives on both sides were presented, and surprisingly no consensus developed by the time we had to leave. However, Steve Malanga, whose opinion we value and trust, convinced a number of our participants today that allowing Wal-Mart in would be a positive. And, as usual, our Roundtable added ideas to the mix. For instance, we thought it'd be possible to give Wal-Mart a "trial period" of several years at a smaller footprint size and contingent on a lease preventing them from certain selling items. That way both sides would be allayed.
True to form, Congressman Weiner, District 9, has strongly opposed Wal-Mart coming to Queens , spouting the usual populist rhethoric. (See Weiner Says No To Queens Wal-Mart Store, The Wave, Dec. 16, 2004, available here). On the other hand, here's the Post op-ed that convinced a number of our roundtablers:

SENDING JOBS TO NASSAU
BY STEVEN MALANGA

?I?N the eyes of New York's pols, stopping Wal-Mart was supposed to be a victory for small stores in Queens and for the city's working people who were about to be "exploited" by the big, bad retailer. But the real victor was Nassau County, which like other suburban locales has benefited hugely over the years from the city's efforts to keep out big-box stores — an effort that started long before Wal-Mart came on the scene.
To understand just how big a winner Nassau is, consider a few statistics:
Queens' residents produce slightly more in aggregate personal income every year than the residents of next-door Nassau County — nearly $65 billion vs. almost $64 billion, according to the state Labor Department.
Given those numbers, you would suppose that the two counties would have similar levels of retail employment and spending. Sorry, you'd be wrong.
The last federal economic census, taken in the late 1990s, estimated that Nassau has about double the annual retail-sales volume as Queens. Not surprisingly, Nassau boasts a much bigger, thriving retail sector. It has 82,000 retail jobs in about 6,200 stores, paying about $2.3 billion annually in wages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics census of employment and wages.
Queens, by contrast, has only 49,000 retail jobs — a whopping 40 percent fewer than Nassau — and only about 5,700 stores, paying a total of $1.2 billion a year in wages. It's no mystery why these vast differences exist despite the potential size of the Queens marketplace. For decades, New Yorkers have been leaving the city to shop because city officials keep at bay the stores where their constituents want to shop in. In 1993, when the big-box controversy first erupted, the polling firm Leo J. Shapiro and Associates asked New Yorkers about their shopping patterns and found that more than half of city residents leave the city to shop regularly, often visiting stores they can't find in Gotham. Obviously, the city's big box policies haven't done much to protect Queens' small retailers, as the recent stats on jobs and sales in Queens and Nassau demonstrate.
Of course, the big loser in all of this is the city's taxpayers. The extra sales-tax income that Queens alone forfeits to Nassau County might amount to about $250 million a year — to say nothing of lost property-tax revenues when sites sit empty while big-box stores build energetically in Nassau or Westchester or New Jersey.

Steven Malanga is a contributing editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.

2005-03-02T14:43:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court Does It Again...

The Supreme Court yesterday changed the laws of nearly 20 states by ruling in Roper v. Simons (available here PDF) that the death penalty for anyone less than 18 years at the time of the crime was a violation of the U.S. constitutional 8th Amendment. My opinion of J. Kennedy has changed dramatically in the past three years. Somewhere in the last two years he's gone squishy, at least based on the broad (queue John Williams music) tautological language he's taken to using in his opinions, such as:

These doctrines and guarantees are central to the American experience and remain essential to our present-day self-definition and national identity. Not the least of the reasons we honor the Constitution, then, is because we know it to be our own. It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.

Sounds great. Brings a patriotic tear to one's eye. But what does that mean again when it comes to the death penalty for those younger than 18? Those supporting Kennedy's viewpoint frame the issue along the lines of the following:

Can you believe Republicans defend the idea that states should kill children, in the name of justice? If ever there was proof that we need help. And the Republicans talk about values. Feh. Values to kill children.

Knee-jerkers like this miss the issue completely, looking, as they do, at the case not from the standpoint of law, but the "children." Let's look then, shall we? What the 17-year old Christopher Simmons "child" in the case did turns one stomach. He planned a murder a head of time; bragged that since he was a minor nothing would happen (though he didn't know Missouri allowed the death penalty for 17-year olds); broke into Mrs. Crook's home, kidnapped her; bound and gagged her; and drove her to a railroad bridge where he threw her into the Meramec river below where she drowned. Sounds like something the "children" you know would do? I sure hope not.

While I certainly don't think teenagers should be executed willy-nilly, those who embraced Kennedy's majority opinion (joined by Breyer - good guy, but misguided as to int'l law, Stevens - Mr. Standing, and Souter & Ginsberg - the Court's Salieri's) view the Court as a broad court of equity. It's really not. Nor should it be.

In this case, I believe the death penalty should be an option left to the states and the jury system to impose - rather than removed entirely from the democratic process by the Court ruling it categorically unconstitutional. Why? Because there are, as O'Connor and Scalia noted, instances of depravity committed by those younger than 18, who possess the maturity of thought and mind, that it is neither cruel, nor unusual punishment to impose the death penalty. Further, J. O'Connor and J. Scalia's dissent pegged the issue correctly and, in Scalia's case, devastating. J. O'Connor notes:

The Court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court's moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling.

While Scalia unloads on the majority with both barrels:

In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today?s opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years -- not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.

It's another unfortunate decision from the nation's highest federal court.

Scalia's dissent is vintage Scalia: fierce and absolutely correct. Critics call Scalia harsh, an ideologue, and an extremist. Far from it. Scalia can definitely be blunt, but he's a fierce believer that the Court's powers are fundamentally limited, and that as many decisions as possible should be left to the two elected branches of government in order to best preserve democracy. I agree. An alternative would be to allow the Supreme Court to issue non-precedential opinions -- deciding a case without binding future parties as to the decision. It's a thought to keep in mind.

UPDATE: Prof. Eugene Volokh, of The Volokh Conspiracy and UCLA Law School, and I fundamentally agree on the Roper decision, as he notes:

I think the Supreme Court's decision holding that the death penalty may not be imposed on killers who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes was unsound, for the reasons that Orin has noted here, and that Justice Scalia noted in dissent. I'm not sure what I think of the execution of such killers as a policy matter, but I think Justice Scalia is right that this is not unconstitutional.

UPDATE II: Another interesting review of the Roper decision, again from the Volokh Conspiracy, but attacking J. Kennedy's view that the deterrence factor of the death penalty has little impact on teenagers, notes:

In other words, Simmons sought to induce other juveniles to participate in
his crimes by telling them they need not fear criminal prosecution. This
argument would have been unnecessary were his friends not deterred, at least
in part, by such threats. From this proposition it is but a small step to
assume that the severity of the criminal sanction -- death as opposed to a
set jail term -- could have some deterrent effect on the margin. This does
not mean that capital punishment for juveniles is a good idea, but it does
suggest that Justice Kennedy may have been a bit too quick to dismiss the
potential for deterrence. Indeed, his own recital of the facts should have
raised a red flag on this point.

Read the entire post here.

UPDATE III: John Hindracker, of Powerline, has a guest essay at The Weekly Standard on the Roper decision entitled A Government of Men, available here.

2005-03-01T01:38:00.000-05:00

The Mayor Knuckles Under - The Moral - I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Money

Look, we're sympathetic to the families flooded out in Astoria by a recent watermain break. It's a nightmare come true to have your apartment flooded. And It seems that applying standard tort law would conceivably result in a favorable decision for them on some level -- but only if there was in fact negligence involved.
The trouble we have is the Mayor, without any definitive facts, concluded on his own that the City's Department of Environmental Protection is at fault, and that while a contractor may have been involved, he none-the-less ordered the controller to shell out tax-payer largesse that could total "millions of dollars" to the families. See City to pay for Damage Incurred in Astoria Water Main Break, NY1.com, Feb. 28, 2005, available here.

Are we the only ones who find this strange? The moral seems to be "yell and scream" and you get the juice, though we guess this is simply a modern variant on the timeless maxim "the squeaky wheel gets the oil." Except the oil is provided by the taxpayer, as always. Hey, families, a word of advice -- start shopping for water damage insurance!

2005-02-26T15:09:00.000-05:00

Noted on National Review Online's Corner: [no further comment needed, we think]

SALT SUIT NO JOKE [Jonathan H. Adler]As Andrew noted, the food police at Center for Science in the Public Interest are suing the Food and Drug Administration to force federal regulation of salt. No, this is not a joke. CSPI claims that salt -- the "forgotten killer" -- should be regulated as a food addititve by the FDA. The details of the lawsuit can be found here.