I have been a registered democrat since the day I became a naturalized US citizen in August 1996. Initially I toyed with the idea of registering as an independent but my understanding of the primary-election process dictated to my final decision.mountainsphoto.ru
In the five presidential elections (general) for which I have been eligible to vote, I went for the democrat twice, and voted for an independent candidate three times. I must admit that there were many tactical considerations to these votes, given my knowledge of the Electoral College rules, and also given my political-handicapping prowess.
I am yet to vote for a republican presidential candidate. At this point in time, it appears that next year will be no different: unless, Governor Kasich can really make sense; and in so doing move me to a place that has been foreign to me up to this point. He is about the only republican in this current crop that I am willing to give a hearing. This is merely a theoretical possibility. The rest of republican entrants have disqualified themselves so many times along the way that I am unafraid to say the chances of me voting for the republican nominee is really very slim. The Republican Party hasn’t made a lot of sense to me for about two decades now.
Relative to the democrat’s presidential primary, I told you guys a long time ago -in another column- that I will be voting for either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. At this point in time Ms. Warren appears to be a non-starter: thus Bernie may inherit my vote. Time will tell.
In state and local elections I have voted for candidates from all parties; at times using my vote as a protest against some democrat-incumbents I deemed as inept, unimaginative, incompetent or corrupt. For the most part, my political positions are usually closer to those held by democrats (in general); and yet, democrats at times tend to be just as bull-headed and ridiculous as republicans. It just happens -in my estimation- that republicans dominate the market on stupidity.
Let’s take a look at the current imbroglio in Albany: the renewal of rent-control legislation affecting New York City apartments. When faced with a bicameral legislature -and one body is in the hands of an opposing party- compromise becomes the order of the day. It is the only way legislation can be accomplished. It is the only way essential public-policy-positions can be advanced. This isn’t rocket-science folks; this is elementary stuff: “Legislation 101”.
Republicans have been willing to extend rent-control laws for at least eight years, if democrats would consider a few planks; amongst which are: (a) a database where all residents of rent-regulated apartments register; (b) verification of income for those who benefit from rent-controlled laws; (c) tougher measures meant to prevent criminals and dishonest individuals from taking advantage of a system meant to help those in need; and (d) that those who benefit from rent-control laws establish their primary residence as the place affected by such laws; with no room for double or triple-dipping.
I think the republican demands are reasonable given that for too many years now, people who neither qualify, or truly need the benefits derived, scam the system with impunity. And this goes way beyond the area of housing. In an era of sophisticated computers, the government can easily obtain the data needed to ensure that benefits go to those who truly need them. There are millionaires in NYC who retain rent-controlled (and rent-subsidized) apartments when they can afford to pay market rates. And then there are others who reside in similar apartments while renting out premises they do own. Laws should be enacted to punish scammers.
As much as I support creative attempts at deriving affordable-housing-development-momentums (with rent-control regulations being one), we need to ensure that the system isn’t being routinely abused. It’s like the voter-identification-card argument(s) taking place on a national level.
Republicans have argued that their voter-identification moves are based on preventing fraud: that’s a lie. There is no evidence that fraud takes place during elections beyond an infinitesimal level. If you take a national overview during the past fifty years, you couldn’t even find one fraud case per every one million votes cast. It’s less than that. However, the argument that republicans refuse to make is a simple one. Since voting is the cornerstone of democracy, every effort should be made to protect the sanctity of voting by demanding every voter show viable identification if called upon to do so by officials or vested election-observers. It is a safeguard against nefarious and unscrupulous infidels of the democratic way.
I would also suggest that voting be made as easy as possible for anyone willing to participate. Same-day registration, along with inexpensive government-issued identification papers/cards, should be easily accessible for every citizen. This means that a national identification card should be issued for anyone who wants it; as a supplement to other government-issued secured identification papers/cards (like passports and driver’s licenses). Only paranoid folks will argue “big brother”. I have always felt that more security measures should be implemented to ensure and insure that the results of elections are transparent and legitimate: way beyond the contemporary measures regularly in place.
Look; there are those on both the left and right perches on the political spectrum, who distrust government to the point of absurdity; but the instruments of governmental-power can be made to function in ways that enhance our democracy for the world to see.
Getting back to the rent-control issue: I have argued for eons that a renter’s rebate should be permanently enshrined in the state tax code. It makes sense. When I first ran for public office in 1998 it was a major plank in my manifesto. If we allow homeowners to write-off most of their mortgage-nterest payments annually; and if we allow commercial-property-owners similar (and other) special-dispensations; then it is only fair (and fitting) to do the same for renters. Once a worker’s rent goes beyond a certain percentage of his wages (to be set via legislation), then he/she should get some money back at tax time.
For years we have let greedy real-estate (and housing) developers get away with murder. We have given them tax breaks up the “kadoozle”. We have given incentives via financial aid(s), grants, land, public-utility write-offs, etcetera, etcetera. In general, these are usually rich white-folks who tend to perpetually “get-over” on the system. It’s time to readjust our thinking. It’s time to give ordinary people more consideration.
Right now in Brooklyn, two-thirds of the working-class-blacks living here, are paying two-thirds of their income in RENT. Beyond the rantings of an eccentric Brooklyn-activist: rent isn’t just “too damn high”, it is way too “fucking” high for the everyday people Sly Stone sang about. It’s time for our elected officials to display some common-sense relative to this issue.
Stay tuned-in folks.