The State Senate Dems may be going to hell in a bucket, but at least they’re enjoying the ride. Dean "The Dog" Skelos, sent a lovely thank you note. DSCC Redirects Staff To Eric Schneiderman's Attorney General Campaign www.cityhallnews.com
Does this meet Potter Stewart's definition of obscene?
Candidate Tradd Schneiderman gives $850,000 of his considerable personal fortune to his own campaign; his only charitable donation is dues to the Synagogue he joined at the time he decided to embark upon a public life on the Upper West Side and, coincidentally, also decided he was Jewish (he'd been raised Episcopalian).
Instead of putting an annex to the House of Justice in the AG's office, why not a pushke?
Once can’t real call it “Hit and Run Giving,” because no one got hit. http://www.cityhallnews.com/newyork/article-1545-coffey-takes-schneiderman-to-task-for-low-charitabl ww.cityhallnews.com
Shirley Huntley is right. Lynn Nunes must be stopped from getting to the City Council!
The only jobs the GOP is interested in are seats in Congress Where is GOP's plan for jobs? - Times Union www.timesunion.com
How could anyone read about the hunger for money displayed by Elzanaty and then call him un-American? Backers of Lower Manhattan Mosque Appear Divided www.myfoxny.com
It amazes me when those who would try to use the strong arm of the law to impede the legal rights of those trying to build the Young Men's Islamic Association facility proposed to be located at the Holy Mother Coat Factory try to clean their hands by also trying to impede the legal right of bigoted lunatics to burn books. All they prove is their continued insensitivity to upholding the Bill of Rights. Get An Injunction | The New Republic www.tnr.com
By Michael Boyajian
The sinister reputation of the Town of Fishkill is further enhanced when you arrive for a meeting at town hall and the walk to the building and the lobby are unlit. Town officials might say they are saving electricity but most observers would say they want to be uninviting.
By Michael Boyajian
The sinister reputation of the Town of Fishkill is further enhanced when you arrive for a meeting at town hall and the walk to the building and the lobby are unlit. Town officials might say they are saving electricity but most observers would say they want to be uninviting.
Yesterday evening the planning board heard from the public about yet another controversial development, 305 Baxtertown Road. The board must have wondered why so many had turned out for the meeting and why most of those in attendance where African American. To say they were surprised by the turnout and what took place is an understatement.
The first to speak was an African American man who was the owner of the property next to the proposed development, 303 Baxtertown Road. He got up and began questioning the board about the significance of the property and about its role in the Underground Railroad. A man sitting at the board dais said that there was nothing of historical significance on this parcel though there might be some around it.
Mara Farrell founder of the Friends of the Fishkill Supply Depot spoke next asking that care be taken in the development of this property in the event that there are historic artifacts in the ground also mentioning that there may be an African American church and burial ground in the area.
Gwendolyn O. Davis of the Southern Dutchess NAACP read a letter into the record whereas her organization felt that the land was of historical importance and that her organization was opposed to development on the site.
Concerned citizen Ozzy Albra walked up to the development map and said he had studied the deeds from this land from 1840 forward and that he had discovered the location of the church pointing to a spot on the map and saying you could go to the site and see the remains of the church as clear as day.
The owner of the property, a man from New Hampshire, said yes but the spot is just off the development site but everyone in the room knew that churches from that era had burial grounds all around them leading many to believe that some graves were on the development site while recalling Mara Farrell’s early comment that "graves of African Americans in those days were not necessarily marked by tombstones but by a pile of rocks or a rock that only a trained archaeologist could identify."
The owner of the property next to the development rose and said yes that church is on my property and looking at the developer said you are my neighbor and you are more than welcome to come on over and talk.
Community leader Angela Valles Edwards read letters of descendents of the original residents of the area that was once known as Baxter Town a town populated by freed and runaway slaves. The letters indicated that there were artifacts there and that much of the history of African Americans was an oral history and there might not be any written records. She also said the letter said there were graves at the back of the church. She then said that a thorough investigation must be done prior to any approval. She also noted that some of this information was available in a book written by the town historian Willa Skinner. The board replied that they would probably have to talk to the historian to learn more.
Tracy Givens of the NAACP called for a citizens committee to be formed by the board to help investigate the history of the parcel. The board replied that they did not have the power to do that. Mara Farrell then said we should form a citizens group. The board seemed completely caught off guard by all of this and so adjourned the public meeting to a date uncertain. Was it because to the town history is what Farrell calls, an “inconvenient truth,” or because there was skullduggery about or because they were interested in learning more no one could say for sure but all knew more questions would be raised at the next meeting.
The people who wanted to develop part of the Fishkill Supply Depot, a nearby Revolutionary War site, were not stopped until a radar survey revealed the existence of hundreds of soldiers’ graves on that land in direct contradistinction to earlier historical and archaeological reports. Would these intrepid citizens stop this project? Maybe no maybe yes but at least they were trying making us all proud to be Americans.
End
I recommend going back to the prior post, downloading the spreadsheet, and printing out the tables in the “Summary 2007” and “NY & U.S. 1972 to 2007” worksheets. The latter shows that the State of New York and the state’s local governments collected $142.55 in taxes for every $1,000 earned by state residents in FY 1972, $145.73 per $1,000 in 1987, and $144.88 per $1,000 in 2007. That was 28.5%, 40.8%, and 34.1% above the U.S. average at the time. But in 2000, New York’s state and local governments collected a lower $132.04 in taxes for each $1,000 of its residents’ personal income, still 29.5% above the national average but below the other years.
While taxes fell as a share of income over the 1987 to 2000 period, however, direct spending by New York’s state and local governments rose, from $231.54 per $1,000 in personal income in the former year to $242.99 in the latter year. Rising federal aid explains a lot of this, with most of the increase for Medicaid. State of New York spending on Medical Vendor Payments, mostly funded by Medicaid, soared from $16.94 per $1,000 in personal income in 1987 to $30.46 per $1,000 in 2000 – and on to $35.02 per $1,000 in 2007, well above the national average of $23.02 that year. We’ll have more data specifically on Medicaid later, but in past years I’ve found that while New York’s spending on the program is high in most categories (other than physicians), the greatest disparity is in New York’s high level of spending on services for senior citizens. A recent report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government performed a detailed analysis of state Medicaid plans, and ranked New York first in generosity for long term care with a score of 99.55, with Florida next to last at 4.28.
New York state spending on welfare, health and hospitals (mixed together because of the data categories for revenues) was 69.6% covered by federal and local aid and hospital charges in FY 2007, above the U.S. average of 61.4% and well above other Northeastern states, but below the 75.0% plus recorded for North Carolina and Texas. As mentioned, local to state aid is primarily a New York State phenomenon. The $7.7 billion in such aid in New York in FY 2007 was 38.4% of the national total.
New York’s local government debts soared during the 1987 to 2000 period, rising from $108.71 per $1,000 of personal income to $150.38, pushing the state and local total to $269.88 per $1,000 of personal income in 2000, 59.0% more than the national average. The U.S. Census Bureau no longer collects detailed data on debt by category, but I know from past research that much of the debt was used for the MTA Capital Plan, as the City and State of New York withdrew tax support and pushed for borrowing instead.
Contributions to the state pension funds, by New York State and local governments outside New York City, also plunged during the 1987 to 2000 period, with a smaller decrease recorded for the national average. As described in my prior post, New York’s public employees contribute far less to their own pensions than either private sector workers or public sector workers elsewhere in the U.S., putting the equivalent of just 1.8% of their wages on average in 2007 and 1.8% in 1987. The U.S. average for public employees those years was 4.5 and 4.6%. New York’s taxpayers contributed far more to the state plans – 13.9% of wages in 1972, 11.5% in 1987, and 9.0% in 2007. But in 2000, New York taxpayers put only 1.7% of wages into the pension plans. Meanwhile, pension payouts soared from 10.9% of public employee wages and salaries in FY 1987 to 20.8% of wages in salaries in FY 2000.
In 2000, then-Comptroller Carl McCall was preparing to run for Governor and then NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was running for Senator. They pushed deals in which public employees would get to put less into the plans and take more out, while taxpayers also put less in so money could be diverted elsewhere. Deals that the state legislature gleefully passed and Governor Pataki eventually signed. Payments by the New York State pension plans jumped from $5.6 billion in FY 1999 to $7.5 billion in 2001 according to Census Bureau data, an increase of 34.2% in two years, as many long retired received retroactive enhancements to their pensions. Pension contributions by local government employees, meanwhile, fell from $389 million in FY 2000 to $260 million in FY 2002, with payments by state employees down from $183 million to $106 million during the period. Taxpayer contributions by the state fell from $561 million in 1997 to just $64 million in 1999, while taxpayer contributions from local governments outside New York City fell from $1.1 billion in 1997 to $233 million in 2003.
The payouts have continued to soar, as enhancements continue to pass, and public employee pension contributions to the pension funds remain close to zero. But taxpayer contributions to the New York State pension funds soared to 9.0% of employee wages in FY 2007, and that isn’t nearly enough. New York City taxpayer contributions to the city’s separate pension funds equaled 20.8% of the wages and salaries of those still working for the city in FY 2007, and that figure has gone up since.
Late in the administration of former Governor Mario Cuomo, the state dedicated related revenues to state transportation spending, the way dedicated MTA taxes were supposed to be for the MTA. Those revenues were both cut and raided, however, during the 1987 to 2000 period, with debts making up the difference, and now much of that transportation trust fund goes to interest payments, not transportation spending. New York State motor vehicle license and fuel taxes equaled $1.61 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 2007, well below the average for $4.90 per $1,000 for the U.S. and even the $2.41 per $1,000 in low gas tax New Jersey. Low car ownership and use, and therefore less gasoline use, is part of the explanation. But New York’s motor vehicle fuel and license taxes had equaled $6.55 per $1,000 of its residents’ personal income in 1972, $2.87 per $1,000 of in 1987, $1.87 in 2000 and then just $1.62 in 2007. State revenues in these categories also nationwide fell over the years, mostly because the gas tax levels and license fees lagged inflation and incomes, but not by as much as in New York. Also in New York, several tolls were eliminated in the Downstate Suburbs during the 1987 to 2000 period, just as EZ pass made toll collecting easier.
Predictably, New York’s direct state spending on Highways has fallen from $7.88 per $1,000 of state residents’ personal income in FY 1972 to $4.96 per $1,000 in FY 1987 and $4.58 per $1,000 in FY 2007. State to local government aid for transportation had risen from $1.28 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 1972 to $4.21 per $1,000 of personal income in 2000, but that includes “dedicated” MTA taxes sent to New York City Transit. And the amount fell to $3.31 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 2007, before being cut even further.
So how has this policy of deferred taxes, increased debts, increased and deferred pension costs, and reduced infrastructure investment worked? As a practical matter, the MTA is now broke and in a downward spiral reminiscent of the 1970s. A bridge over Lake Champlain had to be abandoned and demolished, and the Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson River may be heading for the same fate. The state pension fund requires soaring taxpayer contributions, to be paid for by soaring taxes and drastically reduced services, but this may be deferred but made worse by still more borrowing. The New York City pension funds, worse off to begin with but affected by the same deals as the state funds, is worse off still, as we shall see.
But for some people the policies have worked out splendidly. People would have revolted against those pension enhancements if honestly told how their future would be affected, but now the costs have been deferred for a few years and the enhancements are set in stone. Those who got lower taxes around 2000 won’t have to pay the higher taxes required to pay off the debts now if they are retired public employees, since their income is exempt from state and local income taxes in New York (the Social Security income of private sector workers is exempt, as is pension income up to $20,000, but only at and after age 65). And they can always move to Florida, which has no personal income tax, and then move back when they run out of money and need Medicaid services. And public employees get reserved free parking by placard in New York City, rather than rely on mass transit. Most importantly, Carl McCall got the nomination for Governor, Governor Pataki served three terms, and members of the New York State legislature get continually re-elected by helping the few people and interests that keep them there.
Things, however, could be a lot worse for those paying taxes and hoping for public services today, and may become so in the future. While New York’s state debts were at about the same level relative to income in FY 1987 and FY 2007, the interest on those debts fell from $8.25 per $1,000 of personal income to $4.38 per $1,000 of personal income, as interest rates fell. A spike in interest rates could lead to devastating consequences for taxpayers and public services if the state cannot afford to pay off its debts as they come due. Or sooner, since to save a little money in the short run the state has often chosen variable interest rates. The same is true of New York’s local governments, whose debts have soared.
Lets go line by line, and hit a few other key highlights. Sales taxes are the greatest source of revenue for most states, but New York’s general sales tax revenues had fallen from over $15.00 per $1,000 of personal income in FYs 1972 and 1987 to $11.76 per $1,000 in FY 2007. The U.S. average was just over $20.00 per $1,000 in FYs 1987 to 2007. In reality, as we shall see, New York’s sales taxes are not low; rather its local sales taxes are much higher than average. But the drop is real, due to growing exemptions, particularly of clothing to compete with the State of New Jersey which collects almost double the general sales taxes as a share of income of the State of New York despite exempting clothing.
The state corporate income tax burden has fallen in New York compared with FY 1972 and FY 1987, but it is up compared with FY 2000. The figures for FY 2000 and FY 2007 are $4.21 and $5.85 per $1,000 of New York State residents’ personal income. The FY 2007 figure is well above the national average of $4.45 per $1,000 in personal income, but lower than in New Jersey. But New York City has a local corporate income tax on top of this.
New York’s state personal income tax burden jumped from $24.79 per $1,000 of state residents’ personal income in FY 1972 to $36.79 per $1,000 in personal income in FY 1987, and has been at about that level in similarly good economic years since. The FY 2007 figure of $37.38 per $1,000 in New York was far above the U.S. average of $22.38 per $1,000 that year, but the U.S. average is brought down by states with no personal income tax, such as Texas and Florida. New York’s personal income tax is among the highest in the country, and the burden is even higher on workers since much retirement income is exempt here. New York City imposes a local income tax on top of this, from which much retirement income for private sector workers – and all retirement income for public sector workers – is also exempted.
Among public services typically provided directly by states rather than local governments or the private sector, higher education is the most costly. New York State’s spending on public colleges and universities was $9.07 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 2007, well below the national average of $14.38. In part this is because, according to the New York State Statistical Yearbook, only 57.2% of New York’s higher education students were enrolled in public colleges and universities in 2008 compared with around 80.0% nationally, with low public shares being common in the Northeast. But New York’s state spending on educational assistance payments, which includes payments such as the Tuition Assistance program, was also below average in FY 2007 at $1.54 per $1,000 of personal income compared with $1.67 nationally. Spending on public colleges and universities was up from $8.88 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 1987, while spending on education assistance was down from $2.17 that year, with a big drop to FY 2000.
Tuition and fees, along with federal and local aid revenues, covered just 37.5% of the cost of New York’s public colleges and universities in FY 2007, well below the U.S. average of 47.9%. Among the states included in the data, only North Carolina was lower in FY 2007. New York’s higher education fees and aid revenues covered an even lower share of costs in FY 1972, FY 1987, and FY 2000; the national average also shows a rising share of cost covered by something other than state taxes. The City University of New York, now part of the state system, was once free. Bear in mind, however, that this is a comparison of prosperous economic years, and recent New York State policy has been to suppress fee increases (tolls, transit fares, college tuition) during such periods to pander to shortsighted voters, than nail them will massive increases in recession when their incomes are lower and they are also paying higher taxes.
The recent controversy over SUNY and CUNY tuition increases has two sides, about which one of which fair minded people can differ, about the other they cannot. The timing of increases has been reprehensible. It almost appears as if the state legislature, which does not care at all about young people or the future of the state, seeks to hold the future of the state public education system as a hostage to cut deals with those who do care, to get concessions in other areas. While claiming to keep tuition down, the legislature has end up with costs that are as high as they would be with smaller annual increases.
At the same time, however, on the private side the cost of college education has soared, as the U.S. now provides the best education no one but the rich can afford. In addition to the changing the timing of increases, SUNY is proposing to raise the level of tuition relative to other places, particularly at its most prestigious schools. The state legislature could argue that by keeping SUNY and CUNY revenues low, it has forced its employees and managers to squeeze the most value out of every dollar, to maintain these institutions as a source of upward mobility. In no other category of public service, however, has the state legislature made the interests of consumer of public services, rather than producers of public services such as unions and contractors, a priority. And while the soaring level of private college tuition may be a bubble that is about to burst, a cheap college education that is so poor no one but the poor would want it is no more useful to most than a gold plated education only the rich can afford.
Spending on New York State’s parks and natural resources agencies fell from $1.41 per $1,000 of the income of state residents in FY 1972 to $1.17 per $1,000 in FY 1987. After increasing to $1.31 per $1,000 in FY 2000, it fell again to just just $1.06 per $1,000 in FY 2007. That is half the national average. State services have generally been squeezed by more politically powerful interests in recessions, when money becomes scarce. While spending on Parks and Natural Resources was low in New York relative to personal income in a good year such as FY 2007, the recession has likely brought disproportionate reductions.
While nearly half the state’s population lives in New York City, where state park and recreation facilities are few, many such facilities were developed elsewhere specifically to allow working New Yorkers from the cities affordable access to natural settings. Spending in this category is popular with voters, which is why an environmental bond issues is one of the few increases in debts in recent years the legislature has deigned to allow the public to vote on. A dedicated environmental trust fund was also created – and raided. The beneficiaries of state parks and natural resources services have been paying a higher share of the cost of services through fees, which equaled 29.2% of total spending in FY 2007, up from 12.2% in FY 1987. Nationally, the share of state parks and natural resources spending covered by fees fell from 33.6% in FY 1987 to 26.4% in FY 2007.
It may be that many New Yorkers, during the credit fueled consumption boom, no longer required an upstate New York State campground as an important vacation option. A trip to Florida or Las Vegas for some, Europe or more exotic destinations for others, might have seemed more appealing. But the credit fueled consumption boom is over. I tried to find an annual report to get information of the occupancy level of the state’s campground facilities in a recent year, but was unable to do so on the state website.
Prisons are another of the services primarily provided by state governments, not local governments. New York State’s Corrections spending, at $3.26 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 2007, was below the U.S. average of $3.71 per $1,000 in FY 2007, due in part to the prisons being located in low-cost Upstate New York financed by personal income collected in high income Downstate New York. But the state’s spending in this category has dropped only modestly from $3.43 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 1987, despite much lower crime. Spending had increased with crime from just $1.23 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 1972. The national average shows similar trends – a big increase, and then only a small decrease.
Another primarily state function is unemployment insurance. New York has a maximum payout that is low compared with the high incomes in Downstate New York, much lower than in other Northeastern states, but overall the state’s UI spending, at $2.21 per $1,000 of state resident’s personal income, was only modestly lower than the U.S. average of $2.43 per $1,000 in FY 2007. New Jersey’s UI spending was $4.05 per $1,000 that year. New York’s UI spending, as a share of its residents’ personal income, is at about the same level as in FY 2000 but lower than in FY 1987, when it was $3.24 per $1,000 of personal income. It may be that stress on the unemployment insurance system has been increased by welfare reform, which pushed former recipients off the dole and into unstable jobs where unemployment is frequent. Trends in cash welfare will be discussed under local government, because it is a local government function in New York.
As in the case of the pension system, New York State has taken advantage of the business cycle to underfund its unemployment insurance system, benefitting existing businesses which paid lower past UI taxes before closing or moving out of state. With the trust fund now empty, New York has borrowed $billions from the federal government to keep making payments to the unemployed, with plans to drastically increase UI taxes to pay that money back. New businesses that open in New York, which didn’t create unemployment and didn’t benefit from the lower past UI taxes, will be forced to pay the increase, a policy consistent with other state policies on the relative treatment of those cashing in and moving out and the state’s future. Since the deep recession, much worse elsewhere than in New York, has put many more responsible states in the same position, however, there is the possibility of a federal bailout, but federal budget pressures work against this.
Worker Compensation is another state, rather than local, function, but it is difficult to evaluate using this data since many states require businesses to purchase private insurance rather than operate the program directly. That is why worker compensation benefit payments by the state government were zero in North Carolina and near zero in Illinois in FY 2007. What we can say is that worker compensation benefit payments by the State of New York rose from $1.22 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 1987 to $2.47 per $1,000 of personal income in 2000, before dropping back to $2.12.
There has been some controversy in services provided by employees of the State of New York in recent years, over the possible closing of increasingly empty state prisons, the possible closing of state parks, and more fiscal independence for SUNY and CUNY. These issues are paid more attention in Upstate New York, where most state-run facilities are located and most state workers live. While these are important issues, elementary and secondary school spending and Medicaid spending are a much bigger part of the state and local budget and tax bill. The government-funded portion of the private health insurance industry and the public schools dwarf any services the state provides directly.
A mentioned, New York’s state school aid fell from $29.17 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 1972, well above the U.S. average, to $21.50 per $1,000 in FY 1987, slightly below average. It remained at about that level in FY 2000, whereas the U.S. average had risen, to $24.33 per $1,000, and then increased to $26.83 per $1,000 of personal income in FY 2007, well above the U.S. average of $24.96 per $1,000 that year. A large increase in New York’s state school aid followed in FY 2008, and in turn was followed by a large decrease in the personal income of state residents in FY 2009. Education spending data from the Census of Governments, measured per $1,000 of personal income, will be discussed at length in later posts about the finances of local government, where the spending occurs. But for those who want more detailed data on how New York compares sooner, this post and this post contain spreadsheets with much more detailed FY 2008 data from another data series from the Governments Division of the Census Bureau specifically on public education.
As for Medicaid, the nice folks at the Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) have just sent my several spreadsheets with 2008 data, since I can no longer access their Datamart now that I have switched from a PC to an I-Mac. Barring carpel tunnel problems, I’ll tabulate and write about that data over the next few days. My compilation of 2007 data from that source is here.
Here is one such ad, which you can see if you go to this URL: http://nyc.gov/health/drinkingfat - now, I have seen many variations of said ad; but this one I could not let go without comment. According to the ad, sugar is the main reason for the heaping cases of obesity affecting new Yorkers. I am here to tell you that this is NOT the entire truth.
High-fructose corn syrup, also known as HFCS, is actually the REAL reason that many New Yorkers are rife with health problems. HFCS, once ingested, turns into FAT.
Period.
Refined sugar, while not so great for you, is at least partially metabolized into carbohydrates and fat; this, of course, depends on your level of activity. Well, I'll just avoid those drinks altogether, you say; I'll try one of the "diet" products – not so fast! The leading product, aspartame, is recognized as a carcinogen and a neurotoxin. In case I need to spell those terms out for you...those are POISONS. Aspartame was used as biochemical warfare before the former head of G.D. Searle, Donald Rumsfeld, was able to have aspartame marketed as an artificial sweetener.
So...I say that the Health Department of the City of New York should perform due diligence and announce to its denizens that HFCS is the real problem, and artificial sweeteners, although a zero-calorie option, should actually not be a viable option. But...there is hope for us all.
The Consumerist has an article posted on September 7th, 2010 that gives me hope - please check out the story at this URL: http://consumerist.com/2010/09/sierra-mist-ditching-hfcs-for-good-7up-getting-reformulated.html - let me post here the most pertinent paragraph of the story:
"There's not a strong reason to choose one [lemon-lime] brand over another.... And when we asked consumers what would re-engage them in soda, 'natural' was the No. 1 concept.”
I'm sure that we have all seen the instances of Pepsi Throwback products offered in limited quantities; the one secret that is not common knowledge is that those products sell out.
Completely.
Now, if could only get the soda companies to used cane sugar, this would be an absolute win/win for us all.
If only I could start a cane sugar import company - but this is a start. Sierra Mist, I applaud you.
A fairly constant refrain in this year’s NYC primaries is the failure of the City’s local papers to cover local political contests in their print editions.
In particular, two challengers to seemingly entrenched incumbents have made this complaint a centerpiece of these campaign. One is Wellington Sharpe, running (with my strong support) for the State Senate against incumbent Kevin Parker and the other is Doug Biviano, running (with my medium level opposition) for the Assembly against Joan Millman.
A fairly constant refrain in this year’s NYC primaries is the failure of the City’s local papers to cover local political contests in their print editions.
In particular, two challengers to seemingly entrenched incumbents have made this complaint a centerpiece of these campaign. One is Wellington Sharpe, running (with my strong support) for the State Senate against incumbent Kevin Parker and the other is Doug Biviano, running (with my medium level opposition) for the Assembly against Joan Millman.
The argument has best been explicated in print by Rock Hackshaw, a supporter of both Sharpe (strongly) and Biviano (in passing).
As I’ve noted before, I don’t really buy the premise of this argument. The NYC press has never covered local races, even before the national trend toward dumbing down set in. But that fact is neither here nor there, because the local press has become is less and less important over time.
Even article after article of constant attention in the local press would not win Biviano, a janitor, a seat in the Assembly representing Brooklyn Heights. What might win it for him is mail and the elbow grease of door knocking. When the press (though generally not the dailies) sees evidence of that, they do tend to show some interest, and in actuality, Biviano has done better than many. Last year, Biviano’s Council race got a him a full blown post-election profile in the Observer, when that Paper had previously refused to acknowledge any of the race's serious candidates, except for Vito Lopez’s handpicked choice Steve Levin. (Biviano ran six in a field of seven, but was by far the most aggressive in attacking the only candidate who could have beaten Levin).
Some more funding and a bit more door knocking might also prove useful for Sharpe, who, last time I checked, was not without personal resources, but does not seem to have applied them as zealously to his campaign as he might (a great pity, given the great gobbling turkey he is running against).
The press is in business to make money, and, except when it comes to selling ads (at the local weekly level) local races don’t make them money.
This is especially true at the level of the dailies, where, except on Staten Island, too little turf is involved to interest readers even when a race has become hot.
Moreover, even with the limited number of primaries to cover, resources, which have diminished with each passing year, are such that covering every race is probably beyond the capabilities of the dailies. They will sometimes cover a race, but only after triage ascertains that it meets certain metrics.
Frankly, the press is not going to notice people who can't get noticed on their own. It may be unjust that the press doesn't cover races where little or no money is being spent, but it is not their job to create viable candidacies.
If a candidacy is viable, it will break through to the public, press coverage or not. And I should add that, these days it is easier than ever to break through the filter. Even a dimwit like Biviano recently managed to do so with a video tackling this very issue
One would think the dailies and better weeklies would at least go through the efforts of doing what Larry Littlefield suggested a “special election supplement section, referenced from a banner headline on Page 1...” The Times and Newsday used to put together such supplements. Which would require not much more than a sending out a questionnaire and compiling the results, but these days such efforts are virtually non-existent.Why do I not expect more? Why do I think the press is, to some extent, justified in triaging its coverage of local politics (even though I would set the bar for coverage far far lower than is the current practice)?
Let me provide just two examples:
In the 50th Assembly District, longtime incumbent Joe Lentol is opposed by Andre Soleil.
Back in 2006, a column by Jerry Skurnik called “Who's Running?” inspired the following Room 8 colloquy:
SKURNIK: On Thursday, July 10, Party designating petitions were filed at the New York City Board of Elections.
This is the list of possible upcoming contested Primaries, based on the petitions filed. This list will be changed as candidates withdraw and/or removed from the ballot. There also may have been some errors made in compiling the list. I am including some commentary about some of the races. As usual, most contests are on the Democratic side....
...Brooklyn
Democrats...
...Assembly
...In the 50th AD, Assemblyman Joe Lentol is challenged by Andrei Soleil...
...State Committee
...50th AD Incumbents Steve Cohn & Linda Minucci are opposed by Assembly candidate Andrei Soleil & Andrea Jones....
GATEMOUTH: WTF is Andrei Soliel?
ROCK HACKSHAW: ANDRE SOLEIL ran for office before. He ran against Velmanette Montgomery on every line but Democratic (1996) for the State Senate.
GATEMOUTH: Thanks. So I assume it's some jerk from Ingersol or Whitman who thinks the entire district is in Fort Greene and Bed-Stuy, when in actuality the district's population is 58% white and 12% black. If he were at all serious, he would have at least found an Hispanic to run for female leader.
So, either a loon, or possibly put up by Tony Herbert (hence the Republican connection) or Kevin Powell to juice primary turnout in a particular area (or maybe by Ed Towns to wake up the Hasidim by giving Lentol and Cohn races).
But probably nothing that sophisticated, probably just a nut.
JERRY SKURNIK: Still another non-barker. I don't think the candidate running against Lentol has anything to do with Anthony Herbert. Since he did not file petitions to run for anything from any Party.
CHRIS OWENS: Andre Soleil has been around for years ...He was also involved with Community School Board elections in District 13. Remember those?
GATEMOUTH: Of course I remember them Chris, I even urged people to write you in .
ANDRE SOLEIL: No, I am neither "put up by Tony Herbert, Kevin Powell or Ed Towns. No, I am not a "jerk" from Walt Whitman or Ingersol who thinks the district is Black. I am very aware that the district is not a "Black" district. I am also aware that I am not limited by my racial characteristics, and that the new demographic of the 50th AD is also NOT limited by racial profiles. As to "jerk," I have been called worse things by better people.
As far as seriousness goes, I unsuccessfully looked for a Hispanic female; since race' effect on politics remains reality. We however, ran a Jewish male for State Committee, I am just a substitution for the nomination to that office. Yitchok Cohen, a friend of mine, declined nomination because he is honest, discovering that he was not in the district (missed it by two blocks in Williamsburg). Steve Cohen (sic) suffers the same problem, he has been out of the district for 10 years.
Your information is old. Andrea Jones, my friend and a Black woman, has also declined the State Committeewoman nomination and has been replaced by Rebecca Roy.
GATEMOUTH: Perhaps you are correct, Erik, ..but before I'm convinced, I'd like to have ACS inspect for welts.
Sadly, in 2008, Andre’s petitions turned out to be of the same quality as his intellect, so we were deprived of opportunity to see whose theory of the primary race was correct.
This year, Andre’s petitions, if not his IQ, seemed to have improved exponentially in quality, though I have an alternative theory.
It is the regulars who are jumping for joy about Soleil’s candidacy. In order to beat back the rapidly changing demographics of the area, they need a big Hasidic turnout, and a challenge to Lentol will certainly spur Hasidic interest exponentially. Lentol’s presence on the ballot doesn’t hurt bringing out the other regular-leaning oldtimers either.
The regulars persuaded Lentol not to challenge Soleil’s petitions. NKD would have been hard-pressed to appears as reformers if they did so themselves, and so did not do so either.
On his campaign website (on which Soleil can’t seem to make up his mind who his running mate is for State Committee) Soleil calls himself a lawyer, artist, and entrepreneur. Elsewhere, he says he is an attorney, realtor, Broadway producer and ordained Pentecostal Minister (in the Church of Jesus Christ) Soleil‘s MySpace page refers to him as "Reverend Counselor” with his name in parenthesis, while on his campaign website he refers to himself as "Apostle Soleil."
He goes on to note:
"I beleive (sic) in the active Spirit of God that heals, delivers and that signs, wonders and miracles follow those who beleive that Jesus is Lord. I am single, truthful and honest, and yes very sexually freaky, satisfying and enduring (or so I have been told). However, I have decided to save it for my favor - my eventual wife.
I am looking for my queen, but I am taking it a day at a time. Whatever comes natural is what happens, no lies, no manipulation. Just me.
I like SciFi, the fine arts and entertainment. In fact, my legal practice is focused on religious, entertainment, and recreation law.
So, drop me a note or sign my G-Book. May Yehushua Immanuel, Adonay, El Shaddai, El Elyon, Tsaddik Ha`Olam, Jehovah Jirah, Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Tsinkinu, the Memra Ha Eloah, whom came to us as Jesus, the Bridegroom of the Shekinah (the Church), the Son of Elohim, who now sits in Zion and is given all power and authority bless and keep you. "
Although one should rest easily in the knowledge that Andre is currently using his endurance to preserve his precious bodily fluids, one cannot help notice that some of his excess juices have inadvertently spurted out in his prose.
According to his campaign website, Mr. Soleil is founder of L’arts Soleil, LLC., the theatrical production company that produced the 2009 off-Broadway play "Billie’s Blues, " and is also developing New York City’s soul noveau gourmet restaurant experience, "Ra" along the East River waterfront of Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
Andre also says he is an former employee of both the Giuliani and Pataki administrations, proving his candidacy has the ability to cross cultural barriers and unite Yuppies with minority groups (albeit in revulsion).
Of course, if the Massachusetts plan qualifies as single payer, than so does the national plan just enacted, so why would New York need to adopt its own plan?
But Soleil does not merely proposes several new massive government programs, he also complains about the “lack of urgency” in Albany concerning “frugality when it comes to tax payer dollars has seemingly, ” adding, “The budget situation in Albany is just another example of how the government has lost its way.”
Actually, despite his protestations to the contrary, Soleil’s campaign strategy seems mostly to be about attacking Lentol for paying to more attention to the 58% than to the 12% (even specifying Ingersoll and Whitman Houses), an assertion which is actually unfair. Soleil attacks Lentol for lack of concern about “stop and frisk”, even though as Chari of the Codes Committee, Lentol was a key player in passing the bill limiting police use of information gathered in such stops. Further, Soleil attacked Lentol, Lentol for lack of interest in HIV and Hepatitis C, even though Lentol’s record on those issues has been praised by advocacy groups concerned with those matters.Thus, Soleil is a candidate of questionable sanity and major league ignorance, who is totally outside of any sort of ideological affinity with virtually anyone in the district, and possessed of no discernable resources, issues (except ones which contradict each other), or even address (Ed Koch could not locate Soleil to find out if he were a "Hero of Reform," or an "Enemy of Reform," and Soleil apparently made no effort to take the two minutes it would have required to find Koch).
But even Soleil shines like a mackerel at moonlight compared to Mark Escoffery-Bey (hereinafter “E-Bey“), who has filed petitions to run against State Senator Jose Marco Serrano (a fellow “Room 8” contributor, but then again, so is Ruben Diaz, Sr.)
The records mostly concern the visit by agents to a building owned by Dr. E-Bey to attempt a "station inspection." They reflect that Dr. E-Bey, admitted that he allowed his friend Shawn to install and operate a radio station on 87.9 MHz in his building, but that he refused to allow agents to inspect the station.
Last year, E-Bey attempted to run for City Council against Councilwoman Helen Foster. "I made the ballot but then it was challenged and I was taken off...I take responsibly for that. I was new to the process and I didn’t know all the little nuances, so my signatures lacked integrity.”
E-Bey missed the Board of Elections hearing where he was knocked off the ballot and his lawyer was allegedly in and out of the room. "I guess that’s the game," E-Bey said at the time. "Even if I win the appeal, there’s no time to run a campaign. On the other hand, it’s not my nature to give in." E-Bey soon went on to prove this.
The minutes note that the General Counsel reported a correction involving the September 15, 2009 Democratic Primary for City Council in the 16th City Council District in Bronx County reflecting a missing write-in vote.
The Board had been served an Order to Show Cause returnable in Federal Court the day before its meeting by Brother T. Williams-Bey and Mark Escoffery-Bey, alleging the Board failed to give them the opportunity to write-in votes.
In preparing to defend the Board, it was found that Mr. Williams-Bey was not eligible to vote in that Primary because he resided in the 15th City Council District. Mr. Escoffery-Bey who was a candidate on the ballot, but removed by court order, stated that he wrote in his name. The Bronx Borough Office was directed to recheck the write-in canvass rolls in the 20th Election District of the 77th Assembly District.
The Bronx BOE staff determined that they recorded Mr. Escoffery-Bey’s name as a candidate for Mayor, Public Advocate and City Comptroller, but failed to include the City Council write-in which was at the bottom of the paper roll. Mr. Escoffery-Bey stated that as long as the Board records his write-in vote he was willing to discontinue the proceeding. Counsel advised the Federal Court that the Board would correct the inadvertent error. The Bronx Deputy Chiefs submitted an amended certification for the September 15, 2009 Democratic Primary in the 16th City Council District to show one write-in vote for Mr. Escoffery-Bey.
"I have no political friends," said E-Bey, poignantly (perhaps Mr. Soleil can direct him to Blackplanet.com) . "At political functions no one wants to be in a photo with me. I eat the food and go home."
Given the gregariousness of politicos in trying to win everyone they can over to their side, it may be that E-Bey is just shy. Evidence indicates that it was not only Ed Koch who could not find him. He has apparently failed to answer any candidate questionnaires from any group. Further, while most challengers complain that it is their opponents who refuse to debate, in this race, it was E-Bey whose busy schedule would not permit him to show up.The film concerns a man forced to take a paternity test who discovers that he fathered an eight-year-old boy with a woman that he has never met. Despite the film’s length, its trailer tells you everything you need to know about E-Bey’s non-existent talents as a writer, director, cinematographer, editor and actor (he plays the lead role in an extremely convincing imitation or rigor mortis), as well as his non-existent empathy for women and children.
Unlike Soleil, who is as generous with his opinions as he is frugal with his bodily fluids, it is hard to put one’s finger on what E-Bey stands for. There is almost no evidence whatsoever, beyond this video remnant of his aborted Council race, of E-Bey’s thoughts on any matter of publicly policy From the evidence on the video, E-Bey’s platform best summarized as “Don’t Worry, Be Happy,” and his demeanor is best described as “Alvin Greene with pretensions.”In E-Bey’s words, “we can have it all, right now.” E-Bey says he is “a bold leader” who will “touch, move, and inspire us to create a future where we can have anything we want for ourselves, our families, our communities and our district.” He favors efforts to “build good credits and keep money in our pockets.” He wants to “usher in an era of service and abundance.”
Most importantly, E-Bey is “committed to removing any barriers which gets in the way of your joy, happiness, freedom, full self-expression, safety and security, without compromising one for another.”
Perhaps he’ll even help Reverend Counselor find his Queen.
So, I submit, the decisions by the local press not to expend their resources examining Andre Soleil and E-Bay's pathetic masturbation fantasies (to clarify, those related to their quests for elective office) are totally justified by the facts on the ground. As to other candidates with what they think are better cases for breaking out of the field, think of press coverage as a “Field of Dreams.”
If you build it, they might come.
Incidentally, Gatemouth endorses Lentol and Serrano.
This, however, is not the whole story. State governments also influence the level of local government taxation, through spending mandates and state aid, and by having services provided at the state rather than local level. While Medicaid has been a state program in New York since the early 1980s, for example, the state’s local governments are still required to contribute to it. For this and other purposes, New York’s local governments were required to collect on average $8.36 in local taxes per $1,000 of personal income to send to the State of New York, compared with just $2.44 in North Carolina. That is one of the reasons New York’s average local tax burden as a share of its residents’ personal income is much higher than in North Carolina. (Very high public school spending as a share of personal income in the portion of the state outside New York City is another reason).
In fact, New York’s total state and local tax burden as a share of personal income is among the highest in the U.S., while North Carolina is below average. As the table shows, New York’s state and local tax burden was 34.1% higher than the U.S. average as a share of personal income in FY 2007, with most of that excess at the local level. In the past (we’ll do this table later) I’ve found that virtually all the rest of the states are no more than 15.0% higher or lower than the U.S. average, once income is taken into account.
Looking at the 2007 State Government Expenditures and Debt table, one finds that spending is also expressed per $1,000 of personal income. For every $1,000 its residents earned in 2007, for example, the State of New York spent $9.07 on Higher Education in FY 2007, while the State of North Carolina spent $21.48 for each $1,000 earned by the residents of that state. Think of it this way. As a New York State resident, for every $1,000 of your income, you might have spent $250 on housing, $150 on food, $150 on transportation, and -- through the state government -- $9.07 on public colleges and universities and $3.26 on state prisons.
Note that this is described as “direct spending.” The relationships between the federal, state and local governments are complex. In some cases states spend money on services and benefits they provide themselves, with higher education, corrections, and unemployment insurance examples of functions where states do most of the work. But more often they merely pass money on to local governments (or in the case of health care the private sector). The Census Bureau distinguishes between “direct spending” on actual public services and benefits, and “intergovernmental” revenues and spending, the portion of the budget sent to or received from some other government.
Take, for example, Medicaid funded health care at a hospital run by New York City’s Health and Hospitals Corporation. Medicaid is a state program in New York, but local governments are required to contribute to it. So the City of New York might “spend” a dollar on “public welfare” aid to the State of New York (Medicaid is lumped in with public welfare in revenue data because it is a categorical, income restricted federal program). The State of New York, meanwhile, could then “spend” that same dollar as “public welfare” aid to the City of New York, as a payment to the Health and Hospitals Corporation. And then the City of New York could then spend that same dollar a third time, as direct Public Hospital spending on care. For comparisons of spending by function across places, only “direct expenditures” should be used.
Note that Medicaid cannot be directly accounted for in Census Bureau statistics. If Medicaid money (or less commonly other money) is used to pay private health care companies, that direct spending is classified under Medical Vendor Payments. Note that New York State is far above the national average in direct spending on Medical Vendor Payments as a share of its residents’ personal income, at $35.02 compared with $23.02 (and just $16.65 in California, among the lowest in the country). If Medicaid is used to pay for Public Health or Public Hospitals spending, for “direct” purposes that spending is tabulated there. Public Hospitals also receive funding from charges for services, as well as Medicaid and tax support. New York’s “direct” Public Hospitals spending was about average at the state level, but as will be shown later, much higher than average for local government hospitals in New York City.
You will note that the State of New York had zero spending on cash welfare assistance in FY 2007, but that is only because in New York such spending is classified as “local government spending.” The State’s contribution to that spending, and spending on social services, shows up (in the “FY 2007 State Government Revenues and Local Aid” table) as “Welfare, Hospitals and Health” aid to local governments, not direct spending. In New York, such state spending on local government aid equaled $18.19 per $1,000 of personal income, compared with just $6.50 nationally – because if state governments are providing the service, there is no need to send money to local governments to do it.
But much of the money for Medicaid and public welfare programs originates with the federal government. The State of New York received a total $42.78 in aid from the federal government for each $1,000 of its residents’ personal income in FY 2007, 23.9% more than the U.S. average for all states. But New York was below average in federal aid by this measure in most major categories, such as education and transportation. Much of New York’s high level of federal aid can be traced to high Medicaid spending, which also leads to higher local taxes via New York’s local contribution to Medicaid.
While revenues and expenditure categories do not line up directly, I have attempted to combine categories and disentangle how much spending in different categories actually costs in state taxes, as opposed to intergovernmental aid or fees. Looking at the FY 2007 State Government Revenues & Local Aid Expenditures table, one finds that tuition and other charges, federal aid, and aid from local governments equaled 37.5% of the State of New York’s spending on Higher Education in FY 2007, leaving 62.5% to be paid for by taxes or debt. Transportation charges (tolls, parking revenues, air transportation charges, motor vehicle fuel and license taxes) accounted for most state spending in the category, in New York and elsewhere.
Transportation, as tabulated in my state government tables, does not include Public Transit. In most of the country, and in New York City, Public Transit is classified as a local government activity, whereas in all of New York State outside New York City and in New Jersey it is classified as state government. That is true even though New York City Transit has been part of the state-run MTA since 1968. Similarly, local elementary and secondary schools are almost everywhere a local government activity, but the State of Hawaii operates the schools there and some states, notably New Jersey, have taken over failing school districts. Comparing New York City’s local government spending in these categories with the New Jersey and U.S. totals based on the original data, therefore, would be misleading, because some of the spending would be missing. In the tables to be presented, therefore, state spending on Elementary and Secondary Education and Public Transit is reclassified as local government spending, to get a similarly measured total for different places.
For local government spending within different parts of New York State, this requires that New York State as recorded by the Census Bureau be allocated based on data from the Federal Transit Administration. As an added complication, for historical reasons all the revenues, expenditures and debt of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey are tabulated as local government in New York City. Where possible, I’ll divide this spending up between the city and New Jersey. Note that when I present data for local government individual New York State counties, data for public transit systems such as the Long Island Railroad and the Capital District Transportation Authority are not included.
Pension systems present an even more complicated mix between state and local government. Most local government workers are covered by state run government pension plans: in FY 2007 U.S. local government pension plans paid $30.5 billion in benefits, while state government pension plans paid $136 billion. Those “expenditures” come from pension plan assets, and are thus not directly funded by taxes, fees or intergovernmental aid. What is paid for by taxes are pension plan “revenues,” those paid by state and local governments. In some cases, moreover, state governments are responsible for making contributions for local government employees, notably teachers in California and, I believe, New Jersey.
As it happens, the largest local government pension system in the U.S. is right here in New York City, with $8.9 billion in benefit payments in FY 2007. Most of what you read about the condition of New York’s public employee pension plans does not include New York City, which has far greater problems (in large part as a result of pension deals passed by the New York State legislature). So comparing New York State’s pension revenues and expenditures as a share of personal income with other places would be misleading, because New York City would be missing and make the state seem low. Comparing New York City’s local pension revenues and expenditures as a share of personal income would similarly be misleading, because for most local governments there are no pension revenues and expenditures, because they don’t have their own pension plans.
So I make the comparisons I can, using the data that is available. For the most part, pension revenues and expenditures are presented as a share of the wages of public employees rather than personal income, for all state and local government pension plans within a state combined. Within New York State, on the other hand, the data is presented for the State and City of New York pension system separately. For the New York State pension plans, data is available on contributions to the pension funds by the state government and by other governments (which we know are those outside New York City), and by state employees and local employees (which we also know are those outside New York City). This can be divided by the wages and salaries of state employees and local government workers in the part of New York State outside New York City, combined.
As the “FY 2007 State Government Expenditures & Debt” table shows, employees of the State of New York and local governments outside New York City contributed 1.0% of their wages and salaries, on average, to the state pension plans in FY 2007, compared with a national average of 4.5%, and 6.5% in California and 7.0% in Illinois, where pension underfunding has become a crisis. California teachers contribute 8.0% of their wages to their own pensions, and they are not eligible for Social Security. New York’s taxpayers contributed the equivalent of 9.0% wages to the state funds that year, compared with a national average of 9.4%, 12.5% in California and 9.2% in Illinois. Pension benefit payments equaled 22.9% of the wages and salaries of those still working for those covered by the New York State pension plans, compared with 21.2% nationally, 23.2% in California and 28.7% in Illinois.
Note that pension benefit payments equaled just 14.6% and 16.9% of the wages and salaries of state and local government workers still on the job in North Carolina and Texas. That is because those states are growing rapidly, and have relatively few state and local government retirees from the past when their population was smaller, compared with their larger tax base and state and local employment today. Fast growth allows places to underfund their pension plans for a while, but unless enough money is set aside today for when their new, larger workforce retires, North Carolina and Texas will eventually face the same crisis as California. In FY 1987, pension benefit payments in California totaled just 12.3% of the wages and salaries of public employees still on the job, compared with 23.2% today. Those low pension contributions in Texas and North Carolina, and the low taxes associated with them, may be a trap. And, of course, other public employee retirement benefits such as retiree health insurance are not pre-funded, which means they cost little in taxes in fast growing localities with many taxpayers and few retirees, but the cost can explode later.
And what of the City of New York pension plans, which are larger than those of virtually all state plans? As in the New York State system, the employees don’t contribute much compared with those in the rest of the country – just 2.5% of wages and salaries in FY 2007. But New York City taxpayers contribute massively – equal to 20.8% of the wages and salaries of those still on the job in FY 2007, and likely to soon be much higher. And pension benefit payments equaled 33.7% of the wages and salaries of those still on the job, another figure likely to rise due to early retirement deals (like the 2008 teachers’ deal to retire years earlier) and the wages, salary and employment cuts needed to pay for them. And while the Census Bureau does not have separate data on public employee health insurance, let alone separate data for health insurance for retirees, it would not surprise me if in New York the current cost of health insurance for the retirees was as much in NYC as the cost for current workers actually providing current services. This data will be discussed in greater detail later.
Speaking of burdens from the past, as the FY 2007 State Government Expenditures & Debt table shows interest on state debts consumed $4.38 per $1,000 of New York State residents’ personal income in FY 2007, well above the U.S. state average of $3.61. That is because state debts totaled $161.63 for every $1,000 of New York State residents’ personal income, compared with just $124.14 nationally. But New York’s local government debts are also high (with most of the excess concentrated in New York City). State and local debts combined totaled $280.63 per $1,000 of New York State residents’ personal income, 38.3% above the U.S. average, up from just $228.52 in FY 1987 (before Pataki, Bruno and Silver took over), and approaching the $312.78 of 1972, before the City and State faced the fiscal collapse of the 1970s.
Back in 1972, pension payments equaled just 6.4% of the wages and salaries of public employees still on the job for the state system compared with 22.9% in FY 2007, and 12.2% for the City of New York system, compared with 33.7% today. And the cost of health insurance for retirees (and for everyone else too) was much lower in 1972 than in 2007. A soaring share of the one’s state income tax bill, local property tax bill, or transit fare will be going not to public services and benefits that benefit people today, but to deferred costs from the past: underfunded pensions, unfunded retiree health care, and debts used for maintenance rather than growth. Were it up to me, the base tax or fare owed would be cut to the level of services and benefits people were actually getting, with the additional money required for costs from the past assessed in a separate “sins of the past surcharge.” So everyone could see it.
Note that in Texas, local government debts are quite high as a share of the personal income of current Texas residents. But much of that debt is incurred to provide the new infrastructure for a growing population, which will contribute to paying it back. In New York, meanwhile, debts are high even as little new infrastructure has been added since the 1970s, and the state has barely kept up with maintaining and ongoing replacement of what it had 40 or 50 years ago. Give its low state debt total, moreover, the state and local debt burden in Texas is just slightly average the U.S. average and well below New York.
The Census of Governments takes place every five years. Between census years, aside from 2001 and 2003 (when budget cuts forced the Census Bureau to break a data series going back to the 1960s), the Bureau surveys state and local governments to produce state level data. That is, data for the state of New York, and for all local governments in New York State added together, but not local government in different parts of New York State separately, because the sample size does not allow for accurate local area estimates. Because individual data is available for the City of New York for each year, however, it is possible to also create separate data for local governments in the rest of the state in total, by subtraction. So I plan to produce local government data for the U.S., selected states and different parts of New York State for FY 2007 using Census of Governments from that year, and local government data for past years for the U.S., selected states, New York City and the rest of New York State.
Some years are better for the economy than others, and when the economy is bad personal income goes down and taxes and spending a share of personal income go up. That represents circumstances, not policy. A fair comparison over time, therefore, requires that data for similar years be used. As it happens FY 2002, the previous Census of Governments year, was a lousy one for the economy, as FY 1992 had been, with FY 1997 not much better. But FY 2007, the year of the most recent Census of Governments, was the peak of an economic bubble, and that presents a problem. Thus I will not be comparing FY 2007 with FY 2002, because that could make it seems as though the tax burden and spending were going down even if they were going up in reality.
Therefore, I have created tables with data for FY 2007 (the peak of the housing bubble), FY 2000 (a non-census year and the peak of the tech bubble), FY 1987 (the peak of the junk bond boom), and 1972 (the first year available, another good year, and one year before the peak median wage for most Americans). Moreover FY 1972 was just before the fiscal crisis in New York City, which saw taxes soar and services collapse, and may be a useful point of reference for many places in FY 2007. The 1972 to 1987 period starts out with New York City Mayor Lindsay and New York State Governor Rockefeller, and includes the fiscal collapse and partial recovery during the Koch and (Mario) Cuomo years. The 1987 to 2007 period shows the influence of the Silver, Bruno and Pataki era at the state level, while 2000 to 2007 shows the Bloomberg years in the New York City, with trends from FY 1987 to FY 2007 perhaps attributable to the Giuliani regime.
Interestingly, while New York’s state and local debts have climbed relentlessly as a share of state residents’ personal income during the 1987 to 2007 “Generation Greed,” era, the extent to which New York is higher than the U.S. average actually fell from FY 2000 to FY 2007. State and local debts in the rest of the country, having fallen as a share of income from FY 1987 to FY 2000 (when the federal government was also run more responsibly in the wake of the Reagan debt binge), soared from FY 2000 to FY 2007 (as federal and private debts also soared). Sadly when it comes to the future New York, a state controlled by the sort of people moving away and whose children have moved away, has been ahead of its time. This time, New York and other older central cities will not be alone if facing a debt and pension crisis.
Next, a discussion of local government geography. There are really only two local governments operating within the boundaries of New York City, the City of New York and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but that is not the norm. In general, the same neighborhood may be taxed by, and have services provided by, a county government, a municipal and/or township government, a school district, and other special districts. Data for one type of government only, such as comparing the City of New York with other city governments, therefore does not provide a useful basis for comparison. The public school spending by the City of Los Angeles, for example, is zero. Instead, all the local governments within a state or county need to be added together into a single figure.
The U.S. Census Bureau still provides data for all local governments added together in each state, but does not plan to provide a “county area” file for comparisons within states. For all the counties in New York State, however, I have created such a file for 2007. I have also created aggregate local government finance data for four regions of New York State for simplified tables: New York City; the Downstate Suburbs (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties); Upstate Urban counties (Albany, Broome, Dutchess, Erie, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Orange, Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady counties), and Upstate Rural (all other counties). Mass Transit revenues and expenditures attributed to the State of New York are divided between these four regions.
Creating the “county area” file for New York was only the second most difficult work I have done to date. The most difficult data was lining up the same category of data in the same row for each unit of geography in each year. One can see this process in the “Reorganized” worksheet in the attached spreadsheet. Census Bureau categories have shifted over the years, and in some cases (notably what debts are used for and the type of capital spending) the level of detail has been reduced. One can see data items with no date, for example, and others for which the data begins to be provided at some point, having perhaps been lumped into “Not Elsewhere Classified” previously. To save money, and due to the classification changes of 2006, the public use files that provide data by year for the history of the program are no longer being updated. I attempted to match codes and, for New York, the U.S., and the selected states indicated, add data for 2007 and 2008. I then had to calculate the totals myself, limiting the work to those totals I wanted to use. Which is why you see many “total expenditure” fields blank for FY 2007, as I only required total direct expenditures.
If you want to fully understand the data from the Census Bureau’s governments division, you can read this classification manual. But the simple summary is this: I have taken data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and made adjustments to make the data as comparable as possible from year to year and place to place. The goal is a series of tables and charts to show how the tax burden by type of tax, and spending by type of public service or benefit, compares between New York State, the United States, and representative other states, and between different parts of New York State.
Looking at “direct expenditures” only, nationally, local governments directly spent $124.5 per $1,000 of U.S. residents’ personal income in FY 2007, while state governments spent just $84.23. And of that $84.23, a substantial share was just cash out rather than work done by state employees -- $23.02 for Medical Vendor Payments, $2.43 for Unemployment Insurance Payments, $1.00 for Worker Compensation Payments, and $3.61 in interest. While the next post will discuss state government expenditures, therefore, most of the data I plan to present is for local governments, where the rubber meets the road. But the tax burden of and spending by local governments are a state issue, too. The largest item in the average state budget is not a direct expenditure, it is state aid for local government education at $24.96 per $1,000 of personal income nationally and $26.83 per $1,000 in New York.
By Michael Boyajian
I remember back when I was a Republican sitting at political dinners with one GOP speaker after another getting up to bad mouth our teachers and thinking to myself what are they talking about I have never had a bad teacher from K through 12 in New York City and Long Island through Buffalo State College, Stony Brook University and Brooklyn Law School. All were true professionals.
By Michael Boyajian
I remember back when I was a Republican sitting at political dinners with one GOP speaker after another getting up to bad mouth our teachers and thinking to myself what are they talking about I have never had a bad teacher from K through 12 in New York City and Long Island through Buffalo State College, Stony Brook University and Brooklyn Law School. All were true professionals.
Too often politicians like to “chum for votes” by bashing scapegoats like blacks, gays, Muslims and yes teachers the people who helped make this country what it is today, that made it possible to overcome the Great Depression, win World War II, land a man on the moon and end the Cold War.
Yes there are ignorant people out there who take out their educational deficiencies on our teachers and love it when a politician knocks one. But I know teachers who teach in our affluent suburbs, our inner cities, our public schools and our private ones, in state and out of state and they all do their very best to educate students. They are consummate professionals and deserve our upmost respect as such.
To demean them is just a childish exercise by an immature adult who is still filled with teenage angst who takes the Alice Cooper song Schools Out to heart as an anthem of the ignorant rather than just a fun song played often at the end of the school year.
And if you look real hard at those politicians who treat our teachers unfairly you will find they are usually drop outs or people who didn’t do well in school because they were spending too much time around the keg. Why blame yourself when you can blame someone else?
So let’s hear it for our teachers. They are just as much heroes as are our firemen, police and first responders.
End
I think that, for the time being, “The Gateway” will now be done weekly.
This one is done very weakly.
The best argument against a "Rape by Deception" statute: it facilitates bad plea bargains. A rapist who dodged jail, or a man unjustly accused because he was Palestinian? | Lisa Goldman lisagoldman.net
I think that, for the time being, “The Gateway” will now be done weekly.
This one is done very weakly.
The best argument against a "Rape by Deception" statute: it facilitates bad plea bargains. A rapist who dodged jail, or a man unjustly accused because he was Palestinian? | Lisa Goldman lisagoldman.netNo one is asking that the Buildings Department treat the Park51 developer any different than any other developer. In fact, what we are asking is that he be treated the same as any other developer. If that's a problem for him, c'est la vie. Ground Zero mosque developer has bad history with city Buildings Department: records - NYPOST.com www.nypost.com
When will "progressives" stop making excuses for this guy? Venezuela's Jews turn to Chavez over state media's anti-Semitism www.haaretz.com
Barrett makes the case against Schneiderman; great reading and great thinking:
"While I was away on vacation last week, Al Sharpton, one of the worst tax scofflaws in New York, endorsed Eric Schneiderman for the state's top law enforcement office. No big deal. Any one of the four other Democrats running for attorney general would have, oddly, welcomed the endorsement of the man everyone presumes has great influence with New York blacks even though he got eight percent of the total vote in the state's 2004 presidential primary, barely nosing out Dennis Kucinich, and only a third of the black vote, a universe away from the 85 percent Chicago's Jesse Jackson got in NY a decade before him.Here's what astonished me. Schneiderman could have just said "Thank you, Rev." Instead, obsequious Eric said how great it was to get "the Good Housekeeping seal of approval from the man from the House of Justice," which is what Sharpton calls his National Action Network (NAN) headquarters in Harlem. Schneiderman cited Sharpton's pursuit of justice and said he would "seek to follow that model as AG," adding: "The House of Justice will have an annex in Albany for the first time in the history of the state." It was craven excess, an unconscious declaration of how transactional Schneiderman actually sees the office he seeks. No one really expects a Sharpton cubicle in Schneiderman's office, but the AG-to-be was declaring that an organization that the current officeholder, Andrew Cuomo, investigated just two years ago would have an inside track with Schneiderman because its leader was helping to make him AG. The Federal Election Commission recently levied its largest fine ever on Sharpton's presidential campaign -- $285,000 -- and one reason was that the House of Justice's NAN, and other Sharpton entities, had illegally covered $387,192 of Sharpton's campaign expenses. Sharpton went nuts when federal subpoenas were served on his ex-chief of staff and many others in the NAN posse. Federal prosecutors wound up indicting no one but forced Sharpton to agree to a payout plan on his taxes. NAN is one hell of a strange annex for a top law enforcement officer. Republican Dan Donovan, who salivates to face Schneiderman in the fall, will throw the tape up in a statewide TV ad and probably win his own Good Housekeeping seal in November. The seal, by the way, just celebrated its 100th anniversary, and it guarantees a replacement for any defective product. Donovan may well replace the devastatingly defective alliance for justice that Schneiderman and Sharpton are peddling." Al Sharpton and the 'Times' Endorse Eric Schneiderman: You Gotta Be Kidding blogs.villagevoice.com
Three days later four detectives and dozens of soldiers arrived at Dr. Mudd’s house, who at first denied that any strangers showed up at his house in the middle of the night. After the detectives confronted Mudd with the details of a conversation he had with a reward seeking relative days earlier, Mudd admitted to receiving the visitors Tyson and Taylor, but claimed he did not recognize either of the men. Dr. Mudd then produced the boot he cut off Tyler’s injured leg, where the name J. Wilkes was clearly printed. It seemed odd to the detectives that five hours after shooting the sixteenth president of the United States, John Wilkes Booth just happened to show up at Dr Mudd’s door. Immediately placed under arrest for his complicity in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Mudd was taken to Washington and tried before a Military Tribunal with eight of his alleged conspirators.
Three days later four detectives and dozens of soldiers arrived at Dr. Mudd’s house, who at first denied that any strangers showed up at his house in the middle of the night. After the detectives confronted Mudd with the details of a conversation he had with a reward seeking relative days earlier, Mudd admitted to receiving the visitors Tyson and Taylor, but claimed he did not recognize either of the men. Dr. Mudd then produced the boot he cut off Tyler’s injured leg, where the name J. Wilkes was clearly printed. It seemed odd to the detectives that five hours after shooting the sixteenth president of the United States, John Wilkes Booth just happened to show up at Dr Mudd’s door. Immediately placed under arrest for his complicity in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Mudd was taken to Washington and tried before a Military Tribunal with eight of his alleged conspirators.
Nineteen witnesses testified against Mudd focusing on three meetings between the doctor and John Wilkes Booth one year prior to Lincoln’s assassination. Mudd even shared drinks with Booth and Confederate agent John Surratt at Booth’s residence, the National Hotel.
The trial ended with Mudd’s conviction, but he would be spared the death penalty. Four of Mudd’s co-defendants were hanged the following week, one of them, Mary Surratt became the first woman in America to be executed.
Mudd, sentenced to life in prison, was sent to Fort Jefferson located on a small island off the Southern tip of Florida. After two years and several unsuccessful attempts at escape, an epidemic of yellow fever broke out affecting two out of every three people in the Fort. When the Forts only doctor and four nurses died, Dr. Mudd stepped in providing care to over two hundred others that had been stricken.
Mudd’s efforts gained some positive press, which led to a petition signed by every non commissioned officer at the Fort calling on President Andrew Johnson to grant Mudd a Presidential Pardon.
On February 8, 1869, before leaving office President Andrew Johnson granted Dr. Mudd’s Pardon after serving less than four years of a life sentence. Dr. Mudd would go on to live another fourteen years.
A biography written in 1903 by Mudd’s youngest daughter, Nettie Mudd Moore, called the witnesses who testified against her father perjurers. But in 1901, Mudd’s wife Frances told a Lincoln writer that her deceased husband knew not only that Booth was his visitor that night, but also knew that Booth had shot the President.
A Pardon is the equivalent of a complete exoneration, but Johnson’s Pardon of Mudd was different. President Johnson added language stating “Dr. Mudd was guilty of receiving, entertaining, harboring, and concealing John Wilkes Booth and his partner with the intent to aid, abet, and assist them in escaping justice.” Johnson further states that “in other respects, the evidence left room for uncertainty.”
In the late 1970’s Dr Mudd’s descendants petitioned President Jimmy Carter for an unconditional posthumous Pardon. President Carter wrote to members of Mudd’s family expressing his belief in the Doctors innocence, but stated that no provision or precedent exists for a second Presidential Pardon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John O’Hara, an attorney, is seeking a Pardon for illegal voting from Governor Paterson. His on-line petition is at www.freejohnohara.com
Since Mayor Bloomberg’s hijacking of the expressed will of New York City’s voters in 2008, I have now arrived at the position that a 12-year limit should be uniform. Why should he get twelve years, when other mayors cannot?
Since Mayor Bloomberg’s hijacking of the expressed will of New York City’s voters in 2008, I have now arrived at the position that a 12-year limit should be uniform. Why should he get twelve years, when other mayors cannot?
I envisage six 2-year terms for state senators and state assembly members and three 4-year terms for city officeholders (including District Attorneys). In Congress, I see six 2-year terms for the house-members, and two 6-year terms for federal senators. We should also totally eliminate those two year terms that occasionally come up for city council members. So keep this at the back of your mind while you go through my endorsement list. It will help you better understand some of my choices.
Today, I want to propose that as political activists, many of us who are like-minded on this issue should immediately start fighting for these term limit changes (and attendant modifications to the state constitution and the city charter).
LET’S START A MOVEMENT: NOW. PLEASE JOIN ME. (You know my e-mail address). Let us not restrict term-limits to only city electeds: let’s go all the way (so to speak). Let’s take this national (again).
Capitulating a bit -and relative to the first part of this column- let me also say that I am now enthusiastically endorsing Gustavo Rivera in the 33rd senate district (Bronx). My reasoning is simple: Pedro Espada junior -like Hiram Monseratte and Kevin Parker- has to be sent packing (and I don’t mean with pistols). The shenanigans of these three individuals have embarrassed all New Yorkers more often than not: enough is enough.
There must be a message sent to electeds (or wannabee electeds) who may want to consider behaving badly in the future: “NO MAS”. No longer should we as voters tolerate improper behavior in the political arena.
I will endorse state senator Bill Perkins for re-election. Surprised huh? Sure he flunked on “Morning Joe”; but he is on the right side of the charter schools versus public schools issue: somebody has to stand up for public schools. He may appear to be somewhat contradictory on the issue but he is needed in the fight. Bill Perkins faces an opponent (Smilke) who seems to be a person of quality; I suspect that he will have other chances at elected office in the near future.
I will also endorse Anthony Miranda (35th AD/Queens); then the indefatigable Nelson Denis (upper-Manhattan): another surprise, I am sure. Do note that Nelson is the consummate political activist. He is civic minded and community-involved. He may not win this race but he gets my endorsement.
In Queens, endorsements are also in order for Lynn Nunes (10SD) and Francisco Moya (39thAD). These candidates can all thank a fellow-member of the “Room Eight - New York Politics” writers-colony (Gatemouth) for these endorsements. He pushed me to go deeper into some of these races. I kinda reluctantly did. This is as far as I would go. I already made one endorsement in the first part of this column (Robert Rodriguez).
Now, let’s get to Brooklyn. I will list my endorsements for you here, and later in the week, I will try to give at least a very short explanation of most of them -in part three (finale) of this column. Some need no explaining: given that the justifications are obvious. Others may surprise some folks, but then this would be nothing new. I expect some criticism from a few but that’s their prerogative and that’s okay with me.
BROOKLYN ENDORSEMENTS:
10th Congressional District: ED TOWNS. (I am hoping and praying that Ed retires after this race, since it’s time for him to give it up. Had Tish James, Hakeem Jeffries or Eric Adams challenged him this year, he would have been history. Kevin Powell is no option).
18th Senatorial District: MARK POLLARD. (It’s time for new blood here).
21st Senatorial District: WELLINGTON SHARPE. (Need I explain?)
40th Assembly District: KENNETH EVANS. (He would out-perform Inez Barron in this role. He is very knowledgeable on health issues).
42nd Assembly District: MICHELE ADOLPHE. (After 32 years it’s time for a change here. Michele has shown tenacity and that should count for something).
50th Assembly District: ANDRE SOLEIL. (New energy needed here).
52nd Assembly District: DOUGLAS BOVIANO. (Change is good sometimes).
DISTRICT LEADER RACES (DEMS):
40th AD (f): INEZ BARRON. (She is better suited to this role).
42nd AD (f): NO ENDORSEMENT HERE. (A very interesting race: both Natasha Holiday and her opponent Rodeneyes Bichotte are impeccably qualified -academically and professionally. Natasha presents herself well, but Ms. Bichotte has lots of grassroots support. I am told that assembly-member Rhoda Jacobs supports Holiday; while councilmember Jumanee Williams supports Bichotte. A very good contest on paper.)
52nd AD (f): JOANNE SIMON. (She is both capable and reliable).
52nd AD (m): CHRIS OWENS. (He is the obvious choice here).
55th AD (f): DARLENE MEALY. (Her heart is in the right place, and I hate “gang-bangs”: which is exactly what some of Mealy’s fellow-electeds are trying to do to her again. Too many of them are endorsing her opponent -Latrice Walker- and this both strange and suspicious. There is something else going on here).
57th AD (f): NO ENDORSEMENT. (Both candidates are capable: challenger Renee Collymore is homegrown and energetic; Olanike “Ola” Alabi has strong union support. So far, she has functioned relatively well in her role as female leader).
58th AD (m): CORY PROVOST. (“Ya gotta make way for the young folks” Weyman Carey: no hard feelings please).
STAY TUNED-IN FOLKS.