Category: News and Opinion

When I first wrote the “Brooklyn Story”, I figured that two parts would take care of this issue (residency), this time around: I was wrong. The story painfully continues. I talked about three individuals (and others by association and implication) whose residencies have been questioned by many in Brooklyn. I hoped to show that residency laws are ambiguous and nebulous, and that in political races both the spirit and letter of the law are usually violated; especially when applied against those not connected to the powers that be. Especially when used against insurgents challenging elected officials. I have always been outraged by this; it’s unfair and unjust.

Last week, the court challenge against Judge Shawndya Simpson’s residency started in a Brooklyn court. It was hastily moved to a court in Queens. For those who came into the room late, Ms. Simpson is running against Judge Diana Johnson, in a contest for the second Brooklyn Surrogate spot. Judge Margarita Lopez holds the other. Last Friday 17th August, 2007, Judge Peter O’Donoghue ruled that Ms. Simpson did in fact live in Brooklyn; tomorrow however, her opponents are going to the Appellate Court in order to reverse that ruling. Please remember that Ms. Simpson is the candidate being backed by the Brooklyn Democrat’s county organization. Note also that the same organization has in the past, backed surrogate judges who have been convicted- or removed under clouds of suspicion and corruption- over the last 30 years plus. Please remember also, that it was NYC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia who called the Surrogate Court: “the piggy bank for elected officials and politicians.” They all see it as a cookie jar of sorts.

The constant liberalization and restriction of eligibility, and increase and decrease in personal scrutiny, under means- and need-restricted programs is the off-the-books, under-the-radar outcome of an ongoing struggle between “liberals,” who want many people eligible for expensive services (often because they earn a living providing those services) and “conservatives,” who do not require services and do want to pay taxes to help those who do require them. In economic expansions, when more services may be offered without a tax increase, advocates often demand, and receive, more extensive services for more people. In economic downturns, when falling tax revenues lead to budget crises, there is generally a sudden finding of “waste, fraud and abuse.” In all times, however, politicians often compromise by gross hypocrisy. While focused on the needs of particular group (supported by organized advocates), they prove their compassion by passing laws that, in theory, make many people eligible for extensive services and benefits. But during the budget process, when different needs and priorities are in competition, resources are scarce, and tradeoffs must be made, they save money by not providing enough to cover everyone theoretically eligible to get all the benefits they are theoretically entitled to. Having claimed credit for making a benefit available, both Republicans and Democrats “hope no one shows up” to claim it.

Earlier in the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, his people believed that New York was a write-off; they felt that Hilary Rodham-Clinton was a lock to win most if not all the convention delegates coming out of New York. To the shrewd political analyst this observation probably made a lot of sense, but sometimes politics defy common sense, and at other times common sense defies conventional political thinking. What is shaping in Brooklyn is a case in point.

As soon as Barack Obama officially announced his presidential pursuit last winter, a group of young idealists came together shortly after to form an organization called: “Brooklyn for Barack Obama”. Almost immediately they hit the street; registering voters, recruiting volunteers, staging rallies, canvassing, politicking, visibly dealing with issues, spreading the Obama message and pushing their candidate. Despite the knowledge that Obama’s national campaign was reluctant to invest in a New York challenge, these young political neophytes, have been undeterred in their objective to deliver Brooklyn’s democrats to the Obama delegate count.

When one examines public policies to ensure the care of the poor and those with special needs, and goes beyond the rhetoric about “racism,” “welfare queens,” “malingerers,” “big corporations,” insurance companies, “big government,” “compassion” and “rights,” one finds difficult choices and high stakes. The choices are often made by low level, underpaid public officials who cannot possibly have the information required to make them fairly and correctly, and who are at any moment subject to political blame for injustice and suffering, for waste, fraud and taxes. People don’t like to be forced to confront such difficult choices. And you don’t attract votes, viewers or readers by forcing them to.

Responding to a question asking why he should expect loyalty from voters when his children aren't backing him, Rudy responded –

"I love my family very, very much and will do anything for them. There are complexities in every family in America "The best thing I can say is kind of, 'leave my family alone, just like I'll leave your family alone.'"

But does Rudy really believe in leaving our families alone?

He didn’t leave the families of Richard Wigton and Timothy Tabor alone. As the Wall Street Journal wrote –

I’d like to digress from my equity and eligibility series for a post to discuss a bad solution to the massive problem alluded to my the prior post – the custodial care of the frail elderly. The government is faced with very difficult issues. At what point is custodial care necessary? How can you be sure, for a given person, that point has been reached? What are the responsibilities of the senior citizen in question, to provide or pay for that care, or his or her children, particularly as the generation that decided not to stay together, or even get together, to benefit those children reaches deep old age? Faced with these issues and potentially massive public expenses, some advocate advising, mandating, or requiring private long-term care insurance, in effect converting the public policy problem to a fight between families and insurers. But I would neither purchase nor advise the purchase of long term care insurance, either for family members or as a matter of public policy.

Like the old and the young, the disabled are generally thought of as inherently deserving of public assistance. Those who are blind, deaf or crippled, unlike those who are the parents of illegitimate children or addicted to alcohol or other drugs, are not despised for bringing their problems on themselves, even in Red States. Reasonably thoughtful people take a “there but the grace of God go I” attitude toward the needs and conditions of those suffering a disability. Most people, if forced to think about it, are willing to pay taxes to assist those with the added burden of caring for a disabled spouse, child, or parent. In 1998 4.3 percent of all public spending was on services and benefits specifically for those with special needs – for the disabled. Most of these have eligibility restricted based on means, as well as needs. A disabled individual with enough income to provide for their own care would not be eligible; a disabled individual living with a spouse or parents who are not poor also may not be ineligible. There are few single disabled adults who are not reliant on public benefits, however, because those born with severe congenital disabilities such as mental retardation, mental illness, blindness or deafness are unlikely to earn much money during the course of their lives, and are likely to require extensive assistance, particularly health care. But deciding who is in need is not always straightforward, and this leads to below the radar conflict and non-decisions.

I’ve written previously about how articles about New York politics in national publications often are inaccurate. This week’s Weekly Standard hit job on Elliot Spitzer is another fine example.

Leaving aside the omission from the article of the fact that Siegel’s son was a top official of Tom Suozzi’s campaign, I assume that the mind-numbing details in the article about Spitzer’s misdeeds in using his father’s money to further his political career are accurate. Though the stuff they get wrong does make me wonder.

Here in the Untied States, people have decided that the elderly are entitled to a modest level of retirement income and health care, and the young to an education, at public expense. Those who want the government to be “smaller” often argue that these services should be delivered in a different way, with the government financing the benefits but the private sector providing them. But they dare not overtly challenge the right to receive these universal entitlements, so universally popular are they with the American people. In other developed societies, those with “bigger” governments, additional human needs are also considered the responsibility of society as a whole, rather than of each individual person or family. In those societies, for example, virtually everyone receives government-funded health care, not just the elderly. One example is Canada, right next door. Government-funded housing is also more common in other places.

While the United States does not provide universal food, clothing, and health care via government programs, however, few Americans are willing to see people in their own communities starve for lack of food, freeze to death for lack of shelter, or die or become crippled by readily preventable diseases and easily treated injuries. The American compromise has been to assume that most non-elderly people will buy food, housing and health care for themselves, but for the government to provide for those who do not have the means to afford them. Means-tested benefits are thus a substitute for universal benefits, and a way to avoid deprivation at, theoretically, a lower public cost.

Age is the most simple and most common of the criteria used to restrict eligibility. In 1998 about one-third of all public spending was on services that were available exclusively, or primarily, to the young or old, regardless of their income or other circumstances. These include elementary and secondary education (10.9 percent), social security for the retired (11.2 percent), Medicare (6.6 percent), and public higher education (3.9). Public higher education is theoretically available to everyone, but in practice is used primarily by the young. Social Security is only available to those 62 and over, Medicare to those 65 and over, and their share of public spending is going to soar in the next few decades. While the rules vary, one typically becomes ineligible for public elementary and secondary education after a certain age, typically age 21, even if one had not finished high school. There are additional services restricted to the young and old, such as senior citizens centers, and youth day camps and recreation activities, but spending on them is not tabulated separately from other, similar activities. These services may be enough, however, to increase the overall share of public funding allocated to age-restricted services and benefits to one-third of all government funding. Public education for the young and retirement income and health care for the elderly, along with the military and interest on federal, state and local public debts, are the most costly public programs. The age-restricted programs are also the most popular, for four reasons, discussed below.