As regular readers of this department realize, I've not been a big fan of the Mayor, but both they and I might be hard pressed to say why.

In listening to the Mayor's potential opponents, I've yet to find many issues where I think they are right and the Mayor is wrong. My problem with mayoral_control_of_the_schools is not the idea but its implementation, which seems designed to thwart the accountability which is ostensibly its goal. At any rate, it is no surprise that the Mayor's opponents share The Mayor's desire not to diminish the powers of the Mayor's office, even as they seek to change its occupant. When it comes to who Bloomberg's opponents want to control our schools, the difference among the candidates are worth considerably less than a stick of gum.

As it turns out, our transit authority isn’t the only one going down the tubes, and for many of the same reasons that the future of the MTA, and those who depend on it, is troubled. A local NYC weatherman, MIT executive and fellow transit fan sends word of the financial condition of the MBTA up in Boston, as described in this Boston Globe article. If Pataki, Bruno and Silver haven’t been in change of Massachusetts, apparently people very much like them have been. Because they’ve done all the same things, with the same results. Rich, undeserved, enhanced, pensions, generally handed out by Democrats, proposed to be offset by lower pay and benefits for future employees. Massive debts run up by Republicans who claimed to cut taxes but in reality merely deferred them. Pandering to riders with cheap fares — leading to massive increases later. And money drained off to the automobile, in this case for the massive over-runs on the Big Dig (not mentioned in the article linked above but very important).

There are howls of protest over limits on pay and bonuses for companies receiving government bailout subsidies, with one version limiting guaranteed pay to $500,000 per year. The protest is that these top executives ought to receive whatever their talents command in the free market for labor, and if their pay were restricted at one company, they would simply move on to another, making the lower-paying company worse off. There is a free market for labor in the United States, but those who have been gaining a larger and larger share of national income and wealth over the past 25 years are precisely those who have used their power over institutions to exempt themselves from it.

In the case of the executives, what you have is a loosely operated cabal that works through a small number of pay consultants, hired by boards of directors precisely because they recommend higher pay. These boards of directors theoretically represent shareholders, but the elections for them are as rigged and undemocratic as those for the New York State Legislature. They are stuffed with cronies, executives sitting on each other’s boards and recommending increases in each other’s pay, knowing that the consultants will use the pay they approve as justification for more for themselves down the line. Not too many years ago it was argued that soaring executive pay, justified or not, was too small a share of overall company costs to materially affect shareholders, workers, and customers. Now, across a range of industries, that is no longer the case. As corrupt as government often is, there is a case for more intervention rather than less. Not just for corporations receiving bailouts. In fact, not just for corporations. What about unions and non-profit organizations?

This week, the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, wrote a column attacking the Obama Administration for supposedly trying to politicize the census at the expense of science.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

Fund wrote – President Obama said in his inaugural address that he planned to "restore science to its rightful place" in government. That's a worthy goal. But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn't think it would mean having the director of next year's Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. "There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."

Friday’s New York Times reports that Comptroller Bill Thompson and Congressman Anthony Weiner have raised money from limited liability corporations and partnerships despite the law enacted by the City Council banning these businesses from contributing to City candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/nyregion/13donations.html?ref=nyregion

Finally some good news out of Albany. The Binghamton Press-Connect reports that according to Governor Paterson, without a change to the “orgy of self-interest” in state government, which will not happen, New York will be bankrupt in 18 months. “I'd say without a reversal of the traditional process of delaying trouble into the future, I'd say about 18 months away,” the Governor said at a meeting. New York might follow California “into receivership or some sort of development corporation.” He seemed to imply this would be a bad thing. But in bankruptcy, all the existing deals, favors, exemptions, contracts, and privileges would be swept away, and everyone would start over at zero. As painful as that would be, the more likely scenario is even worse — most of those privileges remain in place, and others — and younger generations — will be left with a level of taxes and public services and benefits so awful that no bankruptcy court or other body of reasonable people would think to impose it.

Almost exactly one year ago, the NY Times Editorial Board said the idea of tolls on the East River & Harlem River bridges was a dud – now they are suggesting it as a solution to the MTA’s problems.

No explanation about what changed in 54 weeks is printed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/opinion/24thu4.html?scp=6&sq=congestion+pricing&st=nyt

In his strongest language yet on the issue, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday warned of "riots in the streets" if state lawmakers don't renew mayoral control of the city's schools.

"If they didn't do that, I think that there'd be riots in the streets, given the improvement" to schools, Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show

TOP 10 OTHER THINGS MAYOR BLOOMBERG THINKS MIGHT CAUSE RIOTS IN THE STREETS

10 – Politicians criticizing Con Edison

It’s tax time again, and time to take stock of how the events of the past year have affected two fictional couples, the Young Hopefuls, now both age 29 with a three-year-old child, and the Senior Voters, now both age 69. You may recall from last year’s post on this subject that in 2007 each couple had an income of $100,000. The Young Hopefuls, with no savings or health insurance or pension, and living in a rented one-bedroom apartment, paid $22,214, or 22.2% of their income, in federal taxes that year based on a TurboTax analysis, while the Senior Voters, who owned their home, had a pension, and benefited from Medicare, paid $11,791 on the very same level of income, or 11.8% of it. The Young Hopefuls paid $10,814 in state and local income taxes and (indirectly as part of their rent) property taxes, or 10.8% of their income. The Senior Voters paid just $2,378, or 2.4% of their identical income, in state and local income and property taxes, one quarter of what the younger couple paid. That is $33,028 in taxes for the Young Hopefuls and $14,169 for the Senior Voters on the very same cash income, even though the senior citizen couple in this example had far more wealth and non-cash benefits. After paying for taxes and housing the Senior Voters had $83,405 left to spend, the Young Hopefuls $46,980. So what happened to these couples in 2008?

In Last Week’s Episode, I told the tale of Republican Party which faced a leadership battle including two relics of Jim Crow (Katon Dawson and Chip Saltsman) and two African Americans (Michael Steele and J.