Gatemouth is suffering from burnout–hey hey my my.

Taxing the rich is a fine idea, given the way the distribution of income has evolved in recent decades. Unfortunately New York has already thought of it, and we not only have the highest state and local taxes as a share of personal income in the country (excluding Alaska and, sometimes, Wyoming where mineral taxes account for large share) but also among the most progressive. That is particularly the case in New York City, where a local income tax, over and above the state and federal income taxes, carries part of the burden that is carried by property taxes elsewhere. The rich, to an ever greater extent than most, already pay more here than they would anywhere else in the country. It is at the federal level where the tax burden has shifted in favor of the rich in recent decades, with the regressive payroll tax increased to “save Social Security” (but the money diverted elsewhere), the progressive income tax reduced, investment income taxed at favorable rates, and loopholes created to allow the wealthy to claim their work income as investment income. The favorable treatment of investment income was supposed to increase savings and investment, but instead the savings rate fell to zero. If suburban and upstate counties want to enact local income taxes to replace part of their property tax burden, that’s fine with me. Otherwise, leave taxing the rich to President-elect Obama, who I’m sure will get around to it sooner or later.

Even before that report was released, politicians started arguing about bridge tolls. And predictably the press has treated bridge tolls as the main story. It isn’t. The main story is the other aspects of the proposal which have united all our politicians against our future, once again. Why has no one questioned putting a permanent tax, on wage income only (not retirement income or investment income), to pay for just five years of ongoing normal replacement of MTA facilities and equipment? Why have there been no articles in the Times, News, Post, Newsday, etc. etc. asking what would happen in 2014, when the bonds issued against that future revenues would have been spent, and the MTA would be right back in the same position despite permanently higher taxes? Doesn’t anyone care that the MTA is in this position today precisely because no one bothered to care about today back when today was tomorrow? Has no one pointed out that New Yorkers will be paying a higher sales tax, forever, just to pay the interest on money that has already been spent, to which they want to add this additional tax? How much deeper into indentured servitude are the generations in charge willing to send younger and future residents of New York City, the Metropolitan Transportation District, New York State and the United States by deferring costs and advancing revenues? Does everyone comfort themselves by telling themselves there is no choice?

I’m going to write one more post using data from the 2007 Census of Governments employment phase, then give it a rest for five years until the next Census of Governments. In a prior post I compared New York City with several other older central cities that were co-terminus with county boundaries, counties being the smallest unit of geography for which comparable local government data can be compiled. These places, however, tend to be much smaller than New York City, and much richer (San Francisco, Boston, Washington) or poorer (Baltimore, Philadelphia, St. Louis) than the New York City as a whole. San Francisco and Boston, for example, are in many ways the equivalent of Manhattan rather than NYC. In the attached spreadsheet, therefore, I compare New York City with the national average and three of the counties with the largest population in the country, Los Angeles, Cook (Chicago) and Harris (Houston), and three counties that have been booming lately, Mecklenberg (Charlotte), possible future headquarters of Merrill Lynch, Wake (Raleigh-Durham), “America’s Boomtown,” and Travis (Austin), the place Barry Popik fled to. In general, all of these places have average local government employment relative to their populations. New York City does not.

Most of us, who are active in Central-Brooklyn’s Afro and Caribbean-American communities, have been quite familiar with the political machinations of one Mr. A. Q. Abu. I can further say that most of us find him to be a man of integrity, who has always been committed to making his overall community a better one. This longtime activist is a former member of School Board 18, and has been a prolific challenger of assembly member Nick Perry over the years. He has also been a member of Community Board 17.

Abu’s last run for public office was in 2004, when he and three others (Asquith Reid, Omar Boucher and Weyman Carey) vied for the open seat of male district leader in the 58th Assembly District. Carey won that race, with Reid coming in second, and Abu third. In that race, the difference in votes from first to last places was about 300 in total; it was close indeed. Abu has lived in the East Flatbush area for most of his life now, and has been involved in many a struggle for empowerment, inclusion and the like; especially during times of changing demographics in the area.

In October, I poked some fun at the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board for writing that the victory (with 38% of the vote) of the Canadian Conservative Party was some kind of a blueprint for the Republicans in the U.S. to win.

“Well, nobody could have foreseen this, surely.

[S]tate elections officials in Albany say that Mr. Espada did not register his campaign for Senate this year; and he could face more than $6,000 in fines. It is not the first time he has run afoul of the State Board of Elections: His 2000 Senate campaign was fined for failing to submit finance reports.

In 2005, three employees of a Bronx nonprofit health care company run by Mr. Espada, the Soundview HealthCare Network, pleaded guilty to diverting $30,000 from programs for family care and AIDS treatment to one of his campaigns. Mr. Espada was never charged.”

Our president-elect Barack Hussein “Barry” Obama has stacked his Economic Recovery Advisory Board: good move. It is headed by an 81 year old economist with a heavyweight reputation: Paul Volcker. He was once the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Fine. There are others on the board with sterling reputations in economics and economic theory. Great. 

And yet the board is defective in its construction; Barack Obama didn’t select Ralph Nader to a position on the same board: bad move. And before I move forward with this column, let me reiterate: I fancy myself a strong supporter of Barack Obama. However, that doesn’t mean that I am afraid to scrutinize or critique his decisions and actions. Real “change” is bigger than Barack Hussein “Barry” Obama: much bigger. When you read this column you will see what I mean.

You might have heard that “U.S. companies slashed payrolls last month at the fastest pace in 34 years as the economy headed for its deepest and longest recession since World War II. Employers cut 533,000 jobs, bringing losses so far this year to 1.91 million,” as reported by Bloomberg News.  (I can’t believe I keep promoting that man’s business after term limits repeal). You may have also heard that the number of people collecting unemployment insurance is at a 26-year high, because those laid off can’t find new jobs. But what you may not have realized is that these figures only include wage and salary employees who are eligible for unemployment benefits, given that unemployment tax revenues is what the Current Employment Survey, the source of the payroll employment number, is benchmarked to. Increasingly, especially in New York City and a few other places, immigrants and younger people, even college graduates, are not allowed to be employees. They are hired as “independent contractors,” “freelancers,” and “permalancers” even if their work arrangements are not different than those of older generations classified as employees. But they don’t get health insurance, and don’t get whatever retirement benefits that still exist. And when they are laid off and have their hours cut, it doesn’t show up in the statistics, they don’t get unemployment insurance, and if they don’t have savings or family nearby and able to help, they face immediate economic disaster. When they had money the City of New York taxed them twice, through the local income tax and the unincorporated business tax. What will happen to them now?

I've spent virtually my entire adult life waitng for this moment, and perhaps a majority of that time working for it, only to find out that when it did occur, the devil was in the details.

Literally.