When I did part one of this series, I got many inquiries as to what were the credentials/qualifications of Ms. Yvonne J. Graham, which propelled her towards running for Brooklyn’s Borough Presidency. Fair enough. This is always one of the first questions fielded by any potential candidate for public office. So let me fill in some of the blanks.

I believe that Ms. Graham is a tremendous candidate for Brooklyn’s boro prez. She brings many fine attributes to the table. Who knows if she won’t become the first female mayor of New York City? Isn’t it time Brooklyn developed a mayor? Okay, so she is not battle-scarred (given Brooklyn’s many political wars of past decades); I think that’s an asset. This is a talented young woman folks. She has the ability to bring diverse people together, and has successfully worked with people of all races and ethnicities. How she handles the political stump is left to be seen; one thing for sure is that many feel she should go for it. Although she hasn’t formally declared for the race, all indications are that she is a candidate. Her support is growing. She has told me directly that she is going to enter the race, so I am not speculating here folks. I got it straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak. It is expected that Ms. Graham will be endorsed by her old boss and present boro prez Marty Markowitz. If Marty runs for mayor it will help Yvonne’s candidacy a great deal; that in itself will tremendously increase her chances of winning.

Many people have been asking me to wade in on who Barack Obama will choose for his vice-presidential running mate, once it is clear to the latecomers, that Billary Clinton’s campaign is going nowhere- an observation I made here months ago. After some analysis, I have concluded that he will select a woman to be his running mate. This will be the second time that Democrats choose a female for that spot; and of course the next time the Republicans choose a woman for that spot, it will also be the first time for them.

Given the energy that female voters have displayed in this long arduous primary contest, I expect the Obama campaign to do the right thing by them. Women should be rewarded with a spot on the ticket for a multitude of good reasons. And despite some who will consider it to be risqué for a black man and a white woman to be on the same ticket (since they will expect/project a white-male backlash), I believe that the person Barack chooses will be: KATHLEEN SEBILEUS.

As I reported here, in 2007 total private employment in New York City, based on re-benchmarked annual average non-farm wage and salary employment data from the New York State Department of Labor, was slightly higher than at the peak in 2000, but below the all time peak in 1969. If you think this might understate the boom in the city’s economy you are right, because a rising share of those working in the city’s private sector are not wage and salary employees at all; they are self-employed business owners, freelancers, and independent contractors, and thus not captured by the Current Employment Survey data cited above. Based on recently-released data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which includes the self-employed, the number of private sector workers working in New York City roared past the 1969 peak in the late 1990s and has remained there ever since. It is a stunning boom hidden from the most commonly cited economic statistics, centered initially in Manhattan, spreading to Brooklyn, and moving on to the Bronx and Queens.

The exciting contest for the Democratic nomination for President has created millions of new Democrats.

Tuesday, the Associated Press reported on this

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iyCjg56QEYy3r8Gz2X09TnpaWOMwD90FSOB00

To judge by the press and popular perception, Brooklyn is rapidly evolving into a very different kind of place. Actors and celebrities are moving into Brownstone neighborhoods, now mostly populated by parenting yuppies. Artists and fashion models have moved into Williamsburg. Tourists from Europe and Asia vacation in Prospect Park. And natives who are too good for mass transit continue to reside in neighborhoods represented by Anthony Weiner and Lew Fidler. The wave of affluence spreading out from Manhattan has even pushed into formerly poor neighborhoods such as Bushwick and Crown Heights, brining fears of displacement and hordes of real estate developers in their wake.

Recently released Local Area Personal Income data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, however, tells a different story. The per capita income of Brooklyn, which equaled the national average in 1969, the first year of the data series, and was 92 percent of the national average (8 percent below average) as recently as 1990, fell to 82 percent of the national average in 2000, the peak year of the previous economic boom. In the second-to-peak year of this economic boom, 2006, it was still just 82 percent of the national average, a loss of 18 percent from 1969. While different neighborhoods may be subject to different trends, it hardly seems as if the affluent are rushing into Brooklyn and washing everyone else out.

[This article was originally posted on Room Eight on 12-02-06 and given the outcome of the "Sean Bell" trial, the author has decided to repost.]

About ten years ago I happened to be one of three guests on a television show, along with present NYC councilmember Charles Barron and activist-attorney Colin Moore. The name of the show was “Caribbean Roundtable”, one of the better Caribbean-American talk shows still around. The hostess (Verna Smith) was a Jamaican-born journalist, who just happened to be quite active in Brooklyn’s Caribbean-American political circles; thus her questions were not of the powder-puff variety; not at all, since Verna can be a tough interviewer at times. On Sunday mornings, you can usually catch the show on Cablevision, and at other times on Time Warner cable. The gist of that show was basically an analysis of the results of the 1997 Democratic primary elections, which had taken place a few weeks earlier. Just before the show ended, the topic of “police brutality” crept in. Given that Barron and Moore brought to the table, tremendous knowledge in this area, they immediately jumped on the issue, offering some insight into the whys and wherefores. When it was my turn to speak, I got a few things off my chest that I had wanted to say publicly for quite some time. My opinions riled both guests. I wasn’t really surprised. The events of last weekend brought back memories of that roundtable exchange. I will get to that in a second.

If you read my prior post you know that the school finance situation was grossly inequitable in FY 1996, as the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit got underway. The personal background of many of New York City’s children would have made education challenging enough, but the under-funding was at least a major contributing cause to the city’s unconstitutionally bad schools. So were the contract provisions the teachers’ union had obtained, allowing a lower level of effort by the teachers in exchange for lower pay (which obviously did nothing for teachers who made a real effort despite that pay). If you look at the change from FY 1996 to FY 2006, however, one thing the CFE lawsuit achieved was an increase in education spending. The New York City schools already had enough money three years ago as a result, it seems to me, and have since received more.

But education spending increased in places where it was already high, not just in places where it was low. New York City residents, which had been cheated out of a fair share of school aid for decades, ended up paying local taxes for much of the increase in spending inside the city and state taxes for much of the increase outside the city. And while the gap between the city’s education resources and that of other parts of the state did decline, it remained large. The Campaign for Fiscal Equity achieved higher spending but not fiscal equity, so it is not unreasonable to expect that now that its lawsuit is over New York City’s schools will fare even worse in the next fiscal crisis, and some of the gains will be lost.

If you read my last post and downloaded the data, you might be wondering why the Campaign for Fiscal Equity sued New York State on school spending, and why the courts ever ruled in its favor. To find the answer one cannot look at New York’s school spending in FY 2005-2006. One has to look back a decade earlier to the FY 1995 to FY 1996 school year. In June 2005, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit was legitimate, and could go forward. The context was a state and city budget crisis that came to a head several years after a recession had begun, when costs could no longer be deferred to the future and revenues no longer stolen from it, at least to the same extent. The resulting sacrifice would be targeted at those who mattered least. The following post will show what the city’s school finance situation was that year, the year the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit was launched; the next will review what the CFE got for its effort, and how much it cost.

Someone once said that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of as a fool by everyone, than to open it and prove everyone right. Geraldine Ferraro probably never heard this old adage. It’s not just that the remark(s) she made- relative to Barack Obama’s good luck- were in itself absurd, but it’s the fact that Gerry has been out there defending her stupidity and being feisty with it too. She has been on television and radio, all belligerent like she just passed a course in stupidity with flying colors, and angry that no one seems to be paying her the respect she deserves. Who would have thunk that a woman who faced a stereotyping similar to Obama, would in turn demonstrate a type of racial insensitivity akin to the gender discrimination that she and her ilk regularly complain about?

The U.S. Census Bureau has released its education finance data for the 2005-2006 school year, with information available on revenues by source and expenditures by type for every school district in the United States. I’ve summed this information to create totals for the United States, New Jersey, New York State, the Downstate Suburbs, Upstate New York, and New York City, divided the totals by the number of students to get per student figures, adjusted the per student figures for the cost of living for the higher cost Downstate and New Jersey areas, and adjusted 2002 data for inflation for a comparison with 2006. The data is in two attached spreadsheet, one a summary by broad areas with a comparison with FY 2002, and the other with data for every school district in New York State in 2006. I suggest that New York State residents outside New York City download these spreadsheets, look them over, and think about them before voting on their school budgets.

When I first started compiling public finance data many years ago, what stood out was how low New York City’s elementary and secondary school spending was, as a share of the income of its residents, despite very high local taxes. As will be described briefly below and in more detail in the next post, however, New York City was already spending plenty of money in FY 2006 based on the national average, even before the “historic” (in ex-Governor Spitzer’s words) increases in state school aid over the past two years. High by national standards, the city’s spending remains far lower than in other parts of the state. That, however, is not because the city’s school spending is low, but because spending elsewhere in New York State — already high a decade ago — is now unreasonably high. So high, in fact, that one wonders what share of the money is actually going to education. Unreasonably high spending elsewhere in the state, rather than low spending in New York City, is now the biggest education finance problem for New York.