The Latest

The 40th City Council District: A Post-Special Election- Analysis (Part I of II)

|

I am going to save the heavy stuff for part two of this article. You know: the deep stuff; the in-depth analysis and so forth. The kind of heady stuff that will get me in trouble (as usual), because I am sure some feathers will be ruffled; the kind of behind the scenes stuff that most of you like. You know what I am talking about: the “national enquirer” kind of stuff. The stuff I held back on during the campaign. The stuff I save for the political crack-heads.

Firstly, I must take some credit for the fact that I was the first blogger in the city, to bring attention to the Haitian-American agenda of political-empowerment through this special election. It was rough road all the way, but in the end the mission was accomplished. Congratulations are in order; not just for Mr. Matthieu Eugene (some are saying “Una-gene”), but also for those in that community who have been crying out for empowerment over the years.

Inflation Adjustment and Political Power

|

Among the Medicaid budget cuts Governor Spitzer has proposed, and the hospital and nursing home industries are gearing up to fight, is a rate freeze for 2007 in place of the automatic inflation adjustment these industries would otherwise be entitled to. In the past, whenever the state budget has been tight, these industries have received more money automatically, while other needs and concerns, whose increases (or even avoidance of decreases) must be approved each year, have been forced to fight over whatever money is left. Medicaid also has gotten the first bite of the apple at the local government level, as payments to the state are mandatory. By taking away the automatic increase, Governor Spitzer would not disadvantage hospitals and nursing homes in the future, when the state might be facing fiscal problems. He would merely put them in the same position that public schools, transportation, and other public services have always been in — with no guarantees, and thus forced to compete equally in surplus or shortage.

The PBA and Bloomberg’s Folly: The Other Shoe Drops

|

Just before his re-election, Mayor Bloomberg and the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association reached a contract in arbitration that offset, in part, the soaring cost of police pensions by reducing the pay of new officers by 40%, to just $25,100. Similar contracts were reached with other unions, which then did not oppose the Mayor’s re-election. Those unaware of the history of such things might have assumed that the Mayor had imposed harsh terms. In fact, however, public employee unions always try to get better pensions, and to increase the pay of those about to retire upon which the pensions are based. And they always, time after time, eagerly agree to lower pay and benefits for future employees — the very employees the government will need to hire in the future to continue to provide services — so the new hires can be held hostage later. One might have thought that the 40% cut in starting pay for police and fire, and 15% cut in pay for most other titles, was a union proposal in exchange for higher benefits for those with seniority. But in fact it was the Mayor’s idea and the unions — “please don’t throw me in that briar patch” — gladly accepted.

Primary Date Problem

|

As we all recall, the attacks of September 11, 2001 happened on what was supposed to be Primary Day here in New York.

Since the election law still says that primaries are to be held on the first Tuesday in the week after Labor Day, this year, for the first time since that year, Primary Day is scheduled to be on September 11th.

I see a problem with that.

While this is an “off-year” in New York City, with not many election contests to be held, there are some. And outside of the City, some major positions are up for election this year (suburban & upstate County Executives, Mayors & County Legislators).

Taxes & Generational Equity: A Whole Life View

|

One more post on my analysis that shows that a hypothetical young couple in New York City would owe nearly three times the federal, state and local taxes as a senior citizen couple with the exact same income, and would have just half the money left over after taxes and housing expenses. How can this be justified, other than as a matter of political power? The accumulating list of special breaks for seniors is often justified on the grounds that seniors are worse off than the young. They may also be justified on the grounds that the seniors had to pay more when they were young, and the young will get the same breaks when they are old, so it all evens out if one takes a “whole life view.” Considering these points for what they are worth, I find myself agreeing with the Concord Coalition whose analysis (for Northern Virginia) I have essentially duplicated here (with the same results): “Such vast discrepancies are impossible to defend.”

Every Parent’s Worst Nightmare

|

The Daily News reported today that a child walking home from school with his aunt was hit and killed by a vehicle making a right hand turn on Third Avenue in Brooklyn. That is the second time in recent memory that a child has been killed by a vehicle making a right turn on that very street. Such a tragedy is every parent’s worst nightmare, and when my children were younger, it was one of my greatest fears. Not child abduction. Not sexual predators. Not terror attacks. Right turns, and left turns from narrow one-way streets.

People need to realize that it is turning cars that are most likely to run over pedestrians and cyclists. The streetscape of New York City makes it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians coming out from the corners — especially if an SUV or other large vehicle is parked there. The risk of running over a child is something I often think about when getting behind the wheel. And many drivers are more concerned about being hit themselves by other vehicles — a threat to them — than running over children. Particularly if they are driving a sedan and could be hit by an SUV — with a bumper designed to crash through the driver-side window. They are looking left — for another vehicle — not right — for a pedestrian as they move around the corner. And if they do it too slowly, they might get the horn from a vehicle behind them.

Taxes & Generational Equity: State and Local Taxes

|

This post continues a discussion of how and why a hypothetical couple age 67 and earning $75,000 per year would pay little more than one-third the federal, state and local taxes as a young working couple with the exact same income. Even though, to the extent the two couple’s non-money situations differed, the senior citizens were better off. The scenarios are laid out, and a spreadsheet is attached, here. The topic of this post is New York’s state and local taxes. Based on some assumptions and the TurboTax program, my hypothetical older couple, the Senior Voters, would owe just $2,570, or 3.4% of their income, in New York State and New York City taxes. But my hypothetical young couple, Young and Younger Hopeful, would owe $7,962 in state and local taxes, or 10.6% of income. Adding a one-year-old “Baby Hopeful” would cut the state and local bill only slightly, to $7,857 or 10.5% of income. Eliminating Ms. Hopeful’s job and cutting the couple’s income to $50,000 per year would reduce the state and local tax burden to $5,346 (10.7% of that reduced income), still double what the Senior Voters pay at $75,000 in income. The rest of the post shows how this is so.

Taxes & Generational Equity: Federal Taxes

|

As shown in my prior post and the spreadsheet attached to it (now downloadable, my bad), a hypothetical couple age 67 and earning $75,000 per year would pay little more than one-third the federal, state and local taxes as a young working couple with the exact same income. Even though, to the extent the two couple’s non-money situations differ, the senior citizens were better off. Based on the percentage difference, senior citizens in New York City do even better relative to young people on New York’s state and local taxes than on federal taxes. I’ll discuss state and local taxes in my next post. For federal taxes, my hypothetical older couple, the Senior Voters, would owe $6,104, or 8.1% of their income. And my hypothetical young couple, Young and Younger Hopeful, would owe $16,409 in federal taxes, or 21.9% of income. Adding a one-year-old “Baby Hopeful” would cut the federal bill only slightly, to $14,914 or 19.9% of income. Eliminating Ms. Hopeful’s job and cutting the couple’s income to $50,000 per year would reduce the federal tax burden to $9,251 (18.5% of that reduced income), still more than the Senior Voters at $75,000 in income. The rest of the post shows how this is so.

Maybe There’s An Opening On Hollywood Squares

|

With all that has been going on lately (Spitzer wins in Nassau. Spitzer loses in Albany, Spitzer goes nuts, Anna Nichole Smith dies, etc), it’s likely most political junkies missed the news that the proposed Jeanine Pirro TV show died.

The part of the story I most appreciated was the description of the show that the former District Attorney, former Judge who at one point was considered a serious candidate for Governor of New York or US Senator or Attorney General would star in –

“The show would have featured celebrities including musician and comedienne Charo and actor Corbin Bernsen ruling on real-life, small-claims lawsuits”