While the CFE decision provided one last chance for NYC conservatives to show they aren’t hypocrites (one they apparently will not take), it also provides one last chance for NYC Democrats to show they care as much about the quality of life of NYC residents as they do about the perpetuation of their own power and perks, and those of their organized supporters. Such Democrats might want to tax everyone more and spend more on everyone. But faced with opposition from elsewhere, they have agreed to tax New York City more and spend more elsewhere, nowhere more so than in education. At least, in their view, overall education spending is higher than it would otherwise be – number one in the nation as a share of personal income, despite low spending in the city. In general, those that matter are unaffected by the negative consequences, making those consequences seem remote and unimportant. That is the deal we have, the deal the Court has held to be constitutionally wrong but also has held that it cannot or will not change.

There are some things on which you can't put a price tag. It is too bad the future of our children ain't one of them.

Back on March 23, 2006, I posted my first piece on "Room 8", and said, in part:

"today's decision by the Appellate Division, 1st Department, in the CFE case, together with the impending attempts to convert Roe v. Wade into an empty shell, highlight the problems with "merit selection". Those who control the Executive Branch determine who has the "merit". The First Department's appointed Appellate Division largely consists of upstate Republican hacks imported from the vicintiy of the Cheese Museum. In many ways, the byproducts (AKA our local judicial bench) produced by our own local political culture (which is, at least, more liberal and more racially diverse) look far better in comparison."

Well folks, you got you wanted in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision. Not only is the minimum only $2 billion more (in 2004 dollars) for NYC schools, but also the state is free to cut school aid to the city, and increase it to the rest of the state, as in 1995-96, and the courts will do nothing about it other than tut tut 13 years later. With the decision in and the election over, there is one last chance for you (and you know who you are) to show you aren't hypocrites.

Use the Zarb Commission estimates of the lower cost of living in Upstate New York, and the additional needs of low income students, to esimate what school districts in the rest of the state should be spending. And then demand that spending in the rest of the state be cut, and that NYC taxpayers no longer have to pay excess state taxes for wasteful spending elsewhere.

Well folks, you got you wanted in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision. Not only is the minimum only $2 billion more (in 2004 dollars) for NYC schools, but also the state is free to cut school aid to the city, and increase it to the rest of the state, as in 1995-96, and the courts will do nothing about it other than tut tut 13 years later. With the decision in and the election over, there is one last chance for you (and you know who you are) to show you aren't hypocrites.

Use the Zarb Commission estimates of the lower cost of living in Upstate New York, and the additional needs of low income students, to esimate what school districts in the rest of the state should be spending. And then demand that spending in the rest of the state be cut, and that NYC taxpayers no longer have to pay excess state taxes for wasteful spending elsewhere.

Saturday's New Yost Post editorial quoting Mayor Bloomberg, in defending his decision to approve the City Council raises, as saying –

"All legislative bodies at the federal, state and city levels have a similar situation [with lulus]. It is the ways that the head of the legislative body . . . [controls] the members, pulling them together, getting them to vote as a bloc so you don't have chaos."

One problem.

That's just not true.

Congress does not give extra pay to Committee Chairs. And neither do the legislatures of the 2 biggest states – California & Texas. I didn't check the other 47 states or the thousands of other City Councils but somehow I doubt that Idaho or Duluth are paying lulus to Committee chairs.

Another argument made in support of continuing Judicial Conventions and not having Primaries choose candidates for State Supreme Court Justice has to do with diversity on the bench. Just a few days ago, a Democratic Party activist told me he believed that if Primaries picked them, there would never be another Black or Hispanic Supreme Court Justice elected in Manhattan.

To try to determine how true that is, I decided to look at Countywide Primaries for judgeships in the last 10 years since the Supreme Court Districts in New York City are the same as the 5 counties (except that Brooklyn and Staten Island are a combined district for Supreme Court).

When news broke that the incoming Spitzer administration has set up a website for the submission of resumes and ideas, I briefly considered submitting the former. Very briefly. A moment’s reflection made it clear that, even if state wanted to hire me, a return to public service would be bad for my family, my career, my mental health, and even my ability to make a contribution to my community. That is what a 20 year history in government, generally as a policy analyst/city planner, tells me. Based on more positive experiences outside public service, however, I would like to offer my assistance to the incoming Spitzer administration in another way. Any information I have compiled and analyzed, any information I will compile and analyze, and any suggestions I have or will come up with in my spare time are yours, gratis. Absolutely free. That is a suggestion I made to the “ideas” inbox. If someone reading this wants my resume, just fish my e-mail address out of there and ask me for it. If anyone else is interested in a warning about the nature of a public sector career, read on.

When news broke that the incoming Spitzer administration has set up a website for the submission of resumes and ideas, I briefly considered submitting the former. Very briefly. A moment’s reflection made it clear that, even if state wanted to hire me, a return to public service would be bad for my family, my career, my mental health, and even my ability to make a contribution to my community. That is what a 20 year history in government, generally as a policy analyst/city planner, tells me. Based on more positive experiences outside public service, however, I would like to offer my assistance to the incoming Spitzer administration in another way. Any information I have compiled and analyzed, any information I will compile and analyze, and any suggestions I have or will come up with in my spare time are yours, gratis. Absolutely free. That is a suggestion I made to the “ideas” inbox. If someone reading this wants my resume, just fish my e-mail address out of there and ask me for it. If anyone else is interested in a warning about the nature of a public sector career, read on.

That's what the newspapers are saying, with the assumption that Bruno and Silver, paid by lobbyists to keep existing fiscal priorities and self-interested in keeping existing political procedures, are united in opposition. I hope not.

But Spitzer does have another option, one alluded to by Bill Hammond of the Daily News: get people like Tom Suozzi, Tom Golisano, and perhaps even Mike Bloomberg behind at least part of his agenda. All three have shown an interest in structural change, and the first two have shown a willingness to go after the powers that be rather than just sucking up to them. Even Mario Cuomo called for a constitutional convention the last time it was on the ballot.

That's what the newspapers are saying, with the assumption that Bruno and Silver, paid by lobbyists to keep existing fiscal priorities and self-interested in keeping existing political procedures, are united in opposition. I hope not.

But Spitzer does have another option, one alluded to by Bill Hammond of the Daily News: get people like Tom Suozzi, Tom Golisano, and perhaps even Mike Bloomberg behind at least part of his agenda. All three have shown an interest in structural change, and the first two have shown a willingness to go after the powers that be rather than just sucking up to them. Even Mario Cuomo called for a constitutional convention the last time it was on the ballot.