Happy Labor Day.  I began the day looking through the news, and seeing the usual round of Labor Day stories about the New York economy.  There is no doubt New York State’s economy is not the strongest in the country.  There is no doubt there are people in this state with economic problems.  And there is no doubt that bad state and local government policies play a role in creating those problems. 

And yet, hearing what is said in the media, by interest groups, and by elected and would-be elected officials, I find that the state’s problems are generally vastly exaggerated and misdiagnosed.  Some of the purported problems are inherent conditions which cannot be remedied; others are the flip side of good things New Yorkers would be loath to give up.  Some of the exaggerated problems are little more than a disingenuous excuse for more public money for interests that aren’t necessarily the most in need – a plea for the continuation, or even expansion, of policies that were bad to begin with.  Meanwhile the state’s actual economic problems, as I see them, are generally not on the state government agenda, mainly because there isn’t an organized group giving campaign contributions that is interested in them.  I’ll discuss the real problems, and my suggested solutions, in later essays (probably next week).  First, however, I’ll go over what I see as phony or exaggerated problems:  slow job and population growth in New York City, poverty and income inequality in New York City, the high cost of living in the Downstate Suburbs, and job losses and decline in Upstate New York.

In part one of this column, I told you about residency as a way by which incumbents eliminate challengers. I also told you about the residency challenge of incumbent assembly member Noah (Nick) Perry (58thAD), against his businessman challenger Wellington Sharpe. I will get to that a bit later on. So far this year there have been quite a few casualties going the “residency” route. Let me examine some of them.

In the 55th AD in Brooklyn, Caribbean-American challenger Royston Antoine (Uncle Roy) was eliminated based on residency. In a previous “Grapevine” column of mine, I mentioned that an insurgent was running from an address outside the district; he was the insurgent. Also going down with Uncle Roy was his co-runner (Parker), who was on the ticket as male-leader. Believe me when I tell you that I tried to alert them to the problem and to the ramifications; all to no avail. I also apprised them of their options. When people refuse to take advice in this game, they pay big prices. You can ask Saquan Jones about this. He tried to run in the 43rd AD, but really didn’t understand what was being said to him about the pitfalls. He too was knocked off the ballot (signatures). Hopefully he learned and stays in the mix.

"Chris Owens …has a naivette about the world that members of Congress are sometimes forced to confront. Owens is right that we would have been better off not going to war in Iraq, but there are times when the United States does need to defend its interests with might. Owens indicated to our editorial board that there is almost no fight he’d be willing to join." 

                                           Brooklyn Paper Editorial 9/2/06  

"With the loss of Cynthia McKinney Charles would do well to fill her shoes. He has the anger and the wisdom that will keep him from assaulting a cop…"

From The Amsterdam News’ endorsement of Charles Barron for Congress.

SHOWCASING A  NEW YORK GEM  WITH  A  PRICE ABOVE RUBIES

Dear Gatemouth,

You are truly a valuable New Yorker  who  is generationally significant and historically important, endowed as you are with your unique and magnificent background, turbo- boosted with intellectual firepower, you have delivered an awesome series of columns which addresses not only the issues before it with the clarity of an eagle’s eye and the unyielding grip of undeniable logic, but even identified some of the remedies that voters might wish to address by unleashing their democratic instincts. 

Your columns, aside from being poetry-in-action and some of the finest pieces of political  thinking and writing, has secured to our children's children a coherent worldview  for the ages and beyond into paradise himself, which without your efforts, might, in the vision of Milton, be lost  for eternity. Your work is also the convergence and coexistence of thought and reason. It is like the late leader of the Brooklyn Democracy himself, drawing his partner’s share while filling my pockets with bountiful receiverships. Your efforts are truly  masterpieces, on the level of  the “The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation” or “Bitches Brew”.

The U.S. Census Bureau released 2005 economic data from its American Community Survey data yesterday, and having looked at those numbers and having analyzed similar numbers professionally for 20 years, the first-day stories in the newspapers surprised me.  As far as I am concerned, everyone got it wrong – so wrong that they must have written the stories before they came out and plopped in the numbers when they arrived.

The story as reported is that poverty is unchanged, and this shows that New York City is not a good place for the poor.  The view appears to have been pushed by poverty advocates, who are advocating for more money to be sent their way.  The reality is that poverty has declined significantly, but this isn’t necessarily good news for the poor either, because the advocates and analysts fundamentally misunderstand the factors that influence the poverty rate at the local level.  At the national level, the poverty rate is determined by changes in the economy, in society, and in public policy.  The national poverty rate was significantly higher in 2005 than in 2000, though slightly lower than in 2004.  At the local level, on the other hand, the poverty rate it is a function of who moves in (or is kept out), who moves out (or is pushed out), who is born and who dies off.  Local changes in the poverty rate may have nothing to do with whether individuals are getting richer or poorer whatsoever.

The U.S. Census Bureau released 2005 economic data from its American Community Survey data yesterday, and having looked at those numbers and having analyzed similar numbers professionally for 20 years, the first-day stories in the newspapers surprised me.  As far as I am concerned, everyone got it wrong – so wrong that they must have written the stories before they came out and plopped in the numbers when they arrived.

The story as reported is that poverty is unchanged, and this shows that New York City is not a good place for the poor.  The view appears to have been pushed by poverty advocates, who are advocating for more money to be sent their way.  The reality is that poverty has declined significantly, but this isn’t necessarily good news for the poor either, because the advocates and analysts fundamentally misunderstand the factors that influence the poverty rate at the local level.  At the national level, the poverty rate is determined by changes in the economy, in society, and in public policy.  The national poverty rate was significantly higher in 2005 than in 2000, though slightly lower than in 2004.  At the local level, on the other hand, the poverty rate it is a function of who moves in (or is kept out), who moves out (or is pushed out), who is born and who dies off.  Local changes in the poverty rate may have nothing to do with whether individuals are getting richer or poorer whatsoever.

The U.S. Census Bureau released 2005 economic data from its American Community Survey data yesterday, and having looked at those numbers and having analyzed similar numbers professionally for 20 years, the first-day stories in the newspapers surprised me.  As far as I am concerned, everyone got it wrong – so wrong that they must have written the stories before they came out and plopped in the numbers when they arrived.

The story as reported is that poverty is unchanged, and this shows that New York City is not a good place for the poor.  The view appears to have been pushed by poverty advocates, who are advocating for more money to be sent their way.  The reality is that poverty has declined significantly, but this isn’t necessarily good news for the poor either, because the advocates and analysts fundamentally misunderstand the factors that influence the poverty rate at the local level.  At the national level, the poverty rate is determined by changes in the economy, in society, and in public policy.  The national poverty rate was significantly higher in 2005 than in 2000, though slightly lower than in 2004.  At the local level, on the other hand, the poverty rate it is a function of who moves in (or is kept out), who moves out (or is pushed out), who is born and who dies off.  Local changes in the poverty rate may have nothing to do with whether individuals are getting richer or poorer whatsoever.

The U.S. Census Bureau released 2005 economic data from its American Community Survey data yesterday, and having looked at those numbers and having analyzed similar numbers professionally for 20 years, the first-day stories in the newspapers surprised me.  As far as I am concerned, everyone got it wrong – so wrong that they must have written the stories before they came out and plopped in the numbers when they arrived.

The story as reported is that poverty is unchanged, and this shows that New York City is not a good place for the poor.  The view appears to have been pushed by poverty advocates, who are advocating for more money to be sent their way.  The reality is that poverty has declined significantly, but this isn’t necessarily good news for the poor either, because the advocates and analysts fundamentally misunderstand the factors that influence the poverty rate at the local level.  At the national level, the poverty rate is determined by changes in the economy, in society, and in public policy.  The national poverty rate was significantly higher in 2005 than in 2000, though slightly lower than in 2004.  At the local level, on the other hand, the poverty rate it is a function of who moves in (or is kept out), who moves out (or is pushed out), who is born and who dies off.  Local changes in the poverty rate may have nothing to do with whether individuals are getting richer or poorer whatsoever.

The press coverage of the campaign for State Attorney General has so far concerned either mudslinging, or who is ahead in the horse race, rather than the substance; but, it’s hard to blame the press, because so little in the way of substance has been raised by either of the major candidates (or, for that matter, any of the others). Perhaps this is because neither one of the major candidates  really wants the job.

Mark Green thinks he should be US Senator, would like to be Mayor, and now understands that, like Alan Hevesi, his future glory lies in the past, and it’s time to settle for one of those elected positions to which New Yorkers like to give life tenure. If he serves as long as Louie Lefkowitz or Arthur Levitt, he can maximize his pension while becoming a beloved alter kocker and having a state office building named for him which will eventually be turned into luxury condos.