In several past posts, and in several future posts, I’ve discussed the winners, those categories of services and people who get far more public funding here than the national average, in some cases more than in anywhere else in the United States.  But despite state and local taxes that were 43% higher than the national average in FY 2004, relative to personal income, and lots of fee income besides, taxpayers are not the only losers in New York City.

Spending on the city’s public schools has been below national average as a share of income, often far below, as far back as the data goes.  Parks, recreation and culture had been above the national average until1989, Ed Koch’s last year in office.  It has been far below average ever since, despite lots of private donations.  Major transportation projects are proposed and planned, but never built here.  Yesterday, the Daily News reported that the city’s libraries are rarely open.  http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/441273p-371556c.html.  No surprise there.

In several past posts, and in several future posts, I’ve discussed the winners, those categories of services and people who get far more public funding here than the national average, in some cases more than in anywhere else in the United States.  But despite state and local taxes that were 43% higher than the national average in FY 2004, relative to personal income, and lots of fee income besides, taxpayers are not the only losers in New York City.

Spending on the city’s public schools has been below national average as a share of income, often far below, as far back as the data goes.  Parks, recreation and culture had been above the national average until1989, Ed Koch’s last year in office.  It has been far below average ever since, despite lots of private donations.  Major transportation projects are proposed and planned, but never built here.  Yesterday, the Daily News reported that the city’s libraries are rarely open.  http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/441273p-371556c.html.  No surprise there.

In several past posts, and in several future posts, I’ve discussed the winners, those categories of services and people who get far more public funding here than the national average, in some cases more than in anywhere else in the United States.  But despite state and local taxes that were 43% higher than the national average in FY 2004, relative to personal income, and lots of fee income besides, taxpayers are not the only losers in New York City.

Spending on the city’s public schools has been below national average as a share of income, often far below, as far back as the data goes.  Parks, recreation and culture had been above the national average until1989, Ed Koch’s last year in office.  It has been far below average ever since, despite lots of private donations.  Major transportation projects are proposed and planned, but never built here.  Yesterday, the Daily News reported that the city’s libraries are rarely open.  http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/441273p-371556c.html.  No surprise there.

"Have I defended Lieberman? I don’t think so. I’ve never particularly cared if Lieberman or Lamont represents Connecticut–Lieberman’s annoyingly sanctimonious, and less of a neolib than a neocon. Maybe the self-righteousness is why he’s never actually convinced many fellow Democrats to change their minds on anything, the way President Clinton changed minds on welfare, for example, or Fritz Hollings changed minds on the budget. Lieberman blew his one chance at greatness when he kowtowed to the race-preference lobby at the 2000 convention. ("Please don’t end it." It’s that pathetic ‘please’ that cuts it for me.)" – Mickey Kaus

It’s time to admit it:  like just about everyone else in New York City, I’m a criminal, but my life of crime may be coming to an end.  My particular crime:  allowing the kids’ dog off leash in Prospect Park, during the designated hours listed on the park’s website.  How is that a crime?  It is a crime because New York City has an ordinance on the books that says at all times, and in all places, all dogs must be on a leash no less than 6 feet long when in public.  No exceptions.  No exclusions. 

When off leash hours were established, the city didn’t bother to change that ordinance.  It decided instead to not enforce the ordinance during certain hours.  It decided, in effect, to make me a guilty criminal, but to let me get away with it.  Now some folks out in Queens who don’t like off leash hours have filed a lawsuit.  It’s goal?  To force the city to enforce its own laws, and ticket those who allow their dogs to be off leash.  Who could argue with that?  I will argue against the city’s original decision to avoid changing the ordinance, and as part of general principle of law and ethics rather than as a specific canine case.  This is a long post, but if you are interested but that bothers you, you can copy it, paste it, and print it out.

It’s time to admit it:  like just about everyone else in New York City, I’m a criminal, but my life of crime may be coming to an end.  My particular crime:  allowing the kids’ dog off leash in Prospect Park, during the designated hours listed on the park’s website.  How is that a crime?  It is a crime because New York City has an ordinance on the books that says at all times, and in all places, all dogs must be on a leash no less than 6 feet long when in public.  No exceptions.  No exclusions. 

When off leash hours were established, the city didn’t bother to change that ordinance.  It decided instead to not enforce the ordinance during certain hours.  It decided, in effect, to make me a guilty criminal, but to let me get away with it.  Now some folks out in Queens who don’t like off leash hours have filed a lawsuit.  It’s goal?  To force the city to enforce its own laws, and ticket those who allow their dogs to be off leash.  Who could argue with that?  I will argue against the city’s original decision to avoid changing the ordinance, and as part of general principle of law and ethics rather than as a specific canine case.  This is a long post, but if you are interested but that bothers you, you can copy it, paste it, and print it out.

It’s time to admit it:  like just about everyone else in New York City, I’m a criminal, but my life of crime may be coming to an end.  My particular crime:  allowing the kids’ dog off leash in Prospect Park, during the designated hours listed on the park’s website.  How is that a crime?  It is a crime because New York City has an ordinance on the books that says at all times, and in all places, all dogs must be on a leash no less than 6 feet long when in public.  No exceptions.  No exclusions. 

When off leash hours were established, the city didn’t bother to change that ordinance.  It decided instead to not enforce the ordinance during certain hours.  It decided, in effect, to make me a guilty criminal, but to let me get away with it.  Now some folks out in Queens who don’t like off leash hours have filed a lawsuit.  It’s goal?  To force the city to enforce its own laws, and ticket those who allow their dogs to be off leash.  Who could argue with that?  I will argue against the city’s original decision to avoid changing the ordinance, and as part of general principle of law and ethics rather than as a specific canine case.  This is a long post, but if you are interested but that bothers you, you can copy it, paste it, and print it out.

It’s time to admit it:  like just about everyone else in New York City, I’m a criminal, but my life of crime may be coming to an end.  My particular crime:  allowing the kids’ dog off leash in Prospect Park, during the designated hours listed on the park’s website.  How is that a crime?  It is a crime because New York City has an ordinance on the books that says at all times, and in all places, all dogs must be on a leash no less than 6 feet long when in public.  No exceptions.  No exclusions. 

When off leash hours were established, the city didn’t bother to change that ordinance.  It decided instead to not enforce the ordinance during certain hours.  It decided, in effect, to make me a guilty criminal, but to let me get away with it.  Now some folks out in Queens who don’t like off leash hours have filed a lawsuit.  It’s goal?  To force the city to enforce its own laws, and ticket those who allow their dogs to be off leash.  Who could argue with that?  I will argue against the city’s original decision to avoid changing the ordinance, and as part of general principle of law and ethics rather than as a specific canine case.  This is a long post, but if you are interested but that bothers you, you can copy it, paste it, and print it out.

Friday’s NY Times had one of their weekly stories speculating about Mike running for President.

It jumped to the conclusion that Mike having dinner with the Execurtive Director of the DLC meant he was running for President.  I guess when Mike had lunch  a few years ago with stars of  The Sopranos, it meant he was buying HBO.

But one part stood out in the lame story – "the mayor himself has sent mixed signals about his plans".

As I recall Mike has consistently said  he was not running and  has used the phrase "what part of the word No don’t  you understand".

A few days ago I wrote some comments previewing the hearing on petitions at the New York City Board of Elections.

I attended the hearing for a few hours and here’s some of what I observed.

A few candidates for Delegates to the Republican Judicial Convention were disqualified because they were, in fact, registered Democrats.

A candidate who wanted to run for the Assembly from the 55^th Assembly District was removed because the address he is registered to vote from and which he put on the petition was in the 40^th A.D.