There is a chorus of incomprehension about the decision by the federal Department of Homeland Security to reduce security funding for New York City by 40 percent, and redistribute the savings to other less populated areas.  Some people cannot understand how it can make sense to take money away from a city that has been attacked several times and is the subject of ongoing threats and plots.  That is because such people believe that the purpose of homeland security funding is to ensure homeland security.

In reality, for elected officials the provision of public services and benefits is incidental to the actual purpose of the expenditure of public funds, if not an impediment to it.  The purpose of public spending is to reward narrow groups of political supporters with more money in exchange for less effort than any of those paying would have agreed to voluntarily.  Taxes are not voluntary.

There is a chorus of incomprehension about the decision by the federal Department of Homeland Security to reduce security funding for New York City by 40 percent, and redistribute the savings to other less populated areas.  Some people cannot understand how it can make sense to take money away from a city that has been attacked several times and is the subject of ongoing threats and plots.  That is because such people believe that the purpose of homeland security funding is to ensure homeland security.

In reality, for elected officials the provision of public services and benefits is incidental to the actual purpose of the expenditure of public funds, if not an impediment to it.  The purpose of public spending is to reward narrow groups of political supporters with more money in exchange for less effort than any of those paying would have agreed to voluntarily.  Taxes are not voluntary.

There is a chorus of incomprehension about the decision by the federal Department of Homeland Security to reduce security funding for New York City by 40 percent, and redistribute the savings to other less populated areas.  Some people cannot understand how it can make sense to take money away from a city that has been attacked several times and is the subject of ongoing threats and plots.  That is because such people believe that the purpose of homeland security funding is to ensure homeland security.

In reality, for elected officials the provision of public services and benefits is incidental to the actual purpose of the expenditure of public funds, if not an impediment to it.  The purpose of public spending is to reward narrow groups of political supporters with more money in exchange for less effort than any of those paying would have agreed to voluntarily.  Taxes are not voluntary.

Now that we are two weeks into the petitioning process, we have a pretty good idea of who is running for what in the upcoming NYC Primaries for public office.

What follows is an incomplete list, based on sightings of petitions being circulated.

I’m sure I’m leaving candidates out who may even be serious contenders. I welcome any additions, subtractions, corrections or biographical information about candidates.

Congress

Besides the already well know cast of characters running in the Major Owens & Ed Towns districts, the only other Primary for Congress that I’m aware of is against Eliot Engel. Jessica Flagg, who challenged Eliot 2 years ago on anti-war platform is running again and has aligned herself with Jonathan Tasini, Hillary Clinton’s opponent.

Every year around this time of the year, stories appear about how crucial the support of minor parties are to this or that candidate.

I, for one, have always thought that this was BS 99% of the time.

Sure, there have been times that 3^rd Party support has been the margin of difference in an election but these have been relatively few in number. Senator Nick Spano in 2004, John Lindsay in 1969, etc.

The fact that there are so few is why we remember them!

This week, the DC paper, The Hill attempts to once again elevate a minor Party, in this case that weird alliance that calls itself the Independence Party, to a major force in the Democrats attempt to regain Congress. They point to 2 districts.

"We call on the Democratic Party, the national chairman, Howard Dean, right on down to the New York state Chairman Denny Farrell, to Brooklyn chairman Vito Lopez…We want the party to realize that the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party have been black people. Now don't ambush us. Don't take away our power. We're also going to go to the Republicans and say 'How about you. Do you support the principle of power sharing?' And we'll see what the Republicans say also." – — Congressman Major Owens calling upon leaders of the Democratic Party at various levels to prevent a white politician, David Yassky,  from winning a Congressional seat  long held by black politicians.

Right now, I aim to hit my favorite targets: the somnambulant black elected officials of Brooklyn. So I will aim, shoot and duck (maybe). Here goes. Let’s see what the responses will look like. Later this week, I will hopefully tackle a few more controversies, so stay tuned.

If you have been reading this blog, then you know that education spending in the rest of the state is off the charts, that school districts there have been hiring tens of thousands of new employees even as enrollment falls.  Meanwhile, the City of New York continues to have a level of staffing, and (if the cost of living is adjusted for) spending and pay that is lower than the national average, and far lower than the rest of the state.  (Send me an e-mail at vampire-state@att.net if you require proof of these assertions, and I’ll send you a report).  Because school districts in the rest of the state hire and spend so much, the STAR program — which diverts education money away from New York City — was developed to pay for it.  And now that spending, and property taxes, outside the city have increased even more, both Faso and Spitzer want to expand STAR once again.