For those of you who have nothing better to do, than carry the “jocks” of those incompetent black-elected officials of Brooklyn-the ones I usually excoriate in my posts here and elsewhere on the blogs-I have a word or two for you. Firstly; stop attacking me while hiding behind those “anonymous” masks in the comment sections of my posts here, and on other blogs linked to Room8. It’s childish and cowardly. I am here, quite willing, ready and able to debate the issues and concerns that I raise. Use facts, history, context, logic, whatever, but don’t keep childishly calling me names. I do expect better. You are starting to look bad. Real bad, and petty also. You are turning out to be unworthy opponents. I am getting bored already.
The Latest
Why, and To Whom, Cutting NYC Terror Funds Makes Sense
|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.
Why, and To Whom, Cutting NYC Terror Funds Makes Sense
|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.
Why, and To Whom, Cutting NYC Terror Funds Makes Sense
|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.
Why, and To Whom, Cutting NYC Terror Funds Makes Sense
|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.
Why, and To Whom, Cutting NYC Terror Funds Makes Sense
|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.
Why, and To Whom, Cutting NYC Terror Funds Makes Sense
|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.
Off To The Races
|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.
Taking Another Rip
|Charles Barron called this morning, wading in on the Al Vann/ David Yassky/ 11th Congressional brouhaha. He took the expected Baronesque position: that Yassky shouldn’t run, and that the seat should be in black hands. And just as Al van Winkle, Annette Robinson, Major Owens and company, Barron doesn’t get it. His biggest flaw is that he lets his obsession with ‘race’ trump his common-sense, near everytime downfield.
If this situation was reversed, and Yassky was a black person running against 3 whites, with the demographics of the district also reversed, what do you think Barron would be doing right now, if white electeds were calling for the black to withdraw from the race? You tell me (as if we all don’t know).
Cracking the Whip
|“I write today as a proud Democrat who maintains great hope that this fall a winning coalition will take back Congress from the Republican stranglehold it has struggled under for the last 12 years…..As such, I read with great displeasure the comments of your number one financial backer, Ken Langone, who a few days ago stated: "I can't tell you how critical it is that we preserve and protect the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and as well in the Senate. This is not a time to turn the asylum over to the inmates." ….As the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee I hope to one day represent this state as its Chairman. It is your lead and most public fundraiser who has dedicated resources to making sure that people like me do not assume these important leadership roles and that we as Democrats do not take back the House. …Some of us believe that the Republican party has taken our State of New York, as well as our nation, in the wrong direction. I certainly thought that you were one of us….I hope that your support of Democratic Congressional candidates, especially in New York State, would cause you to denounce Mr. Langone's statements of Tuesday evening. I call on you to return the money he has given you in the past, to express your support for a Democratic takeover of Congress and to renounce any further support from Ken Langone for your campaign. …I respect your role as an outsider. But there is a fine line between being an outsider and turning your back on the Democratic Party and what it stands for.”