As another dismal session of the NY State Legislature comes to an end, it’s time to look way back in history to ………….. April! 

On April 25, Senate Dem Leader David Paterson announced a deal that he made with Majority Leader Joe Bruno regarding "member items" or as civilians call it – pork.

Part of the deal stated – "For this year, Senator Bruno has committed himself to making a full disclosure of member items according to the criteria described above on or before May 15."

It’s now June 20. I don’t recall seeing any press reports listing the full disclosure, does anybody else?

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.

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.

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.

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.