Richard Brodsky on Democratic Governance

Richard Brodsky Congestion Pricing (0.00 / 0)

  The thurst for money in NYS is insatiable. If this is the best New York politicians can come up with they need to get the heck out of office. I'm not a millionaire but through my time, labor, and efforts, I will probably be among them soon enough. I don't appreciate the fact that there is this socialist marxist mind set that exists out there. Somehow, through social conditioning,  the attitude has become among the politicians and the electorate, they have more than they need, they can afford to pay more. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need that's the mind-set. Capitalism is under attack in New York and America. Let's keep attacking effort and ingenuity? Let's keep going after those who are ambitious and creative? Keep attacking capitalism and we will all be working for the state.
 I think they should move the finacial center out of New York City to a state that understands the meaning of enterprise. It is disturbing that if you make good in life, it's interpreted as a bad thing, and should be punishable by excessive taxation. Karl Marx would be very proud right now that our politicians are talking and discussing taxing the rich. Very proud! A millionaire's tax? What a joke!

---

by: thegoldengoose @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM UTC

Arrogance by any other name.... (4.00 / 4)

...would stink as much.  Do you not read the WSJ and FT?  Capitalism is under attack from its own unregulated excesses, not lap-dog NYS governance or Paulson, CEO-turned-Treasury-Secretary.

You "golden gander" types all think that hi fi is all about "effort and ingenuity"-- but, real economic inquiry shows that it is not the case.  Here's a good link on the issue of people who are "born on third base and think they hit a triple."  In future, please look for sympathy for your hard lot in life elsewhere, ok?

BTW-- lots of mainstream economists worldwide believe that appropriate taxation of the rich-- along with transparency enforced by effective regulation, including good-old-fashioned (Teddy Roosevelt would be proud) trust-busting-- is the only way to save capitalism from self-destruction. Oh, and Marx advocated producer control of the means of production, not progressive taxation.  You are confusing him with FDR and Eisenhower.  

The finance sector in NYS is bloated by the bubble.  Some of you are going to lose your jobs and bonuses, and your dreams of millionaire-hood along with. This will be hard on NYS, as we have an economy skewed by the growth of hi fi... but, we all must adjust.  Capitalism is going to have its correction-- we can no longer afford so many usurers sapping our productive capacity for no tangible benefit.

For more authoritative comments on this topic, see the "quick hits" to the right that I have posted from economists-- including Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Economics Prizewinner-- on why the proposed millionaires tax is a very good idea, both for NYS and for capitalism as a system.

---

by: robinia @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 13:02:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Adam Smith on Progressive taxation: (4.00 / 3)

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -From The Wealth of Nations

---

by: Roatti @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 13:38:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

forgot link, sorry, my bad (0.00 / 0)

That link is http://economistsview.typepad....

---

by: robinia @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 13:49:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More to the Point Here (4.00 / 3)

Once again, we see that despite his sponsorship of an occasional good piece of legislation, Brodsky is as much a part of the problem in Albany as Silver.  His complicity in asserting this profoundly anti-democratic (small "d") position that the only views to be taken into consideration are those held by a majority of the majority party, and that the will of the people, through all their elected representatives, is something to be thwarted and stomped upon, proves that he stands in opposition to the reforms that are necessary to restore our government back to the People of the State of New York.  He has no place in my vision for a better state.

---

by: The Maven @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 14:02:40 PM UTC

I'd be sort of okay with it (4.00 / 2)

because of my generally lowered expectations for state legislators - except that this is a guy who likes to call himself a "reformer" every now and then.

State authorities - must root out all problems!

Our own house, which we could clean up relatively easily - problems?  what problems?  I don't see any problems.

State government needs a cleaning, but people who enjoy their own filthy nests aren't likely to be the best cleaners.

It's sad.  All I can figure is that he wants to be Speaker, with the same power and prerogatives as our current problem.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 14:38:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The entire Assembly is rotten (4.00 / 1)

I would advocate a war of primary challenges against every single one of those hacks.  I don't expect it this year, but I look forward to 2010 when all thise council members will be term-limited out

---

by: Roatti @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 14:47:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The SYSTEM, not the people (4.00 / 1)

Beware young males counseling a war of all against all-- they know not the cost of warring.

New RULES... that must be directly the goal.  Saying we must defeat incumbents to get new rules is self-defeating, as the track record for doing that is terrible.  We will have to move toward the target very directly-- I like the pledge idea.  But, we ultimately have to move to a new system as a state, not as individual legislators.

---

by: robinia @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 15:05:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the people make the system (0.00 / 0)

What if the incumbents don't agree to the rules- what then?

---

by: Roatti @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 15:47:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The SYSTEM and the LEGISLATORS who populate it (4.00 / 1)

I'll confess, I don't understand what seems to be your total lack of interest in challenging the people who support this system, so long as they're Democrats.

I know you like our own district's Assembly member, which I can only regard as "off-base", but what?  You see her as a prisoner of the system, who could be doing much better work for us if the conference she's a part of wasn't voting privately under the great leadership of Sheldon Silver?

The rules have to change.  The current crowd of (majority) legislators  isn't interested or at least refuses to talk.  The way to get the rules changed, given the gutlessness of our legislators, is by competition. That means pushing people, specifically legislators, specifically through ELECTIONS - which is, after all, why we have elections in the first place.

(Or is that the next thing to go when our exalted legislative leaders decide that gerrymandering just isn't a powerful enough tool for ensuring incumbency of the pliant?)

Politics isn't war - but there are elections worth contesting.  All over the state!

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 18:05:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Realism (0.00 / 0)

Current stats for challengers winning elections over incumbents in NY leg is 5% success rate.

Meanwhile, many, many legislators, including mine, Barbara Lifton, are very frustrated by a system of Dem-Assembly/Rep-Senate, led by strong leaders (aka 3-men-in-room) that makes it exceedingly difficult to work for the causes and local needs that they are the most concerned about. I think we could work with that.

This is a strategy argument.  I think that the pressure should be kept up on the current legislators to adopt campaign finance reform and new rules, as per Brennan Center report and the Take NY pledge.  Both sitting and challenging legislators should be asked to pledge, and lobbied to adopt a new system.

Working with both sitting legislators and challengers also gives you the opportunity to fight every day, not every other year.  Like, for instance, has everybody signed up for this year's Reform NY Day in Albany?  If not, look here for info: http://www.commoncause.org/sit...

I think it is particularly poor form and not useful to bash sitting Dems (esp. in published media, where they can be quoted and cited by Republican challengers) when they are not even being challenged in a primary.  Poor party discipline, and to our collective disadvantage.  In no way do I think that incumbents should not be primaried-- as long as there is a credible announced challenger (not a wished-for superhero who hasn't decided to run). Work for and support whomever you like best, challenger or incumbent, but then, once a Dem is in office, GRASSROOTS LOBBY THEM. Do your utmost to convince them to support reform legislation. Listen, as well as educate, to find out how to be most effective.  This is, admittedly, much more work than supporting a White Knight challenger every election cycle and grumbling the rest of the time... but, if the Spitzer experience didn't teach us not to put too much faith in White Knight challengers who may not realize exactly how difficult change is to effect....

Incrementalism in implementing policy change has no ideological purity, but a long track record of actual accomplishment.  I really want to reform NY, however we possibly can. Will sign on to any viable strategy, once convinced it will work.  Have not seen "We should just throw all the bums out" work ever, dispite hearing it proposed consistently ever since I was a little girl.

---

by: robinia @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 19:22:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rushing-- here is correct link (0.00 / 0)

Sorry-- link is wrong for this year's Reform NY day above.  Here it is for real (for 2008!) http://www.commoncause.org/sit...

---

by: robinia @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 19:32:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is so much wrong here I don't know where to start (0.00 / 0)

but since I didn't record my conversation with Lifton (back in 2004), and since she asked that it be off the record, I guess all I can say is that you're deeply deluded about her views on Albany - or if her views have changed, her willingness to express them in public remains approximately zero.

She stumbles along, always willing to 'listen' but never willing to actually do anything public - at all - about the state of the chamber she theoretically represents us in.  In practice, she simply represents Albany to us, and rambles on endlessly about federal issues.  It's not a pretty picture.

Will she take up the TakeNY pledge?  Maybe we should ask her.  In public.  Often.  And if she does, will she do anything about it?

Of course we need to challenge our Democratic incumbents. They're not saints.  Politicians who are doing a bad job need to be reminded of it, and voters need to be reminded as well.  Even if we lost a quarter of our sitting Assembly members, we'd still have a majority, remember?

It's not about white knights - it's about creating a functioning government, which responds to voters who choose among options.

Ideological purity?  Come on.  This is really basic Civics 101.  I don't think this even qualifies as a partisan issue.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 19:51:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Problem (0.00 / 0)

with the statement is there aren't 44 GOP members in the Assembly there are 42. Add to that the dozen GOP NYcityburb ones do not even support congestion pricing. I love "theoretically" speaking. Yes, let's have Democratic war. Let's have new Assembly Democrats every 2 years in every seat as suggested here. That will surely bring desired order. "Theoretically" that is.  

But we need to do the same in the Senate. I'm not thrilled with how things are running over there. The Democratic Senators cowered behind closed doors and wouldn't come out and vote. Primaries all around over there I say. And it's not just the process of cowering over in the Dem Senate that needs changing - it's the people. I mean just look at who the Democrats elected, that new Senator Darrel Aubertine is really a Republican. He's anti-choice. He's anti-marriage equality and he's pro-guns. Time to primary him don't you think, I think I know someone.      

---

by: TruBlu @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:29:08 AM UTC

I'm down with primary-ing dumb Den Senators also (0.00 / 0)

but I'm willing to cut conservative Dems some slack if they represent very conservative districts, as Aubertine does

---

by: Roatti @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 15:48:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]