David Brooks' Mystery Man

by: prince nekhlyudov

Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 17:22:53 PM EST

Reforming the Taylor Law

by: Dan Jacoby

Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:31:57 AM EDT

The Taylor Law prohibits unionized government (or public authority) workers from staging any kind of work stoppage. The concept behind the law is that we as a society cannot afford to have our police or firefighters go on strike.  The transit strike a few years ago pointed up just how damaging some work stoppages can be.

The problem is that when workers can't strike they can't force management (the government or public authority) to negotiate. "Mike" Bloomberg forced police officers to go almost five years without a contract, because he refused to negotiate with them.  It can make one wonder what damage could be done when the morale of our first responders is affected by the mayor's refusal to treat them with dignity.

While the Taylor Law does provide for binding arbitration, the real-world fact is that nobody wants to go there -- ever.  Binding arbitration, unless there is some escape clause, has proven to be untenable time and time again. (Baseball fans will remember the days of binding arbitration there -- it was a disaster, as marginal players were granted exorbitant salaries while bona fide superstars were actually given less.) That's why, over the years when the NYPD was working without a contract, they elected to continue that process rather than go to binding arbitration.

The question, therefore, is what kind of changes should be made to the Taylor Law?  I offer one solution:

Allow the union to go to a judge, or to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and ask for a ruling that the government isn't "negotiatiing in good faith." There is a wealth of case law regarding this phrase, so we're on pretty stable ground here.  Once a ruling is made that the government isn't negotiating in good faith, the clock starts ticking; after a certain amount of time (say, 30 days), the union may go on strike if a tentative deal isn't reached. Perhaps during the "clock ticking" time a mediator can be brought in to try to help. The only two ways to stop the clock are for the government to get a ruling that the union isn't negotiating in good faith or for a deal to be reached.

Under this scenario, there is no need for binding arbitration, both sides will be required to negotiate, and contracts will be reached. Only in the most extreme circumstances (such as someone like "Mike" Bloomberg trying to exercise dictatorial control) will there be even the threat of a strike -- in which case the cost of our government workers not having a contract could be even worse, so the threat of a strike would be a better scenario.

Of course, for such a modification to be put into effect it would have to be passed in Albany, and right now there aren't a lot of people up there who know anything about negotiating in good faith.

NYC-Mayor: Weiner's Out

by: Roatti

Wed May 27, 2009 at 11:11:52 AM EDT

The other truth is that the Supreme Court decision in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo, which allows candidates to spend however much they want on their own races, makes it possible for billionaires to swamp middle-class candidates. In this case, a sports analogy is apt: If one football team has 110 players on the field, the team with 11 has a hard time getting through the blocking and tackling on the crowded turf.

The personal choice for me is whether to run for mayor this year. I've taken stock of my life, my work in Washington and decided that now is not the right time to run. I believe I have a contribution to make in Congress fighting for New Yorkers. (I'd also like to build a family.)

Essentially he makes 2 points: 1) it's good to be in Washington right now with Obama and huge Democratic majorities so he can be involved in lots of progressive lawmaking, and 2) Bloomberg will spend such ungodly amounts of money he would have no chance of winning.  Both are true.  

Bloomberg's re-election was already essentially a fait accopmpli, but now it's basically as in the bank as you can get.  I don't see any of the remaining candidates, Bill Thompson or Tony Avella pulling this thing off.  

QOTD

by: phillip anderson

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 08:32:09 AM EDT

"Well, my favorite players are the players on the two New York teams. And I have a daughter who's a professional athlete part-time, hopefully a student the other half of the time, and she's out of town. She'll be with me at the Yankees game. Not that she doesn't love the Mets, but she just couldn't arrange to be here today."

"But she once told me years ago, she said, 'You know, whether it's a good game or a bad game, whether they're playing well or playing poorly, they are trying their best, and you owe it to them to stay til the end.' And I think the only time we didn't was either at a Mets or a Yankees game. It was 1 in the morning, it was still going on, and she started shivering. And I said, 'George, I don't care what you say, we're outta here.'"

"But I plan to stay til the end of the game. Hopefully it's an exciting, high-scoring game, which is the kind of games that I like, with the New York team - in this case the Mets - winning."

"And I think, you know, not everybody stays til the end, but I have. Whether it's the Rangers or the Knicks or the Mets or the Yankees, or I suppose the Jets and the Giants, the few games I've been to, I stay 'til the end of the game or duck out 30 seconds earlier to beat the crowd, maybe."

"But short of that, it's going to be a good game, and I think this is going to be a great year for both teams. They're both exciting. They have new players and they have new stadiums to play in, and these stadiums are going to be wonderful for New York, and the teams are great. They build an esprit de corps here and they give people something to argue about."

"I saw the other day, the paper today, I guess it was that President Obama's minister has strong views about the Yankees. I happen to disagree with him. I don't know what my rabbi thinks about the Yankees, but hopefully I can't imagine that he'd hate the Yankees. Whether he's a Yankee or Met fan or both, I don't know, but he's certainly counseled a parishioner - namely me - to be both. All the best."

- Our Democrat - turned Republican - turned Independent - turned Republican again Mayor, Michael Bloomberg as quoted by Adam Lisberg (via Liz)

Feds Clear Last Hurdle For Perpetual Bloomberg Reign

by: phillip anderson

Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 12:28:51 PM EDT

The federal government has approved Mayor Michael Bloomberg's change to city term-limits law, clearing the final hurdle for the billionaire to run again this year.

Under the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department must approve changes to voting rules in New York City. Last fall Bloomberg got the City Council to approve an extension to the city's term-limits law so that he could run for a third consecutive four-year term.

The Justice Department's ruling was the final obstacle.

Thanks so much, Speaker Quinn and the rest of the City Council.

See you in the fall.

Parker's Term Limits Bill Clears First Hurdle

by: phillip anderson

Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 13:45:58 PM EDT

With fireworks not normally seen in committee hearings, the Senate Elections Committee just voted along strictly partisan lines to approve a bill that would require a voter referendum on the repeal of term limits.

It was expected to pass the committee, but is not necessarily expected to get much further.

Republican State Senators Tom Morahan, Joe Griffo and Tom Libous voted against the bill, with Libous leading the charge and raising questions. He claimed that there was not enough time to pass the bill and hold a referendum by May.

"The bill is poorly drafted and it should be specific to New York City," he said. His questions were cut short due to time constraints, causing more ire.

...

After the committee's vote-Chairman Joe Addabbo voted for the bill, as did Jose Serrano (by proxy), both Martin Malave Dilan and Brian Foley-Parker claimed that the Republicans opposed the bill in "collusion" with Michael Bloomberg.

"They're in the pocket of Mayor Bloomberg," he said. "The amount of money that Mayor Bloomberg gave to stop us from taking the majority is well-documented." (Libous denied any collusion with the mayor.)

Good times.

Headline Of The Day

by: phillip anderson

Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 14:26:38 PM EST

A target rich environment, no?

1. "Bronx" and "GOP." Those two words are pretty hilarious when used together. There is indeed a Bronx GOP, which is funny enough, but who exactly actually cares what they may be thinking? About anything?

2. The Republicans should give their ballot line to whomever they choose. It's their party, after all. I can see why they could have misgivings about putting Bloomberg on Row B. That said, whatever Bloomberg's shortcomings in the minds of the Bronx GOP, I wouldn't worry too much about Mayor Mike "ruining" the GOP "brand."

The GOP "brand" is already in the toilet. It's been in all the papers and stuff.

Bloomberg had nothing to do with that.

Getting Schooled By Hugo Chavez

by: phillip anderson

Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:44:31 AM EST

The people voted a while back to impose term limits on their political leadership. That was a nuisance for the man in charge. He was in his second term and prohibited by law from running again. But he sorely wanted to try for a third term.

Here's what he did. He went back to the people to ask if they'd had a change of heart.

Obviously, he was not from New York.

Ouch.

Six More Weeks Of Suck?

by: phillip anderson

Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 17:00:58 PM EST

Bloomberg To Raise Sales Tax, Cut 23,000 Jobs

by: phillip anderson

Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:37:42 AM EST

Mayor Bloomberg's bare-bones budget for next year will slash the city work force by 23,000 and drastically increase its sales tax, officials revealed Thursday.

...

Bloomberg's scaled-back plan plugs a $4billion deficit, but officials warned that the work force will shrink further if the state and feds don't approve reforms to city pensions, employee health care contributions and Medicaid relief.

...

Among those on the chopping block will be roughly 15,000 teachers and other educators, a move United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten warned "would be devastating" to schools.

Because what you want in a severe economic downturn is fewer teachers and cops.

Again, 'Not Ready For Prime Time'

by: phillip anderson

Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 14:34:22 PM EST

Of all the many ways in which Caroline Kennedy's brief and unofficial candidacy for the U.S. Senate was mishandled, one final ungraceful note is striking particularly close to home. Sources close to Senator Edward M. Kennedy tell TIME that his circle - including his immediate family - is furious that his brain cancer is being cited by some in her camp as the reason for her decision to withdraw her name from consideration for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton in New York.

"It looks horrible," says one former aide to Ted Kennedy. "It makes him look like he is at death's door." In fact, those close to Kennedy, 76, say that while the Senator is suffering occasional seizures, like the one that sent him to a hospital on Tuesday during the celebratory Capitol lunch for the newly inaugurated President, he is generally doing well. And they add that Kennedy is fully engaged in the effort to pass universal health-care legislation - a cause for which he has fought for decades, and one in which he will play a crucial role as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

"He is crazy about her. He encouraged her" in her bid for the Senate seat, one close associate says of Ted Kennedy's relationship with his niece. "But using him as an excuse, as though things were on the downward spiral, is not going to be O.K. with him ... This will get in the way of health reform" - by suggesting that a key legislator involved in putting the bill together may be incapacitated.

This is a person who thought she was ready to be a US Senator? From New York? Really?

Oh, and Halperin (I know, I know) adds this tidbit:

TIME's Mark Halperin reports that one knowledgeable Democratic source says there was another, unspecified "personal reason." The source says that it arose 48 hours before Kennedy fully expected to be chosen by Paterson. Without talking to her political advisers, Kennedy called Paterson and told him that she had a personal issue that made her inclined to withdraw her name. He told her to take 24 hours to reconsider. She took that time on her own, according to the source, and ultimately decided to stick with her original decision.

Whatever. I think we dodged a bullet here, folks.

The Losers

by: phillip anderson

Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:50:55 AM EST

Begin with Kennedy herself, who despite a measure of public appeal, ran an ill-conceived campaign to try to start at the top of the political world after little prior involvement. She didn't work the political circuit until after the fact, coming to campaigning only last year. There were years she didn't vote. She wasn't ready for prime time.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Kevin Sheekey, his deputy for wheeling and dealing, climbed out on a limb. Sheekey warned that Gov. David Paterson would commit "malpractice" by choosing anyone else. Bloomberg and his schools chancellor were unconvincing in their efforts to sell her.

There were the folks at the consulting firm Knickerbocker SKD, already blamed in consultant-land for Kennedy's stumbling rollout.

There are the Kennedy fans who believe in the Camelot legacy.

I'd add the Governor. This mess didn't need to drag on anywhere near this long. Also, it was pretty obvious that in addition to not being "ready for prime time", Kennedy never really seemed to even want it all that much. Paterson should have politely taken a pass. He didn't and it has now blown up in his face. (Knickerbocker SKD should have as well, but at least they were billing.)

Bloomberg and crew come off as the star-humpers they actually are, an aristocrat and his court embracing another.

Oh, and us, the ones who actually need a senator. The folks in DC are about to carve up one of the biggest federal pies in generations and we are reduced to a single senator. It's not like we could really use some of that money or a junior senator with even the slightest seniority edge or anything.

Lost of losers here. Like, 19 million or so.

Bloomie's a Gooper again

by: Exile on Ericsson St.

Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 00:58:34 AM EST

Mayor Bloomberg has begun reaching out to city Republican leaders to gauge whether he could run on the GOP line in his re-election bid this year, several sources told The Post.

I'll admit that an argument can be made that Bloomberg is an effective mayor.  But people delude themselves when they think he's really a Democrat.  

City Council To Voters: Screw You

by: phillip anderson

Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 16:49:18 PM EDT

As per usual, my Councilman, David "Which way the wind blows" Yassky, caved. What a weasel.

More. MUCH more on this soon.

Dear City Council, Please Vote Against A Term Limits Referendum. I Dare Ya

by: phillip anderson

Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EDT

A well-informed source called in to say that three Council members - David Yassky, Alan Gerson and Gale Brewer - are poised to introduce an amendment to the mayor's term limits bill that could throw a sizable wrench into the works of tomorrow's vote.

As I understand it, the amendment would change the last paragraph of the bill, which requires that it would take effect immediately, to require that the measure NOT take effect unless and until it is affirmed by a public referendum.

The amendment would also create a special election charter commission that would be tasked with setting up the referendum before the 2009 election.

...

It also complicates things for people who like to cloak themselves in the reform mantle, who can't argue now that they didn't have the opportunity to vote for the referendum bill because it wasn't on the floor.

No excuses now, huh?

On the web:

It's OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote

Term Limits Coup Scheduled For Thursday

by: phillip anderson

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 15:34:55 PM EDT

The City Council will vote on changing the city's term-limits law this Thursday, according to a Council spokesperson.

I guess this "gotta vote now" timetable shouldn't really surprise anyone. The Mayor and the Council Speaker know that the more people learn about the proposal and how it will be decided, the more they dislike both. A week ago, 75% of New Yorkers, "irrespective of demographics, borough, party or even opinion of the mayor or term limits in general" believed that this decision was for the voters, not for the Mayor and the Council. Today, 89% of NYC voters believe that VOTERS should decide this question, not the Mayor or his billions or the City Council.

The announcement also would seem to mean that the Mayor and Speaker Quinn believe they have the votes to pass this abomination, though only 16 17 members have had the guts to actually proclaim their support for it. That means that at least 10 Councilcritters are secretly for extending their own terms, but are too cowardly to publicly say so.

The Mayor and the pro "screw the voters" members of the Council know that the longer they wait, the more people learn about this affront to democracy, the more people actually learn what it is that they are about to do in their names, but without their input - the less they like it. The plan is to now rush this through the council and to the Mayor's desk post haste and hope that the voters either forget about the whole thing or are too stupid realize that anything has changed when they go to the polls next November.

Yeah, you really should be insulted.

On the web:

It's OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote

It's OUR Decision: Q-Poll Shows Overwhelming Support For Voter Referendum

by: phillip anderson

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM EDT

There's plenty of other numbers in the poll. A majority supports the very notion of term limits (62-29). A majority also opposes extending term limits so that Bloomberg can run again (51-45). These numbers are important, but they are nowhere near as important as the big one - who should decide. New Yorkers are crystal clear on that point by a better than 9 to 1 margin.

Today's poll tracks well with last week's NY1 poll which found that 75% of New Yorkers believed that the decision was theirs, not the Council's:

There is overwhelming agreement that voters should decide the issue in a referendum, irrespective of demographics, borough, party or even opinion of the mayor or term limits in general.

Whatever you feel about term limits, and as I have said many times, I've never been a huge fan of them, the decision to extend or retain them belongs to the voters that approved them not once, but twice. The WFP's Dan Cantor weighs in:

"Apparently the voters have heard enough and they've decided.  This poll makes clear that New Yorkers of all stripes agree with the simple proposition that in a democracy you don't change the rules of the game at the end of the fourth quarter just so your team can keep playing.  Whether you're for or against term limits, New Yorkers seem to agree: term limits should be up to the voters to decide."

"We're increasingly optimistic that Council members are getting the message and will consider the clear preference of New Yorkers when this comes before them for a vote."

There can now be no doubt where New Yorkers stand on the issue of who should be deciding this.

Will the Mayor and the City Council listen?

On the web:

Its OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote

It's Our Decision: 75% Of New Yorkers Say VOTERS Should Decide

by: phillip anderson

Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:40:35 AM EDT

Term Limits- Overview: Memo by NY1 Pollster Mickey Blum

• Let the people decide. Three-quarters (75%) of New York voters say they should decide term limits on a referendum-not the council. One-quarter say council (10%) or not matter (14%).

• By nearly 2 to 1 margin (62%-33%) city voters favor term limits for city elected officials.

• However, voters are more divided on the mayor's proposal to extend limits from 2-3 terms (50% oppose/44% favor).

• Majority oppose to having limits extended for the mayor only (55% not only for mayor/ 39% say okay if mayor only).

• There is overwhelming agreement that voters should decide the issue in a referendum, irrespective of demographics, borough, party or even opinion of the mayor or term limits in general.

• A smaller majority - but again a clear majority -approves of term limits in general. Again there is agreement across the demographic, geographic and opinion spectrum.

How much clearer can we be?

Is Anthony Crowell Stupendously Dumb? Or Is He Simply Full Of Crap?

by: phillip anderson

Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM EDT

"A special election to decide this question is far more problematic, and far less representative," he said, "than a vote by the 51-member Council."

I'll just say that I doubt Billionaire Bloomberg has a stupid lawyer.

You do the math.

On the web:

It's OUR Decision

Let NYC Vote

Come On Down To City Hall

by: phillip anderson

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 17:00:20 PM EDT