Read in the paper recently that Governor Paterson expressed his admiration for New Jersey Governor Christie for getting his agenda through the legislature. One reason for the admiration is that Paterson is trying to do much of Christie is doing in New Jersey (property tax cap, cutting jobs, no increase in taxes on the wealthy). Yes, in many ways, the Paterson agenda is a Republican agenda. However Christie is a Republican and the people of New Jersey knew what to expect when they elected him and to his credit, Christie has stuck to his ideals.  He also promised a blunt style that would butt heads with many legislators and he has delivered, even many New Jerseyites who don’t like his agenda see him as breath of fresh air.

The problem Paterson is having is that how he is acting as Governor is the opposite of how he has acted in public career. He has always been a progressive with strong ideals for social justice and a belief in having government work to help those in need. He also is someone that everyone liked and would pragmatically with others to get things done. His troubles stem from the 180 degree shift both in his substance and in his style. While there is no doubt that drastic action needs to be done to solve New York’s economic problems to do so in a way that at least seems to favor the wealthy over the less fortunate contradicts Governor Paterson’s past record. The legislature definitely needs to be whipped into shape but for the Governor to be making personal, sniping comments about his former colleagues is against his character.  This goes back to one of my political maxims, be true to yourself and you will be successful. If David Paterson had remained true to his ideals and his personality he might be running for re-election today. Some of Governor Christie’s early success has been due to his consistency.

Outside of the limelight we can see some of the potential that David Paterson has as Governor. He has been quietly going about the business of governing the State and doing many of  the things that improve the lives of New Yorkers. It is too bad that his own frailties denied him the chance to reach his full potential.  He should admire Christie and learn some lessons from him.

Some interesting thoughts I heard recently on the state of New York’s financial situation. The first was by City Comptroller John Liu. When asked why we cannot pass extra taxes for the wealthy he responded that the only reason people give is that the wealthy would leave New York. However, he continued that there are a number of reasons people would leave New York, high crime, bad education, dirty streets, bad public transportation, and a lack of affordable housing  just to name a few. These services are what makes New York livable and without them the wealthy and many others would leave. All of these are paid for by taxpayer dollars sometimes you need to raise taxes to pay for them. As the response to the disaster in the Gulf shows, people want their government there to provide services. However in many cases people don’t make the connection between these services and the taxes we need to pay for them. This is where the whole tax-cutting movement of the past 30 years and the anti-government tea party movement comes in.  Yes, we cannot just tax and spend but targeted tax increases to those who can most afford to pay them to pay for essential services cannot be ruled out.

Second is that I saw something in the paper that I have been wondering about concerning the size of the growth of the City and State budget. In the mid-1990′s when I worked for the City Council the City budget was around $30 billion and the State budget was around $60 billion. Now less than 15 years later these numbers have doubled. How did we get there? Since this is greater growth than the rate of inflation you cannot just blame employee salaries. Did we just open more and more programs (under the fiscally conservative Giuliani and Bloomberg?) or have a boom in big capital projects that we still need to pay off? Are there a lot of rich consultants and contractors out there due tot the City’s and State’s largess? How is it also that the same programs (libraries, senior centers) that help the poorest of our society always seem to be on the chopping block? The answer to these questions may explain the shape we are in. Anyway, I’d like to know.

After a delay of around a year, the full impact of the recession is hitting New York. Federal stimulus money and some kind of time delay might have blunted the blow for a while but it is clear now there is big budget trouble. I have always been of the opinion that national economic trends take a year to hit New York. For years everybody has gotten what they wanted as the budget grew bigger, unions got raises, business leaders got tax breaks and the good times kept rolling. Now the party is over and it is time for everyone to take a hit. Shared benefits needs to lead to shared sacrifice.

I am a Federal employee and our raise this year was less than half what we normally receive. However our union understood that in tough economic times we cannot get what we did in the past. The usual protests we raise to get what we deserve were absent. We knew that we had to sacrifice like millions of other Americans were doing. We were fortunate to have our jobs and any raise at all.  We also knew that the President was looking at all ideas to right the economic ship this meant raising revenue (taxes and fees) and in an important issue to us looking at the cost-effectiveness of the massive privitization the government had undergone over the previous 8 years. Re-examining privately contracted duties could both save government jobs and save the taxpayers money. The President has been looking at shared sacrifice and we as employees understood that.

This is not happening in New York State or City. The Governor is asking the unions to forego at least part of their agreed-upon 4% increase (for the record more than twice what I got this year) to help solve the budget deficit. The unions intrangience on this issue led the Governor to institute furloughs, that were later overturned by the courts, and now significant layoffs of State employees threatened in January.  The unions need to realize that getting a 4% raise now is unrealistic and they need to do their share to help the State’s economy. However, they should not be the only ones sacrificing. All options should be on the table including raising revenue. Options like the stock transfer tax, which would a few pennies on  every shares traded, should get serious consideration. This tax would mostly effect those that can most afford to pay it and would only be a miniscule addition to the cost of doing business in New York State. Those against the tax say it would drive the financial industry out of New York State and that all trades would be cleared out of state to avoid the tax. This is highly debateable and shoud be examined before ditching the idea. Also, like President Obama, the Governor should look at private contractors who are doing duties usually done by public sector workers to make sure we are getting a good bang for the buck.  Other ideas would be to rein in the out of control and un-monitored expenses of quasi-public authorities. These are just some of  the ideas to will show that all are sharing in sacrifice  that need to be in discussion before balancing the budget on the backs of public sector workers and the poor. The current,and future, Governor have to think in this way.

New York City also targets public sector workers, particularly teachers,  in balancing the budget. Massive teacher layoffs are threatened just when our kids need them most. However at the same time the Department of Education increases salaries of a number of educrats.  It is a basic truism that teachers are underpaid for the importance of the work that they do and while there needs to be some reform in union work rules to blame all education problems on teachers while heaping outsize salary increases on educrats is unfair.

In short be ready New York to feel the brunt of economic hard times. If sacrifice is not shared fairly then the only choice would be to drastically cut the services we all depend on whether it is education, health care, transportation or housing.

Yes, it’s hard to believe, but MTA President Jay Walder is actually speaking honestly about the MTA’s problems. As the MTA is making its budget requests and unveiling its new capital plan, President Walder is actually admitting the authority must change the way it does business.

Instead of just l0oking for the usual legislative handout and fare increase to solve the MTA’s budget woes President Walder is speaking about significant management and contracting reforms. He seems to acknowledge that much of the MTA’s budget woes come from how the MTA manages its money instead of just how much money it gets.  The news that he is looking into cancelling $40 million worth of contracts should be a welcome relief to straphangers. This blog has pointed out how much cost overruns have cost the MTA and without real contracting reform their will be no way to solve the MTA’s structural deficit problems. For too long taxpayers and ratepayers have been made to pay the price for the MTA’s mismanagement.

The capital plan also has a hopeful change of direction. Instead focusing its funds on a few big ticket items, the Walder-led MTA is looking to spread out the funds so that stations with needed repairs get it. Many stations are falling apart and are not getting the care they need causing a crisis in many communities.

The MTA’s track record is such that one cannot fully trust the implementations of good intentions. However, Jay Walder’s words are to be applauded and it is up to the legislature to make sure they are followed up with actions. Any future state aid should be contingent on reviews that show that the MTA’s new direction is being implemented.

The most obvious thing about Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to charge homeless people rent to live in City shelters is that it is immoral. The idea that the poorest among us that have lost their homes will need to pay for temporary shelter if they are lucky enough to get a job is just wrong. This is no way to help someone get that first step towards independence. People starting over have a number of issues to surmount need all the support they can get not the cold realities of the real world. The whole purpose of these shelters is to help people get ready for the world outside not to just thrust them into it.

Secondly the policy makes no sense. If people are supposed to be encouraged to find work, why penalize them by taking away some of their paycheck by charging them rent. Part of what people learn in shelters is money management, but there are many ways to do this without taking their meager earnings from them. Also, in order to move to an apartment people need to save for a security deposit and the first month’s rent. By taking their money from them the City will be slowing their rate of savings and their eventual transition to inedependent living. In many ways charging rent in shelters will perpetuate homlessness instead of helping to end it.

This policy is another example of when Mayor Bloomberg’s view from the top government is wrongheaded. This seems to symbolize a view many in the upper classes have that many homeless people are homeless by choice and in the case of this policy they should pay for the privilege of living in City shelters.  As someone who works with many homeless service organizations I know this is far from the truth. People in shelters want to get out of them and City policy should be geared to encouraging them in this direction, not the opposite. The State Legislature can stop this policy and needs to do so now.

It’s been like sharks  smelling blood in the water. The missteps of Governor Paterson and Congressman Rangel have led to a feeding frenzy on the part of the media that far exceeds whatever they have done. This has been most egregious in the case of the Governor. Even before the David Johnson affair erupted, the media went out of its way to cast the Governor in a negative light. He was made to seem constantly bumbling and making mistakes while none of highlights got coverage. He was constantly referred to as the “unelected” Governor as if that made him unqualified to govern. Never mind that he was elected Lieutenant Governor and like other LGs or VPs he succeeded a Chief Executive who was no longer able to serve per his constitutional responsibility. Never before in my lifetime has someone who has stepped into the role of leadership been treated so badly. Almost every headline was negative and his declining poll numbers inevitably followed. Ironic isn’t it that the same media is hollering for the unelected Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch to take over  and the Governor to step down. I do believe that Governor Paterson rightly decided not to run for re-election but now he deserves to fill out his term and not be forced from office, barring any revelations of criminal wrongdoing (Yankee tickets excluded).

There has also been a ganging up on Congressman Charlie Rangel. With no criminal charges brought against him and an ongoing investigation by the House the clamoring for his resignation has gotten louder. Never mind all the good he has done and all the good he can do New York as a Senior member of Congress whether it is the Right Wing hate groups or the blaring headlines he seems convicted already in the media, The leaders in his district see this and rallied to his defense at a recent breakfast in Harlem.

I ask myself why the vigor of these attacks on the Governor and the Congressman. To my eyes there is political, media, and business establishment that these two do not belong to. They do not inhabit the Wall Street Boardrooms or the Park Avenue Living Rooms and socialize with the same set of people. Paterson and Rangel represent an establishment centered on 125th Street not Wall Street. There is a circle of friends where Mike Bloomberg, Mort Zuckerman and Steve Rattner meet and while it may intersect with the 125th Street Circle at times, the two never completely intermingle. Having both Paterson and Rangel in positions of senior leadership threatens to move the balance of City power more to uptown from Park Avenue. So any chinks in the armor will be completely exploited to help shift the balance. Little wonder then that Eliot Spitzer, a creature of the Park Avenue establishment, is enjoying a renaissance and a career rehabilitation thanks to the media.  Little wonder that Mike Bloomberg’s missteps, such as his cronyism and hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on the CityTime contract, rarely get much coverage in the media. 

Both David Paterson and Charlie Rangel have made some mistakes that may in the end chase them from public office. However the media’s rush to push them out is far too hasty and may be a case of the Establishment Striking Back.

Governor Paterson recently remarked that he needed to get back to being more direct. He realized that this helps him get his message across and may yet save his campaign. Politicians too often parse their words in order not to offend anybody they end up saying nothing. This is a large communication failure and a disservice to their constituents. People respect leaders who speak directly. Tell the people where you are going, what you are going to do and they will respect you for it. They may not always agree but they will give you strong leadership points. While I disagreed with George Bush and Ronald Reagan with just about everything, they always spoke directly to the people about what they were going to do and the people followed them. Governor Paterson began his term speaking directly on the budget and other issues and this led to a uptick in his poll numbers. If he is able to directly speak to the voters he may be able to bring his campaign back from the brink.

The 2010 elections are seeing a new breed 0f Democrats in New York. They call themselves “independent” Democrats and in many ways they are direct descendants of Mike Bloomberg. They come out of Wall Street and reject many of the populist stands taken by the Democratic Party. They claim to be attractive candidates because they bring “new perspectives” that are different from traditional Democratic solutions. But their approach is in many ways antithetical to the values of the Democratic Party.

The most visible of these candidates is Harold Ford. After losing a Senate race in Tennessee, Ford came to New York as a Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch and became Chair of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and now is weighing a run against New York’s junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Merrill was a casualty of the financial collapse and is now a unit of Bank of America and Ford has taken a leave of absence to explore his  Senate run.  Ford is being bankrolled by a number of Wall Street titans. He projects an everyman charm on the campaign trail but his interests are those of the elite. While many Democrats, including President Obama, feel that there is something wrong with Wall Street paying itself record bonuses after being bailed out by the government, Ford sees no problem with these bonuses. This not surprising considering who’s paying his bills and that he is probably due a big bonus.

Another new Democratic candidate from Wall Street is Reshma Sanjani who is running in the primary against Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. Samjani has been an attorney for a number of Wall Street companies. She also has little problem with  the bonuses being doled out on Wall Street and wants to implement more pro-business policies. Carolyn Maloney has been a progressive Democrat, standing up for labor and progressive policies the needs of all New Yorkers. Sanjani, like Ford, thinks these stands are a little outdated. Sanjani is young, attractive, and represents a new immigrant community. Voters in Maloney’s district must not let this shiny surface distract them from the beliefs that are under the surface. A new approach is not necessarily a better approach.

Mike Bloomberg has gone on record saying New Yorkers should be calling Congress to urge them to allow Wall Streeters to get paid more because New York needs the money. While the cash is needed short term this not the right policy for the long term.  Our representatives in Congress need to be looking for long term solutions to diversify our economy not increasing our bets on Wall Street. Gilllibrand and Maloney are working hard on these solutions, Ford and Sanjani appear more committed to helping Wall Street, echoing Bloomberg’s wishes. We should not be replacing two quality Democrats with Bloomberg followers. Like Bloomberg they claim to be independent, but they represent the financial industry, New York’s biggest special interest.