Our Transit Authority Faces Challenges

While most eyes are on the compromise deal in Washington, DC to raise the debt ceiling and cut federal spending, here at home in New York, the MTA is losing its leader, seeking debt it is not sure it can repay, seeking fare increases during a troubled economy, and facing the recent revelation of being over budget and behind schedule on some of its major projects.

New Leader Needed

In July, the MTA Chairman, Jay Walder, announced that he was resigning, effective October 21, 2011. Walder was appointed by then-Governor David Paterson, and while he was viewed as controversial by labor advocates, he developed a reputation as an effective and competent leader.

Walder is resigning to take a role leading a company that operates rail systems in Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, London, Stockholm, and Melbourne. Though he was a very highly paid public official with a long-term contract, the private sector offered him superior compensation and, presumably, a superior opportunity to build a record of success. There is not necessarily a villain in the Walder departure. New York State attempted to solidify its relationship with Walder through the structure of his contract, and Walder can hardly be faulted for taking a dream job as the head of a global leader in his field. Though there may be no villain, the private sector's gain is the public sector's loss.

Financial Challenges

The MTA has experienced budget challenges in recent years and chose last week to seek to borrow nearly 7 billion dollars for key projects, despite the warnings from the MTA's own finance committee chair that the additional debt may represent a "ticking time bomb." To achieve only the "fragile stability" that Jay Walder says is represented by the borrowing and by additional fare increases sought by the MTA, the MTA will be forced to also seek wage freezes from MTA workers. The MTA will be challenges at every turn.

Behind Schedule and Over Budget

In addition to wasting $26 million through poor management of its recent track work, the MTA is billions of dollars over budget and many years behind schedule on its most high profile projects.

As NY1 stated in December 2010:

A new report finds the cash-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority is going way over budget on its major construction projects. The MTA inspector general says the Long Island Rail Road extension to Grand Central, the Second Avenue subway, and the Fulton Transit Hub are a combined $1.93 billion over budget. The report finds the projects are also up to five years behind schedule. In fact, the report finds the railroad link may not be finished until 2018. The first leg of the Second Avenue subway is expected to be completed in 2017. The inspector general blames a lack of oversight and squabbles between managers and consultants hired by the agency for the delays.

Perhaps the arrival of a new chair of the MTA is an opportunity to fix the fiscal problems and the management problems that have plagued the MTA. The status quo is not an acceptable standard.

Budget Blame Game in NYC

Mayor Bloomberg is cynically suggesting that the New York City budget cuts he is proposing are being forced upon him by decision-making regarding the New York State budget in Albany. In reality, the Mayor is proposing enormous cuts in education to confuse taxpayers into thinking that Albany is setting the Mayor's budget priorities.

Albany Budget Turmoil

There is no question that Albany has not generated confidence in its budget efforts this year. The budget in Albany must be completed by April 1 under New York State Law. But, we are well into May this year, and there is no sign of a state budget.

That unsettling performance has added to an already dire budgetary picture at the local level. With the state facing a huge budget deficit in 2011, and with no clarity on what the 2011 state budget will be, municipalities across New York State are bracing for significant reductions on state funding.

Amongst the problems facing Albany is reduced federal funding. The federal stimulus dollars that President Obama fought to bring to state governments across our country immediately after his inauguration are now running out. In 2011, New York State (like so many states) will have exhausted nearly all of the support provided by the stimulus package passed by Congress in 2009, thereby creating increasing pressure on state budgets that are already strained beyond the breaking point. In 2012, essentially all of the stimulus money will be gone.

Until now, stimulus money spared governors and state lawmakers from making some of the most brutal budget cuts. But with this lifeline running out, officials are looking at making significant cutbacks to public services, particularly schools and health programs. "The stimulus funds have staved off what could have been even deeper cuts," said Todd Haggerty, policy associate at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "You're seeing states now are coming to that point where they will have to make additional cuts or find new sources of revenue for fiscal 2011 and that will continue in fiscal 2012."

Phony Blame for Albany

Despite the national impact of the end of the stimulus money, the Mayor has insisted on blaming Albany for the cuts that NYC will have to make to its own spending. In reality, NYC has choices it must make in the face of reduced revenues, and the Mayor has decided that primary and secondary education should be singled out to suffer in these lean times. Ironically, the Mayor focused his campaign for re-election to a third term, in part, on the assertion that he had been and would be successful in improving the NYC public schools.

Having overturned the New York City Charter in order to allow himself to run for a third term, and having been re-elected by a slim margin despite outspending his opponent by an order of magnitude, the Mayor is now using the prospect of undermining the public education system to shift blame away from himself and to Albany for the budget cuts he chooses to implement. If indeed Albany had the final say in how NYC's budget was designed, changing the New York City Charter in order for the Mayor to seek a third term would seem silly, or worse. But, we went through the trouble of accommodating the Mayor's need to be the Mayor, and, now that he has four more year to rule over his subjects, he should not be permitted to suggest that his budget priorities are set by politicians in Albany.

The budget cuts proposed by the Mayor are the Mayor's choices and reflect his priorities. He has decided that he will not cut any police jobs and that he will concentrate nearly all his cuts in the educational system.

We hope to see the Mayor adopt a more responsible set of budget priorities and a more responsible approach to communicating with the public about the budget choices he is making.

Soda Taxation Frustration

Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson have erred in pushing for a "soda tax" in New York. The plan to tax non-diet soda at 1 cent per fluid ounce is both regressive and illogical.

Regressive Taxation . . . Again?

We have been very critical of Mayor Bloomberg's love of regressive taxes. In 2009, the Mayor relied on regressive taxes to close his budget gap.

Regressive taxes should be avoided. By asking those with the lowest incomes to pay more of their income in taxes than those with the highest income, we increase inequality, punish poverty, dampen spirits, and promote social ills. We also lose moral authority. For privileged people to demand more of those with lesser privilege than they do of themselves creates an impression of reverse-Robin Hood politics - shifting wealth and income from poorer individuals to wealthier individuals based on a belief that wealthier people will make better use of the wealth being shifted. Mayor Bloomberg, as a multi-billionaire, may hold a view that wealthier people should have greater wealth than they do today and that poorer people should have less, but such a position is political untenable, morally repugnant, and contrary to basic principals of macroeconomics. When poorer people obtain additional wealth, they increase demand in the economy, which creates jobs and increases profits for businesses. Wealthier people are more like to save or invest additional cash - activities that are not unhealthy but that cannot create the level of economic growth that consumer spending does.

Ironically, the Mayor is supporting Governor Paterson in this regressive soda taxation effort. Paterson is likely the most progressive Governor in the history of our state, but he seems to be willing to ask the poor to fund his budget gap because the gap is so large. He should find another way.

A soda tax would take a far larger share of income from poor and low income New Yorkers than from those more fortunate. It is a classic regressive tax, and unlike cigarette taxes, it cannot successfully be defended on the basis of a claim that soda consumption is uniquely dangerous or unhealthy.

Illogical

Advocates for the soda tax have attempted to justify it as a health measure, but making such claims undermines the credibility of the advocates.

Soda is singled out for taxation on the basis of its contribution to obesity, but candy bars, cakes, cookies, pies, and ice cream would not be affected. Can anyone argue that we should encourage New Yorkers to eat more candy bars and ice cream but drink less non-diet soda as our strategy for reducing obesity in New York? Even amongst drinks, soda is not the worst offender. Soda and orange juice have approximately the same amount of sugar. Grape juice has 70% more sugar than soda. If it is sugar consumption which we want to reduce, we should tax grape juice as well as candy bars and ice cream before we go after soda.

Also, obesity is a result of excess calories and a lack of exercise. We could subsidize exercise, tax calorie consumption, or tax excess weight itself of we want to encourage healthier behavior. Perhaps the Governor should set up weigh stations for people; if people are found to have lost weight based on voluntary official state-sponsored weigh-ins, they should be eligible for a tax credit.

The search for additional government revenues should focus elsewhere. Soda is not the source of our problems, and it shouldn't become our whipping boy.

Accountability In Vogue

After a second horrible political week in a row for Upper Manhattan, we look forward to the future.

Paterson Faces More Questions

The lesson seems to be re-learned again and again. The cover-up is more of a problem than the initial act. Governor Paterson has been accused of encouraging an accuser of one of his aides to avoid cooperating with the investigation into the investigation. That misstep has combined with his low poll numbers and his unwise attacks on the Kennedy family to cause him to announce that he will not seek re-election. Last week brought new allegations and new calls for the Governor to resign.

Those calls for resignation preceded the release of new ethics findings suggesting that Governor Paterson lied under oath with regard to a handful of World Series tickets he received from the Yankees (We are skeptical of any Yankee-related accusations, because Governor Paterson is a Mets fan). The situation may remind many of former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy's legal troubles during the Clinton Administration. In Espy's case, there was no cover-up, and Espy was found not guilty of each of the mountain of charges he faced. The key is to avoid the cover-up.

Speaker Silver has expressed a desire to see Paterson remain in office, for now. We can all imagine that absorbing yet another NY governor resignation may cause more chaos than cleansing. Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch is enormously respected and has demonstrated the skills one seeks in a Governor. But, elevating the Lt. Governor will create new problems as he would seek to replace the Paterson staff and advisers with individuals he trusts personally. The budget negotiations may need to be re-started, and Governor Ravitch may choose to seek the appointment of a new Lt. Governor.

All of those challenges may be less problematic than the challenge of a lame duck Governor facing multiple investigations for misconduct.

Let us hope that Paterson proves to be an effective lame duck in spite of the allegations and investigations he faces.

Rangel's Gavel

Upper Manhattan's Congressman, Charlie Rangel relinquished his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Though all of the allegations against him relate to sloppiness rather than greed or corruption, he found that he was creating more political problems for his Democratic colleagues than he was willing to endure. He stepped aside.

We hope that after the 2010 election, Congressman Rangel will return to his role as Chairman of Ways and Means or be placed in another high-impact chairmanship in the House. His 40 years of service may make him as effective leading another committee as he would be leading Ways and Means.

Bloomberg Must Be Scrutinized

The Paterson and Rangel troubles have reminded us that politics is a tough business. Warm-hearted people who would never harm another person can be hit with mud and attacks that don't end until they force a resignation (or that even go beyond the resignation, as in the Espy case). Both men will continue to face attacks from political opponents and journalists, and both men will face intense additional scrutiny in the coming months.

But, Mayor Bloomberg has escaped scrutiny for far worse deeds than the allegations of misconduct facing either of Paterson or Rangel.

Bloomberg has set a new record for stop-and-frisk activity in NYC, and he has permitted that activity to focus only on Black and Latino residents of New York City. Despite many protests, Bloomberg has continued to collect and retain data about the hundreds of thousands of NYC residents that are stopped each year. If Paterson had ordered the state police to stop hundreds of thousands of white residents (but to avoid stopping non-whites) and retain their personal details, does anyone think that he wouldn't be held accountable for that act of racial discrimination, poor policing policy, poor judgment, and violation of the rights of the people of New York? Bloomberg gets away with it every day. A New York Times columnist sought the resignation of the Police Chief because of the "gruesome and racist" practices of the NYPD in a column last week. But, the Police Chief takes direction from the Mayor. The fish rots from the head. Bloomberg should resign.

Bloomberg aggressively fought to continue the racial discrimination against African Americans in the Fire Department of New York. Even after the courts ordered him to cease the racial discrimination, Bloomberg expressed his wish to continue the discrimination.

Bloomberg moved nearly all gifted and talented programs in the New York City public schools out of communities of color and consolidated those programs in white communities.

Bloomberg was responsible for the deaths of fire fighters, and he interfered with the prosecutorial process related to those deaths. The father of one of the deceased fire fighters expressed his disgust with the double-standard in place to protect Bloomberg from being held accountable for his actions.

Regarding the governor's actions in the possible intervention between his aide and a woman, the media and politicians are all stating that any allegation of improper influence must be investigated thoroughly and completely.

Where was this same concern when the mayor's office admittedly intervened into a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney of the Deutsche Bank fire, which killed my son Joey Graffagnino and fellow Firefighter Robert Beddia? The mayor's office even brokered a deal that there would be no criminal charges against any government agency or general contractor Bovis.

Where was the outcry from the media and politicians? Where were the cries to have an in-depth and thorough investigation into the mayor's office's actions? I guess the rules are different for a powerful mayor than they are for a besieged governor. How come no one has asked the attorney general to investigate this hypocrisy of justice? After all, the Deutsche Bank building is state-owned and state funds were spent.

Justice and unbiased investigations are more than just words. They are the foundations that all Americans are to believe and adhere to. Equality should be the same no matter if you're the governor, the mayor or a common citizen. Would the attorney general investigate the city's actions and the DA's actions into the Deutsche Bank fire and subsequent actions since then, or must it be during an election year? - Joseph Graffagnino

Now that we have found ourselves fixated by the desire to hold our elected officials accountable for their behavior, we should apply the accountability standard to Bloomberg.

Skin Color Requirement for Ethics

As we see the sad end of Governor Paterson's campaign for Governor and the US House's Ethics Committee admonishment of Charlie Rangel, we are reminded that we have overcome coordinated attacks in the past, and we will win again. More than ever, we have an increased awareness of the impact of skin color on political determinations.

Bad Week for Upper Manhattan

The New York State Police committed horrible crimes under Pataki, they engaged in criminal behavior on behalf of Spitzer, and their culture of criminality has ended Governor Paterson's run for Governor. We hope that Governor Paterson will clean house at the New York State Police headquarters and not leave this mess for his successor. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo did not create this mess, and he has no obligation to fix it from his current seat.

The NY Times unjustified and inappropriate attacks on the Governor will now appear justified by the behavior of the New York State Police. That should not be permitted.

Similarly, Upper Manhattan should not permit Chairman Rangel to be undermined by the Ethics Committee of the US House.

Skin Color Requirement

The Ethics Committee of the US House admonished Chairman Rangel for taking a Caribbean trip that the Ethics Committee had specifically authorized. The approach to the trip was guided by the Ethics Committee staff, but the Ethics Committee (with a straight face) chose to pretend the there was mild wrong-doing by others instead of simply apologizing for their own lack of integrity and lack of competence.

The comments of one member of Congress tell the story. House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, said she found the action “puzzling and inconsistent” because the ethics panel gave Rangel and five other lawmakers permission to take the trips and “five of them are exonerated of everything but Charlie is not.”

Even more troubling is the requirement that those investigated by the Ethics Committee be African American. In November, we learned that 100% of the members of Congress under full-scale investigation by the Ethics Committee are African American.

A document leaked to The Washington Post [in late October] showed that nearly three dozen lawmakers have come under scrutiny this year by either the House ethics committee or the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog created in 2008 at the insistence of Pelosi. While the list contained a substantial number of white lawmakers, the ethics committee has not yet launched formal investigative subcommittees with respect to any of them — as it has with the seven African-American members.

Why does the Ethics Committee attack members for activities that the Ethics Committee pre-approved? Why does the Ethics Committee have the view that it can only conduct full-scale investigations of African Americans?

Perhaps the "culture of corruption" that many of us thought was engineered by the Bush White House is still a potent influence within the Ethics Committee.

Stringer Food Fight Continues

Manhattan Borough President deserves praise for his creative, policy-oriented fight for improve nutrition and a better food strategy for all of New York City. We have analyzed his previous food proposals and been vocal about our enthusiasm for his approach. We will discuss his detailed and updated food plan in greater detail in the future, but his consistent attention to this issue is a reminder of how fortunate we are to have the benefit of his leadership here in Manhattan.

NY Times Humiliates Itself With Attacks on Our Governor

Last week, the New York Times twice published articles attacking Governor Paterson and his staff. Both articles were actually signs that the New York Times is lost at sea. They did no damage to the Governor.

Off the Mark on Paterson Aide

In the first article, the NY Times attacks the Governor by attacking his aide, David Johnson. The article takes us through Johnson's ascendancy from juvenile legal troubles to driver for Senator Paterson to advisor to Governor Paterson. Sprinkled in the story is a discussion of how Johnson has had difficult break-ups with girlfriends and that police had been called as part of a break-up. They cannot cite any reliable evidence of domestic violence, but they choose to call the Governor a hypocrite for his support of Johnson and his denouncing of Senator Hiram Monserrate. There are no arrests, no active complaints, and nothing about which to write an article for the New York Times.

The whole approach is tabloid-style and not at all appropriate for the NY Times, which has a record as a legitimate source of news. In this instance, they examined an important person in public life (who is nearly 40 years old, by the way) and wrote an article asserting that his sealed juvenile record and girlfriend break-ups shed a bad light on the elected official that promoted him - shameful.

The Governor's response was on-target.

The New York Times has chosen to splash [David Johnson's] youthful offenses across the pages of its newspaper – even though the courts of our State have ordered them to be sealed. Mistakes committed during one’s youth are determined by law to be kept sealed for a reason – to give a young person a second chance at a productive life. I profoundly believe in this principle of redemption and giving young people a second chance.

The more recent allegations reported on by the Times would be extremely troubling if true – but the conclusions reached by the Times report are not supported by the facts. There is no independent evidence presented that would substantiate any claims of violence committed by David Johnson against a woman, a fact underscored by the absence of a single judicial finding that any such incident ever took place. I would caution others from making a similar rush to judgment.

Swing and a Miss Part II

The New York Times had the same reporter who wrote the first piece of garbage take a second swipe at the Governor.

The second attack is a long article that is even more embarrassing to the NY Times than the first article and criticizes the Governor for paying for a $300 meal with campaign funds and for being asleep when a major plane crashed occurred in Buffalo at 10:20pm one evening. In their grasping at straws and groping in the dark for reasons to criticize the Governor, they revealed how little information they have in their possession that sheds a bad light on the Governor. Despite the Governor's low standing in the polls, it is difficult for his detractors to identify specific deficiencies.

Once again, the Governor summed up the situation quite well.

After weeks of expectations, and a circus-like atmosphere fed by the worst of Planet Albany, the New York Times article finally published today offers no explosive revelations about Governor Paterson. Despite a nasty and seemingly coordinated effort to attack the Governor based on nothing but rumor and innuendo, what we are left with is a profile of a sitting governor tackling historic challenges in a time of crisis for our State. It should not be news to anyone who has followed Governor Paterson’s fight to reform Albany and bring fiscal discipline to State government that the special interests and chattering classes are opposed to his efforts. These attacks will not stop Governor Paterson from standing up to the special interests and fighting for the people of New York.

Lowered Standards

If the poor quality of journalism and lacking integrity of these two articles represent the future for the NY Times, we have a great deal to mourn. After more than a century as an example of quality journalism, the New York Times appears to have given in to the pressure from to become a tabloid, lower its journalistic standards, and participate in biased attacks on individuals in public life.

One wonders where the New York Times finds the flexibility to ignore Bloomberg's million dollar gift to the Independence Party (the nearly $1 million payment Mayor Bloomberg made to the Independence Party during last year's campaign has been accounted for as being received by an entity that didn't exist until after election day) and write two long articles attacking the Governor for an aide's youthful mistakes and the Governor's good taste in Manhattan restaurants.

Rangel Takes the Lead with Haiti Tax Bill

Last Week Was an Amazing Week

On Tuesday, the Democratic Party suffered a major set-back in the race for the Massachusetts seat in the US Senate held for decades by Ted Kennedy.

Harold Ford and Andrew Cuomo continue to move toward challenging fellow Democrats for the US Senate and for Governor against our friend Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (the US Senate's youngest member and perhaps the member with the brightest future) and Governor David Paterson, Respectively.

Errol Louis summed up the state of the Harold Ford for Senate effort in yesterday's New York Daily News.

Harold Ford's problems in trying to unseat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand go way beyond his amusing, near-total ignorance of New York's geography, culture and politics. The doors shutting in the face of the newcomer from Tennessee are being slammed by activists who have every right to wonder where Ford has been the last few years, as ferocious battles over serious issues were taking place.

Cuomo is much better positioned to challenge our Governor than Ford is positioned to challenge our Senator, and Cuomo is expected to announce his intention to seek the Governor's Mansion at the end of March. The poll numbers and campaign war-chest figures make Cuomo the favorite at this time, but the primary is eight months away.

In the latest polls, Cuomo has a 64% job approval rating compared with Paterson's 31%. Cuomo also has $16 million in his war chest, while the governor has just $3 million.

Last week, Haitian relief efforts continued, and despite the passage of more than a week since the devastating earthquake hit Haiti, survivors were rescued as late as yesterday.

As New York's rescue team in Haiti returned to us, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel made the most of his persuasive position as the leader of the tax-writing committee in the US House to bring additional support to the Haitian relief efforts.

Rangel to the Rescue

Last week, the US House of Representatives passed unanimously a bill proposed by Charlie Rangel to accelerate the deduction, for tax purposes, of charitable contributions made to support Haiti. While charitable contributions made in 2010 would typically be available to taxpayers to reduce taxable income only when filing taxes in 2011 (April 15, 2011 would be the filing deadline), Chairman Rangel convinced the US House to allow taxpayers to deduct 2010 charitable contributions from their 2009 taxes if the contributions are made before March 1, 2010. The impact is obvious. By allowing taxpayers to take advantage of tax deductions twelve months earlier than would typically be permitted, Chairman Rangel is making financial support of the Haitian relief efforts more economically attractive and, thereby, driving increased giving to the Haitian people during this difficult time in the their country's history.

The US Senate followed Chairman Rangel's lead and passed his bill last week by a voice vote. It now heads to the White House for the President's signature before becoming law.

We can add the people of Haiti in 2010 to the long list of individuals and groups that have benefited from the extraordinary leadership of Chairman Rangel. Let us hope that our fellow Americans, who have been quite generous with regard to Haiti, are inspired by the accelerated tax benefits to be even more generous during this time of need.

Correcting NYC Corrections

NYC is now investigating why it hired a convicted criminal who led a robbing and shooting spree (that resulted in a death) as a teenager to be the firearms instructor for the NYC Department of Corrections. The same firearms instructor is now being investigated for buying illegal weapons. We should keep a careful eye on this process to see if the Bloomberg Administration has a double standard.

When Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg accidentally, the Mayor demanded that he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He was sentenced to jail time, despite so many New Yorkers' views of his crime as victim-less. In the case of the NYC Department of Corrections, a violent gun incident in the life of a city employee seems not to have prevented him from being the firearms instructor. We'd like to imagine that we'll find that we have uncovered an honest mistake, but the record suggests that we're just finding new evidence of the injustice of the Bloomberg approach.

Obama Attacks NYC as NYC Extends a Hand to Haiti

Last week, the President declared that he is seeking a new tax on the financial services sector, and the tragedy unfolding in Haiti captured the attention of the people of our city.

Obama's War on NYC Continues

We have come to expect the Obama Administration to attack NYC, but we are having difficulty understanding why the President's dislike of New York City would cause him to undertake policies that threaten to undermine the overall US economy.

During the early part of 2009, we focused on the counterproductive attacks on NYC that were originating in Washington, DC. We were alarmed when the Congress and the President sought to outlaw bonuses of more than 1/3rd of salary at each of the institutions that took TARP money (even at the institutions that took TARP money because they were ordered to do so by the Treasury Department), and we were stunned when the House of Representatives voted to tax Wall Street bonuses at a 90% rate.

We were frustrated when the President attempted to order our Governor (the first African American Governor in the history of our state) to step aside and leave the Governor's mansion to another Democrat, and we were disappointed that the President was unwilling to support Bill Thompson's campaign to become the second African American Mayor in the history of New York City.

But, we had started to look at 2010 as a new beginning - the start of an era of cooperation between New York City and the federal government. We were wrong.

Last week, the President declared his intention to proposed a 0.15% tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions. The President's advisors estimate that 60% of the anticipated $117 billion in government revenue achieved by this new tax over 12 years would come from the 10 largest financial institutions. He made this declaration despite the fact that credit availability in our country is still inadequate, and despite the fact that the financial services sector's largest institutions have paid back their TARP money with interest. The federal government has already made a 14% return on the TARP money that was provided to the financial sector, and the federal government ownership of many of the financial sector's institutions will lead to even greater returns.

Someone has convinced the President that the banks will start lending more money to more credit-worthy individuals and institutions if the federal government requires more of the assets of the banks to be sent to the federal government as tax payments. The logic is very difficult to understand unless we see this latest maneuver as part of a pattern of anti-NYC policies coming from Washington, DC.

We applauded when Governor Paterson addressed the need for all New Yorkers to work to defend the financial services sector from these types of attacks with his remarks in December 2009.

He addressed the issues by stating, "You don't hear anybody in New England complaining about clam chowder. If you say anything about oil in Texas, they'll string you up from the nearest tree. We need to stand by the engine of our economy in New York State, and that engine is Wall Street."

He also used his Twitter account to reinforce his views. "Iowa, corn. Michigan, autos. Texas, oil. NY, Wall Street . . . We must stand behind the engine of our state's economy & strengthen it.""If we support Wall St, and make the tough choices necessary to stabilize our state, Wall St will help NY as we build a New Economy."

Ironically, the latest attack by President Obama is targeted specifically to New York City. The Detroit auto industry (Chrysler and General Motors) was a major recipient of TARP money, and the Washington DC based Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the federal government. Yet, none of those private companies' shareholders are being asked to pay additional taxes to the federal government. The financial services sector, headquartered and concentrated in New York City, will pay the tax on behalf of all of the sectors that benefited from TARP. Paterson was correct to assert that we need to speak more aggressively in favor of our city and our state. Clearly, the Michigan politicians have been successful in convincing the President that New York should pay the bill for the disastrous state of the Detroit auto industry.

We need to fix this problem quickly in order to promote a healthy economy for our country as well as to promote fairness for New York.

Haitian Relief Efforts

New York City is home to the largest number of Haitians in the world outside of Florida and Haiti itself.

We have a special connection with the Caribbean national that led the way toward the emancipation of slaves. Because the Haitians freed themselves from slavery in the early nineteenth century, freedom of Black people throughout in North America became a goal for many. Haiti paid dearly for its leadership with regard to notion that human beings should not be owned as property - Western nations abused Haiti and demanded enormous payments from Haiti in order to allow goods to flow to the nation. Western nations were determine to discourage others from seeking freedom by making life in Haiti as horrible as possible, but the Haitian nation persevered and has remained free for two centuries while still suffering from the legacy of abuse from the outside.

You can help the recovery effort in Haiti with your gifts. The number of organizations poised to turn your gifts into a brighter future for Haiti is seemingly endless, but the need is equally daunting. If you have already provided aid to Haiti, we thank you.

If you are planning to offer support but have not had the time to do so, we hope that you will choose an organization and make a contribution today.

Looking Back on 2009 and Moving Forward

Looking back, 2009 was a transition year at the national level. We moved from Bush to Obama in the White House and from an falling economy to a stabilizing one. Here in New York, a great deal of positive change occurred, but not everything was positive.

Troubled Waters Mix with Euphoria

The year began with the selections of Hilliary Clinton for US Secretary of State and our friend Kirsten Gillibrand for the US Senate as well as the joyous inauguration of President Barack Hussein Obama as our nation's 44th President. With the economy still reeling from the Fall 2008 meltdown in the financial markets, we swelled with pride as the progressive Democrats took control of our national government. So many of our friends now had the authority and the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of Americans and even change lives around the world. It was a special beginning to a year at a time when all of knew that our country was looking for reasons to return to optimism.

But, before we could get through March, Washington DC and the national government chose Manhattan as its scapegoat and punching bag. Even the President of the United States went on the attack. While the Congress failed to implement the worst of the anti-Manhattan legislation they considered (even some that passed in the US House), the President and many others continue to look for opportunities to punish Manhattan as Manhattan's financial community attempts to rebuild its strength in order to help rebuild the US economy.

Thankfully, our Governor has refused to stand by quietly as one of his state's leading industries is attacked from all quarters. Let us hope his leadership in this regard begins to change the trend toward undermining our country's advantage in financial services.

Bloomberg's Arrogance Expanded

When Mayor Bloomberg refused to accept the President's offer of food stamp money in early 2009, at the height of the anxiety over the economic challenges facing the United States, many considered it out-of-character. At Manhattan Viewpoint, we saw it as part of a trend of poor decision-making, anti-poor policies, and intense arrogance. We were proven right as the year continued.

In May, Mayor Bloomberg arrogantly chose to impose regressive taxes to reduce his budget deficit - in effect, he decided that poor people's taxes were too low, but those with high incomes couldn't afford any greater tax burden. In that same month, we found out that Bloomberg's NYPD was on a pace to set a record of stop-and-frisk activity - an activity targeted almost exclusively at African-American and Hispanic New Yorkers. In his arrogance, the Mayor has refused to step back from this racist and counterproductive policy. He has even fought law suits aimed at ending it and those aimed at forcing the NYPD to delete the personal data collected on the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are stopped each year.

In July, Mayor Bloomberg insulted all of us by giving his senior staff retroactive raises in the middle of a horrible economic crisis and just after he had asked poor people to shoulder the burden of his spending.

As the race for Mayor in 2009 became tight, Mayor Bloomberg played the race card and 1) became a strong advocate for Giuliani as the next Governor of New York State, while 2) stating that New York City would become as unlivable as Detroit if Thompson were elected.

Ultimately, Bloomberg was successful in defeating Bill Thompson in the race for Mayor, but he was humbled by the small margin of victory after outspending Thompson by more than 10 to 1 and after spending a record amount - more than $100 million - on his campaign.

Successes and Failures in Albany

Governor Paterson and the New York State Legislature deserve enormous credit from repealing the Rockefeller Drug Laws, but they came up short in the fight for marriage equality. New York State should be leading the way in providing human rights to all of its residents. We have failed to do so.

We did allow incarcerated women during child birth to be unshackled, a worthwhile and difficult fight.

The chaos that gripped Albany in June subsided in July as order was restored. Later, Governor Paterson's choice for Lt. Governor, Richard Ravitch was allowed to take office by the New York State Court of Appeals.

President Obama's Lack of Support

Unfortunately, the President was unsupportive of Bill Thompson's campaign for Mayor and has been downright ugly in his efforts to push Governor David Paterson out of the Governor's Mansion to allow Attorney General Andrew Cuomo a chance to take over that position.

With the year now at its end, we are able to look forward to 2010, a year in which, at the national level, health care reform is likely to face an historic vote early in the year after the House and Senate meet in conference to attempt to reconcile their two bills. The year will also see Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand both face re-election challenges (though neither actually has an opponent yet). Governor Paterson and Attorney General Cuomo will have to decide whether they are both running for Governor in the September Democratic primary or if one will support the other in that effort (Rock Lazio is the only serious Republican contender for the Governor's office at this point).

So much is at stake in 2010 - we can hardly wait.

Percy Sutton

We lost Percy Sutton last week. He was the personification of Manhattan and as clear an example of a Manhattan progressive as there is in the world. We wish his family well, and we are aware that we were blessed to benefit from his presence in our great city for so many years.

Praising Paterson's Wall Street Defense

Last week, New York's Governor Peterson became the first elected official to aggressively challenge the notion that punishing Wall Street is good for the economy. We hope that others will follow his lead.

War on Manhattan

As we have stated on many occasions, Manhattan's economy is heavily influenced by the health of the Wall Street economy.

One third of New York City's employee earnings come from the financial sector, and when that sector suffers, New York City suffers. As many in Washington, DC continue to design plans to undermine the ability of Wall Street firms to offer competitive compensation packages and retain their best employees, we are encouraged by our Governor's courageous defense of the unpopular US financial sector.

If New York City and New York State have any hope of closing their budget deficits, it is through resurgent Wall Street profits and tax revenues from the compensation received by New Yorkers who work in the firms that drive the world's financial system from headquarters located in Manhattan.

Moreover, if the US federal government makes it more difficult for firms to lead the financial sector from the US, those firms will leave Manhattan and move to other parts of the world. Manhattan's place as the world's financial capital is an economic and national security advantage for the US, and sustaining that advantage requires the type of attitude that Governor Paterson expressed last week.

Paterson's Thorough Defense

In Saturday's Presidential address, President Obama took aim at Wall Street and stated that Wall Street caused the recession through which we are all now suffering. He said that the cause of America's current economic struggles was "the irresponsibility of large financial institutions on Wall Street . . ." The US House passed sweeping financial regulatory reforms recently, and as we await Senate actions on that House bill, the President seems to be gearing up to support attacks Wall Street with these new regulations and perhaps other legislative proposals that may win him political points but will undoubtedly add greater burdens to our troubled economy here in New York City.

Governor Paterson addressed the war on Manhattan last week in a speech.

"Some people think that if you deny the bonuses, that the money’s coming back to the American taxpayers. It’s actually the other way around. If you deny the bonuses, the money stays in the firms. It’s when you pay out the bonuses that you start to get the huge tax collections that New Yorkers see."

He followed up later.

"You don't hear anybody in New England complaining about clam chowder. If you say anything about oil in Texas, they'll string you up from the nearest tree. We need to stand by the engine of our economy in New York State, and that engine is Wall Street."

He also used his Twitter account to reinforce his views.

"Iowa, corn. Michigan, autos. Texas, oil. NY, Wall Street . . . We must stand behind the engine of our state's economy & strengthen it."

"If we support Wall St, and make the tough choices necessary to stabilize our state, Wall St will help NY as we build a New Economy."

Governor Paterson, you said it well.

Taking Authority Over Authorities

Last week, New York State took a major step forward toward government accountability by establishing oversight over most of the nearly 1,100 authorities that have governed in our state for decades without checks and balances.

Authorities - The Shadow Government

Authorities in New York State operate as if they are self-contained independent governments. They collect fees and issue bonds. They often have layers of their own bureaucracy and have, until now, never been forced to operate in a transparent manner or face the scrutiny of any other part of the government. These authorities are often referred to as a "shadow government" because of their enormous power and lack of oversight by other entities.

There are many estimates of the number of authorities operating in New York State, but the New York State Comptroller's office has suggested that the total number approaches 1,100. Some of the most well-known and most important are the Port Authority (which manages each of the major New York City metro areas airports as well as several bridges and tunnels), the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (which manages New York City's subways and buses), and the Dormitory Authority (which builds all of the public hospitals and higher education buildings across New York State).

In total, these authorities have built up a debt load of $150 billion and are key sources of employment and governance within our state.

Oversight From Albany

In a major development that changes the shadow government into a set of quasi-governments that are accountable to the state government in Albany, Governor Paterson signed legislation last week that brings the authorities out of the shadows.

While some experts have suggested that reform must go farther than simply demanding accountability and must include reducing the number of authorities as well as limiting their power, the first step is a necessary and valuable part of improving the overall quality of government and the level of accountability in our state.

The reform legislation will:

1) Establish the creation of an independent Authorities Budget Office to oversee authority operations
2) Allow for Comptroller review of contracts for more than $1 million that do not result from a competitive bid process
3) Mandate enhanced financial reporting, mission statements and measurement reports by public authorities, so that the State and the public know what authorities are doing, as well as their financial condition
4) Strengthen the rules governing the disposal of property by public authorities to prevent the give-away of public property to private developers
5) Strengthen the rules governing contact between lobbyists and employees of public authorities
6) Regulate the formation of subsidiary corporations and the issuance of debt by subsidiaries in order to place limits on the amount of debt issued by those corporations
7) Require board members of a public authority to perform their duties in good faith, in the best interest of the authority, its mission and the public in order to ensure that public authorities act responsibly
8) Create a Whistleblower Access and Assistance Program to protect those individuals who report wrongdoing.

With improvement in Albany still necessary, we are pleased to see Albany starting to take control of the authorities that play such a major role in our lives.

Ravitch to the Rescue After Obama Falters

Last week, we learned that President Obama has pressured Governor Paterson to step aside in the 2010 gubernatorial race. We also learned that Richard Ravitch is now the Lieutenant Governor of New York State. If we had heard the good news on Ravitch earlier, perhaps we never would have heard the bad news on Obama.

Ravitch to the Rescue

In July, Governor Paterson appointed Ravitch as Lieutenant Governor to fill the seat that Paterson himself vacated to become Governor when Elliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace. At the time, the New York State legislature was in turmoil because the State Senate was evenly split between supporters of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. A Lieutenant Governor would have provided a tie-breaking vote.

But, many disputed the constitutionality of the appointment of Ravitch, a public servant with a spotless reputation and a history of achievement. The lowest courts rejected the appointment as unconstitutional. No Lieutenant Governor had ever been appointed despite the fact that the position had been unoccupied at times.

Last week, the highest court in New York State sided with Paterson and declared that Ravitch's appointment was constitutional. We are confident that Ravitch will serve with distinction.

Perhaps if the support of the courts for the Ravitch appointment had come earlier, the President would have saved himself and Governor Paterson a great deal of embarrassment.

Obama Falters

President Obama has pressured Governor Paterson to drop out of the 2010 race to retain his post at the helm of the executive branch of the government in New York State.

If the timing had been different, President Obama could have appointed Governor Paterson to a high post at the national level and allowed the new Lt. Governor to become the new Governor in New York State. Instead, such an appointment was unrealistic until last week because there was no Lt. Governor. The succession plan for New York State was unclear, and Governor Paterson would have been viewed as irresponsible if he had vacated the Governor's post without clarity regarding who would lead New York State thereafter.

The clumsy and public manner of President Obama's efforts to undermine Governor Paterson seem so unlike President Obama. Obama is a master poker player who keeps his cards close to his vest. One wonders whether President Obama is already losing his touch or if there is something (or someone) outside of team Obama driving the White House attacks on Paterson.

The most recent editorial in the Amsterdam News expressed the views of many. Paterson should refuse to follow the guidance of the President. He should run in 2010. His best revenge will be victory.

And what an unfortunate spectacle for our community to see: its first African-American president asking only the third Black governor since Reconstruction and the first African-American governor in the State of New York's history to quit without a fight.

A governor who, in a short and difficult time, has been able to end the dreaded Rockefeller Laws, get our famously unruly Legislature to settle on a budget on time, and lead the MTA out of its most serious financial crisis in recent memory. And on Tuesday the Court of Appeals ruled that Paterson pick Richard Ravitch could indeed serve as lieutenant governor. The former MTA chief had been handpicked by Governor Paterson, leading to some Republicans to file a legal challenge.

They begin to throw out “If Giuliani runs,” trying to scare folks into saying that Paterson cannot take him on. But does Giuliani want to run? Does he want to be governor? Does he want to deal with the headache of a crazy Legislature? Does he want to do the work? Does Giuliani want to do the fundraising and campaigning so soon after his crushing and humiliating defeat in last year’s presidential race? And is his donor base ready to invest in him after his poor showing when he was presumed to be the front-runner in that race as well? And has he even paid off his debts that he ran up for his presidential bid?We don’t know what the mercurial Giuliani has on his mind. And we do not expect to know until after the November elections. So why ask Paterson to bow out now? Why not wait until November, or longer, to make any kind of decision? Giuliani does pose a clear challenge to the governor. He plays to the worst instincts of white New Yorkers. From his days of inciting a police riot against David Dinkins before he became mayor, to ignoring Black and Hispanic New York City residents and criticizing Black male victims of police brutality, it was an ugly reign of terror for people of color during his eight years here in New York City. But there is a catch-22 or a “chicken before the egg” scenario here. If Paterson stays in the race, does Giuliani get in? If Giuliani gets into the race, does Paterson get out? If Paterson gets out and Giuliani stays out, Andrew Cuomo sweeps Rick Lazio—but anyone could mop the floor with Lazio—so, in that case, why doesn’t Paterson stay in? The whole house of cards is built upon the assumption that Giuliani will run. That is not a foregone conclusion, far from it. And maybe this time New Yorkers will rise above the demagogue tactics of the visceral former mayor. Getting Paterson out would create a free ride for Cuomo to the governor’s mansion, unopposed by a person of color in a primary. And the Cuomo family has not earned that. Make Andrew Cuomo earn our votes. Don’t let him be anointed. And Gov. Paterson, stay in the race. You can still win.

Unshackling Child Birth for Incarcerated Women

New York State decided late last month to end the practice or chaining pregnant incarcerated women to their hospital beds during childbirth. The practice, called "shackling", has been outlawed by the New York State Legislature and Governor Paterson. New York is the sixth state in the US to outlaw shackling.

Health and Safety During Childbirth

New Yorkers should be proud that New York is one of the first states in the United States to outlaw the shackling of pregnant women during childbirth.

Until now, pregnant women were routinely shackled during childbirth. Advocates for incarcerated women, such as the Correctional Association of New York, have led the fight for the safety of these women and the elimination of the shackling activity throughout the state. The Correctional Association interviewed women who were shackled during childbirth and has allowed all of us to read there stories. The American Public Health Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Women’s Association, and American College of Nurse Midwives all supported the imposition of restrictions on shackling pregnant women in prison.

While some may object to the ability of incarcerated women to give birth without being chained to their beds, we should all remember that 83% of women in New York State prisons are non-violent offenders, that 84% of women in New York State prisons are first-time offenders, and that 75% of women in prison were victims of domestic violence. These women are, with few exceptions, not a threat to themselves, their babies, or to the hospital personnel. The new law allows for precautions to be taken in special circumstances and recognizes that exceptions are necessary.

Childbirth is traumatic and stressful without shackles; it is not a realistic opportunity for escape or to attack others physically. In the states that have eliminated the practice of shackling women during childbirth, there have been no escape attempts.

Paterson's Support

Governor Paterson attended a rally in mid-August in support of the legislation that outlawed the shackling of women during childbirth. His willingness to lead and his eagerness to address the needs of a somewhat unpopular constituency (incarcerated women and their unborn children) deserve special praise. Whatever his faults, Governor Paterson has proven to be a consistent and valuable force for addressing longstanding problems in our state's criminal justice system. He signed the legislation repealing the Rockefeller Drug Laws, and he rallied for and signed the legislation that enhances the likelihood of successful childbirth for incarcerated women and their children. The achievements should not go unnoticed.

Another Bloomberg Blunder - And - Albany Reloaded

Three days ago, Mayor Bloomberg announced retroactive raises for his senior staff members, demonstrating once again his unlimited arrogance.

Separately, New York State Senator Pedro Espada came full circle in his turncoat / traitor odyssey and rejoined the Democratic Party to give the Democrats a 32 to 30 majority in the New York State Senate. As part of his double-cross of the Republicans, Espada will be elevated to the role of Majority Leader in the New York State Senate. So, it seems that crime does pay after all.

Bloomberg's Retroactive Raises

Mayor Bloomberg has surpassed his previous demonstrations of arrogance with his granting of retroactive raises to nearly 7,000 members of his staff. In essence, the Mayor's team will receive bonuses representing the additional earnings they would have received if the raises had begun 16 months ago. They get a 4% raise for all of last year and a 4.16% raise for all of this year.

As absurd as the bonuses and raises appear on their face, a broader context illuminates how unacceptable this latest mayoral maneuver really is.

1) The Mayor demanded that City Council change the City Charter to allow him to seek a third consecutive term, despite two referenda in which the people of New York City voted overwhelmingly to disallow Mayors to serve for three consecutive terms. In arguing for the third term, Bloomberg has suggested that the intense economic and fiscal crisis facing New York City requires keeping Bloomberg in power (ignoring the fact that Bloomberg got us into this mess). Bloomberg's answer to the economic and fiscal crisis is to give huge bonuses and raises to his staff. Now, at least one of the Deputy Mayors will have a higher salary than the salary provided to the Mayor's office by law. The third term seems unwise.

2) At Manhattan Viewpoint, we have been highly critical of the Mayor's decision to use sales taxes to balance the city's budget. The Mayor's obsession with protecting high earners from taxation has resulted in a painfully regressive budgetary approach that relies on poor people to pay more taxes to fill in the budget gaps created by the economic downturn and by the Mayor's unfortunate reliance on Wall Street revenues during his first 1.5 terms. It is ultra-shameful that a mayor who so thoroughly believes in regressive taxation would be so generous to his own senior staff during a fiscal crisis. He is demanding that poor people pay more so that he can pay his top advisers more.

3) Bloomberg is setting a record pace for stopping and frisking people of color. He has given the crime of "walking while black" the official City Hall stamp of approval, and his administration is retaining all of the personal information of those that are stopped. 90% of those stopped are non-white even though whites who are stopped are 2.5 times more likely to have illegal substances or weapons in their possession. Yet, Bloomberg will stop and frisk more people of color this year than any mayor has ever stopped in New York City.

4) The Mayor chose to reject federal aid from the Obama administration because it would have expanded the availability of food stamps to more poor people.

Bloomberg is demonstrating the type of leadership that suggests he should have had only one term and should certainly not attempt to impose a third term on our great city.

Albany Reloaded

Pedro Espada came roaring back into the Democratic Party late last week. Given his weaknesses and challenges, no one should be pleased that he is now the New York State Senate Majority Leader. While the Democrats have waited about 70 years for the opportunity to set the public agenda for New York State, relying on the loyalty and leadership of Pedro Espada is not at all consistent with the progress we must make in our state. He is more likely to be indicted or declared ineligible to hold the office to which he was elected than to turn out to be a leader that we should admire. For now, Espada's latest move puts the Democrats in charge of the New York State Senate. Given the Democratic control over the State Assembly and the Governor's Mansion, the Democrats are now responsible for making tangible improvements and have no excuses and no one to blame but themselves if they fail.

Lt. Governor Controversy

Governor Paterson appointed a Lt. Governor last week despite guidance of the New York State Attorney General and from decades of precedent that suggested that he did not have that power. While we are not qualified at Manhattan Viewpoint to challenge the Governor or the Attorney General on the proper interpretation of the New York State Constitution, we certainly are qualified to state the obvious: a Lt. Governor chosen under circumstances that many credible people see as unconstitutional will be bogged down in litigation and will not be legitimized until all legal challenges to his appointment have been defeated.

The Governor's choice, Richard Ravitch is an excellent choice in terms of a person whose intellect and integrity are unquestioned. We just may not get the opportunity to benefit from the services of this superb public servant for weeks and months while we wait for the legal process to come to some conclusions about the legality of the appointment.

Same Sex Marriage Would Improve the NYC Economy

Last week, Governor Paterson proposed that the New York State Legislature adopt legislation legalizing same sex marriage. We note that legalizing same sex marriage will improve New York City's economy while living up to our moral obligation to end the discrimination in our state and in our city against homosexual residents and the outcome of that fight will be determined in the New York State Senate. This fight for liberty and equality will be decided in the New York State Senate, and the outcome is completely uncertain.

State Senate at the Crossroads

The legislation proposed by Governor Paterson passed the New York State Assembly by a wide margin in 2007, but it failed to get to the floor of the New York State Senate. Since then, the Democrats have taken over the New York State Senate by a very thin majority, making adoption of the legislation more likely but uncertain.

It is rare in the New York State legislature for a vote to be taken in either chamber on a piece of legislation that the leadership of that chamber is not certain will obtain a majority vote. With this piece of legislation, the vote will be too close to call right up to the moments before the vote.

Economic Growth and Same Sex Marriage

City Comptroller Bill Thompson produced a report in 2007 that attempted to estimate the economic impact of legalizing same sex marriage. His analysis suggested that New York State would benefit from approximately $250 million of economic activity over three years simply from the weddings that would take place in the state after the legalization of same sex marriage. He also estimated that $175 million of the $250 million would be economic activity benefiting New York City.

Many couples living in New York City would take advantage of the new law and begin planning weddings, while both New York City and New York State would benefit from out-of-state couples coming to New York for their weddings. New York's hotels and banquet halls would see increased activity. The sooner New York State acts, the greater the benefit, as the lack of equivalent opportunities in neighboring states will increased the economic activity in New York State in the near term. Longer term, we'd expect neighboring states to follow our lead and provide equal rights to their residents irrespective of sexual orientation

Benefits of Marriage to New Yorkers

There are more than 1,100 federal rights and more than 1,300 New York State rights available to married couples that are not available to couples who are not married. Therefore, the prohibition against marriage for same sex couples in New York State who wish to marry is equivalent to the systematic denial of nearly 2,500 rights to those New Yorkers.

An excellent example of the types of rights that only married couple enjoy is the spousal privilege - a married person cannot be compelled to testify in court about communications with his or her spouse. Without marriage, there is no privilege, and same sex couples who wish to marry are left without this crucial protection.

Beyond the enormous psychological benefits of marriage, we must recognize that there are thousands of important rights that are available only to individuals who are married and that, by preventing some of our fellow New Yorkers from gaining the status of being married, we are participants in a state-sponsored discrimination exercise that attacks our neighbors.

Being a Better New York

Legalizing same sex marriage makes us all better. It continues the march to greater personal equality and freedom that our country has undertaken - from slavery to Jim Crow, women's suffrage, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, to today. It adds hundreds of millions of dollars to our economy and vindicates our self-image as a land of equal opportunity.

We urge the New York State Senate to support Governor Paterson in this historic battle.

Paterson Budget Properly Reduces Juvenile Detention Facilities and Improves Safety in Manhattan

We are grateful to Charisa Smith for serving as our guest blogger for this week's Manhattan Viewpoint. She currently serves as the Director of the Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New York. http://correctionalassociation.org/JJP/index.htm

Her mini-bio appears after the blog entry.

With New York State in a fiscal crisis, the closure of several underused juvenile incarceration facilities would generate much needed savings. For example, the Great Valley facility in upstate New York costs $1.7 million to keep open. http://juvenilejusticenow.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffalo-news-close-underused-facilities.html This facility has no residents, employs less than 30 individuals. http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0910/fy0910littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf It is part of an ineffective juvenile prison system that includes as many as 500 empty beds. http://juvenilejusticenow.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffalo-news-op-ed-successful.html

The Governor's budget proposes closing six juvenile jail facilities — including Great Valley — and three evening reporting centers, while two residential centers would be downsized. The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) spends more than $170 million to operate its juvenile placement facilities. The agency estimates the downsizing of its facilities will result in $12 million in savings in 2009-10 and $14 million in 2010-11. http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0910/fy0910littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf).
Why should the state spend between $150,000 and $200,000 to incarcerate a child for one year http://juvenilejusticenow.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffalo-news-op-ed-successful.html when it would cost only $12,000 per year to send a child to a community-based alternative program that would vastly improve outcomes for both the child and society at large? http://www.correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/jjp/proposals_for_reform_2006.pdf

Creating smaller, rehabilitation-oriented, community-based facilities for court-involved youth can be coined as "right-sizing" the juvenile justice system. Paterson's plan to continue right-sizing the system can significantly improve services for children and reduce the number of youth who are unnecessarily incarcerated.

Incarcerating fewer children will actually make for a safer New York. A 1999 OCFS study found that 81 percent of boys and 45 percent of girls released from OCFS custody were rearrested within 36 months. http://correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/jjp/factsheets/Youth_in_OCFS_Nov07.pdf

Yet New York City's Administration for Children's Services' Juvenile Justice Initiative diverts foster youth who are placement-bound as a result of juvenile delinquency findings, and reports that fewer than 35 percent of participating youth have been rearrested or violated probation. http://correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/jjp/factsheets/Youth_in_OCFS_Nov07.pdf Other alternative to incarceration programs boast recidivism rates as low as 20 percent. http://www.gothamgazette.com/print/2541 Further, in his State of the State Address on January 7th, Governor Paterson noted that “. . . crime in New York has decreased for 17 consecutive years. Today, New York is the safest large state, and the fourth-safest state overall, in the entire nation.” http://www.ny.gov/governor/keydocs/speech_0107091.html

New York State cannot stop at closing juvenile jails. A commitment to reinvesting public money saved from right-sizing into much less costly alternatives to incarceration and detention, and other community programs, is integral to New York's well-being. Government officials must have the foresight to recognize that community-based alternatives are the key to saving taxpayer dollars that would otherwise be spent on government benefit programs, more incarceration, and law enforcement in the future.

These alternatives help turn troubled youth into productive citizens and restore hope to impoverished communities. Further, alternative programs better prepare children to reintegrate into society by providing access to services that include mental health and medical care; evidence-based, family-focused programs that have proven to reduce youth crime; substance abuse treatment; youth development and employment programs; and special education services.

Proponents of juvenile facility closures can anticipate opposition from public employees' unions, some community members and certain legislators who voice concerns about job losses. OCFS has publicly stated its intention to help staff from the affected facilities secure positions at other facilities or other state agencies. Further, in a time in which all sectors are cutting positions, keeping facilities open that are underutilized and fundamentally unhealthy for youth to save jobs becomes harder and harder to defend.

Paterson's plan to reduce juvenile facility capacity deserves broad-based support. So do additional community resources that would provide youth with needed support services to enable them to become law-abiding citizens. In times like these, the New York State must implement and enhance programmatic remedies that save money, enhance public safety and reform our juvenile justice system.

Charisa Smith is a graduate of Harvard University and Yale Law School. She has worked in the juvenile justice field for six years and currently directs the Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New York. Ms. Smith co-directed Yale’s Legislative Advocacy Clinic. With her deep devotion to public service, Ms. Smith has worked for two human rights organizations in Latin America, a New Jersey Assemblywoman, U.S. Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, the Covenant House Youth Advocacy Center, the Youth Law Center, and a New Jersey Superior Court Judge.

Most recently, prior to joining the Correctional Association, Ms. Smith was part of the Legal Aid Justice Center’s JustChildren Program through an Arthur Liman Public Interest Law Fellowship. There, she spent two years conducting re-entry advocacy for juveniles in Virginia. Ms. Smith is a licensed attorney in New York, New Jersey and Virginia.

Audacity of Hope in Caroline's Visit to Upper Manhattan

With the Holiday Season upon us, Caroline Kennedy is aggressively campaigning to receive a gift from Governor David Paterson. She is looking to convince Governor Paterson to appoint her to the Senate seat that Senator Hillary Clinton will vacate when she is confirmed by the Senate to the cabinet position of Secretary of State. She seems to believe that she is a good choice to be a Senator despite the fact that she has carefully avoided being involved with nearly all public policy issues for her entire life, has not announced her position on the key public policy issues facing our state and our country at this time, and has generally chosen not to vote in most recent elections. Here at Manhattan Viewpoint, we are not supporting any candidate for the Senate position, but we are not enthusiastic about the rising drumbeat of support for the candidacy of Caroline Kennedy. We are not satisfied that any person's first full-time job should be as a United States Senator.

One Man. One Vote.

Though she is traveling around New York State meeting elected officials and important thought-leaders (including a trip this past Thursday to Harlem to meet with Al Sharpton), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/12/18/caroline_kennedy_hits_harlem.html the decision regarding the replacement for Senator Clinton rests with one individual, the Governor of the State of New York. It is truly a one-man, one-vote system. There is only one voter in this election, and election day occurs whenever that voter chooses to conduct it. The Governor can choose anyone who meets the qualifications set forth in the United States Constitution (at least 30 years of age, a citizen of the United States for at least 9 nine years, and an inhabitant of New York State). Given those qualifications, Caroline Kennedy seems to meet the minimum standard.

No Experience Necessary

We are waiting to see evidence that Caroline Kennedy is a capable campaigner and fundraiser for her own candidacy. We are waiting to hear why she is a better choice than any of those in New York State who have sought elected office and been successful. We are waiting to hear her positions on the issues that will affect the lives of those of us who live in Manhattan. Her recent effort to give brief written responses to press inquiries riased more questions than it answered and hinted that she would would not work to elect Democrats in New York City in 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/nyregion/21kennedy.html?_r=1

Senator Clinton faced the voters in a primary and in a general election. She had never been elected to office, but she had been a leader in children's issues, healthcare, and many other favorite topics for progressives. She had been an aggressive advocate for many constituencies and had battled the opponents of those constituencies. She had stood in the arena and done battle. She had lost some battles and won some battles, and Senator Clinton learned from both the victories and the defeats. She had been a public figure fighting for public policy issues and important causes since her graduation from law school.

Caroline Kennedy is more than 50 years old and yet has never taken on a controversial issue (other than her opposition to Hillary Clinton's campaign for the White House in 2008). We are left to wonder whether Caroline Kennedy's first steps into the tough world of electoral politics should be to support Carolyn Maloney for the Senate seat and then to seek Maloney's vacant house seat. She could support the candidacy of her former in-law Andrew Cuomo and then run for Attorney General (she has an Ivy League law degree). She could seek an appointment to a prominent non-elected position from Governor Paterson or from President-Elect Obama. But, instead, she is seeking this gift from Senator Paterson despite her lack of experience and her previous apparent lack of interest in the key public policy issues affective our lives.

The Audacity Not to Vote

The clearest evidence that Caroline Kennedy has not been interested in political issues is the fact that she chooses not to vote in most elections.

Manhattan Viewpoint has discussed the sacred nature of the right to vote. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/11/leave-no-voter-behind-tomorrow.html As we said on the eve of the 2008 general election:

It has long been a cliché to many, but it is a truth that one cannot ignore. For many of us, our ancestors died to give us the right to vote. To squander that vote or to relinquish it because of inconvenience would be obscene, whether we have faith that our individual votes will shape the outcomes of elections or not. Because the 15th Amendment (1870) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) were victories secured by the blood of our ancestors, every election day is a sacred day, and we show our respect for those who made our votes possible by going to the polls and by encouraging everyone we know to join us in that sacred activity - tomorrow and every election day of any sort.

Against this backdrop, we have learned that Caroline Kennedy doesn't view voting as an important activity. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/18/2008-12-18_records_show_caroline_kennedy_failed_to_.html In fact, she did not vote in approximately half of the elections that have occurred since she registered to vote in 1988 on the east side of Manhattan. She failed to vote in the primaries for Mayor of NYC in 1989, 1993, 1997, and 2005, meaning she was absent for the historic victory of David Dinkins over Ed Koch as well as the race that put Ruth Messigner at the top of the Democratic ticket to take on Rudy Giuliani in 1997. Her recent unwillingness to pledge to work to elect Democrats in 2009 is consistent with her refusal to participate in Democratic primaries in NYC during the last 20 years. She might view herself as non-partisan or post-partisan. I suspect that Governor Paterson is seeking a Democrat with an eagerness to support the election of other Democrats to replace Senator Clinton.

Caroline Kennedy also missed both of her chances to vote for Carl McCall in his effort to be the first black Governor of New York State. She didn't vote for any candidate for in the 2002 primary or in the 2002 general election that saw Governor Pataki defeat Carl McCall, and she didn't vote in 1994 when the seat she now seeks was held by the legendary Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who successfully sought re-election that year.

Though Caroline Kennedy has failed to vote approximately half of the time, she is working to convince Governor Paterson that she is the best choice to help him win votes in 2010 when both Governor Paterson and whoever he chooses for the Senate seat will be on the ballot together throughout New York State in both the primary and, if successful in the primary, in the general election.

Proven Winners

Carolyn Maloney (http://www.carolynmaloney.com/index.php?option=com_biography), Kirsten Gillibrand (http://kirstengillibrand.com/free_details.asp?id=1), Andrew Cuomo (http://www.andrewcuomo.com/free_details.asp?id=2), Byron Brown (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/buffalo-mayor-gains-support-to-be-clinton-successor/), and many other New York elected officials have proven their ability to win votes from Democrats and Republicans as well as their ability to raise funds for their own election, which is quite different from the process one uses to raise money for "the arts".

We expect Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican nominee for Governor in 2010, and we would be surprised if the Republicans are unable to find a formidable candidate for the Senate in 2010 (Peter King has already announced his desire to seek the Senate seat currently held by Senator Clinton http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stisra185969278dec18,0,5265937.story). The 2010 election will likely be a difficult one for incumbents, and New York Democrats need the best possible team on the field for that contest.

With the abundance of proven winners in the New York State, we hope that Governor Paterson will choose a new Senator for New York who will prove to be a first class campaigner and fundraiser in 2010 on a statewide level while continuing Senator Clinton's record of tireless dedication to the people of New York State and unsurpassed support for Manhattan.