Posts
This week, John Liu and Bill de Blasio were victorious in their run-off races for Comptroller and Public Advocate, respectively. Separately, frustration builds regarding the slow pace of the construction of the 2nd Avenue Subway.
Liu Defeats Yassky in Comptroller Race
John Liu defeated David Yassky in the run-off from Comptroller by a significant 12% margin, making Liu the first Asian-American elected to city-wide office in New York City and making Liu one of the highest ranking Asian-American elected officials in the United States. Yassky's support from the New York Times, the New York Daily News, and US Senator Chuck Schumer was not enough to mount a major challenge to the solid union support enjoyed by John Liu.
There is a lesson in this election contest. The editorial boards have less impact on results than organized support on the ground. Yassky and Liu were excellent candidates who went toe to toe in the race and saw the organized support of organized labor carry Liu to a clear victory.
de Blasio Trounces Green in the Public Advocate Run-Off
Bill de Blasio defeated Mark Green by an eye-popping 26%. Unlike the Comptroller race that demonstrated the influence of organized labor in a low-turnout race, the Public Advocate race was a demonstration of the groundswell of support for the idea of anointing a new leader in New York City and a consensus against bringing back a leader from the past.
Mark Green had served as Public Advocate during the Giuliani years and never overcame the image of a politician who does not realize that he should have left the stage and not returned. Green ran unsuccessfully for the US Senate in 1998. He sought the state Attorney General's office unsuccessfully in 2006, and he had been unsuccessful as a candidate for other offices.
de Blasio is also one of the few members of the New York City Council who vigorously opposed Mayor Bloomberg's successful efforts to change the City Charter to allow himself to seek a third consecutive term as the Mayor of New York City. Several City Council members who supported the Mayor's term limits change were defeated, and de Blasio's opposition of the Mayor undoubtedly helped him. Green had offered to allow Giuliani to serve longer than allowed by the City Charter after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and that contrasted with de Blasio's opposition to Bloomberg in a manner than benefited de Blasio in the primary.
We look forward to seeing how de Blasio and Liu perform in the years ahead.
Second Avenue Subway
With delays and budget over-runs continuing to mount on the 2nd Avenue Subway project, the MTA's Inspector General has initiated an investigation of the project.
Manhattan will benefit from the 2nd Avenue Subway project. It has received significant financial support from the federal government, and our local efforts must be carefully managed to ensure that further delays and and excess costs are avoided.
Showing posts with label Term Limits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Term Limits. Show all posts
Monday, October 5, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Mayor's Race Is Thompson vs. Bloomberg
The race for New York City Mayor is now a race between City Comptroller Bill Thompson and Mayor Bloomberg after Congressman Anthony Weiner declined to seek the mayoralty. Also, we experienced the killing of a Black police officer by plain clothes officers in New York City, reminding us how much being non-white is treated as a criminal act by the NYPD.
Weiner Leaves the Mayor's Race
Congressman Anthony Weiner declined to seek the office of the Mayor of New York City for this cycle. We wish him the best and hope that he will play a vocal and active role in the campaign that is emerging between Bill Thompson and Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg's most recent tantrum has caused us to question whether he is emotionally mature enough and stable enough to serve a third term as Mayor. The campaign will be an excellent laboratory for examining whether Bloomberg has the temperament to lead for an "extra" term.
Weiner has done a poor job thus far explaining why he is dropping out of the race - other than stating that he believes that Bloomberg's personal wealth will crowd out Weiner's message and make it impractical for an honest debate on the issues to take place. Wealthy candidates are often defeated (Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand defeated a very wealthy self-funded candidate in a heavily Republican district in her final Congressional race before being appointed to the US Senate). We'll need to see Weiner actively campaign for Democrats this Fall and articulate the case FOR ELECTING DEMOCRATS rather than hiding behind the wealth of his would-be opponent.
Walking While Black
We wrote recently about the Bloomberg stop and frisk outrage. This year, the NYPD is on a pace to stop more of our fellow citizens than ever before. Though only 5% of those stopped receive a summons, and only 5% are arrested, the practice continues. Though the white New Yorkers who are stopped are twice as likely to possess guns, drugs, or stolen property versus those non-white New Yorkers who are stopped, Ninety-one percent of those stopped are persons of color. Stops of whites amounted to only 2.6 percent of the white population. By contrast, stops of Blacks, represented 21.1 percent of the entire Black population.
Unfortunately, the race-based policing that is angering and inconveniencing ordinary New Yorkers is also causing deaths. Last week, a Black police officer was killed by plain clothes officers who apparently thought he was a suspect in a crime.
The silence of Mayor Bloomberg in the aftermath of the killing of a Black police officer by white officers is a reminder of his unbalanced view of justice. As we have noted, Mayor Bloomberg expressed a view that a private citizen, Plaxico Burress, be prosecuted in the immediate aftermath of the incident in which Burress shot himself accidentally, but he has generally been silent when the police, who are under his control, kill New Yorkers deliberately. This deliberate killing requires a full examination, and it is inappropriate for the NYPD to investigate its own dysfunctional and aggressive antipathy for non-whites (even for non-white police officers).
Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel has called on the federal government to investigate the killing, and we hope that the federal government would do just that.
What We Said In 2008
Last year, we commented on Mayor Bloomber's attack on Plaxico Burress. Our comments are relevant as we contemplate the killing of a Black police officer last week by the NYPD. We said that the Mayor should not have stated that "[i]t would be an outrage if we don't prosecute [Plaxico Burress] to the fullest extent of the law." Burress was charged with illegal gun possession after shooting himself accidentally. We gave three reasons:
1) There is a potential taint for the jury pool. We are all innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Plaxico Burress will have a defense strategy, and the Mayor shouldn't pre-judge the outcome of the jury's assessment of the defense case.
2) Hypocrisy. When the police shoot unarmed New Yorkers with 50 bullets and kill one of our fellow residents, the mayor expresses concern but encourages us to withhold judgment until all the facts are available. Yet, when he sees a non-violent criminal charge against a private citizen, he demands the most aggressive possible prosecution. He doesn't mention patience or withholding judgment until all of the facts are in. He is on the attack. The Police work for him, we can excuse him for being outraged and impatient for the judicial process when people who work for him kill his innocent fellow citizens. Ironically, he has the patience to let the judicial system work when those who report to him have taken innocent life, and he has no patience when a private citizen is charged with a non-violent offense.
3) Criminal law shouldn't be politicized or demagogued. We must remember that the officers who killed Sean Bell were found not guilty by the judge in their case. They didn't get lenient sentences because of mitigating circumstances. They didn't plead to a lesser crime to avoid a mandatory minimum. They didn't "get off on a technicality." The judge in their case determined that though they had shot into a car of unarmed men 50 times and killed one of the men, they had committed no crime whatsoever. One can imagine that a jury might find that Plaxico Burress committed no crime either. After all, he apparently fired only one shot and he is not alleged to have been trying to injure anyone. Of course, no one was injured other than Plaxico Burress himself. I'd much rather have private New Yorkers shoot themselves accidentally once in a while than have the city government send four guys to shoot me 50 times (or 41 times) and kill me every once in a while.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Bloomberg's Regressive Budget Solution
The latest budget proposal from Mayor Bloomberg avoids making tough choices and takes a regressive approach to increasing revenue for NYC. We are surprised and disappointed by the approach taken by the Mayor's finance team, and we are expecting voters in our city to note that the Mayor who called himself indispensable is showing himself to be anything but indispensable.
Budget Mess
Mayor Bloomberg says that he is indispensable and that we must re-write the rules that govern our great city (the world's greatest city by any objective analysis) to allow him to serve a third term as the city's chief executive. But, he also says that his 7+ years in leading our city have led us into a fiscal crisis. The two concepts are incompatible. If Bloomberg has led us into the mess we're in, how can he argue with a straight face that he is the only person prepared to clean up his mess. As President Barack Obama stated in one of his most effective attacks on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when they were both US Senators fighting for the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States:
Indeed. Who drove us into this ditch?
Who was at the helm when we developed the $4 billion deficit we now endure? Could the person who led us into the ditch possibly be indispensable as the leader to help us dig out of the mess he created?
The current mayor in New York City has a tremendous challenge in front of him in terms of explaining why it was important to overturn the will of the voters to allow him to seek a third term and why he, of all people, should be in charge of leading the city through this dark time after his leadership brought the darkness to us.
In a poetic move that underscores the lack of creativity and the lack of leadership in the Mayor's office at this time, the Mayor unveiled his budget last week, and he was proud to announce that he was leaving it to the individuals with the lowest incomes to fill the budget deficit by paying higher taxes.
Ugly Solution
Regressive taxation 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.
Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg's approach to closing the huge budget deficit that emerged under his leadership is to raise revenues for the government through a regressive sales tax increase. The sales taxes are implemented as an equal percentage for all purchasers. Therefore, those with the lowest incomes will pay the greatest percentage of their income in sales taxes. This proposed sales tax increase takes a regressive tax and amplifies its impact.
Ironically, anyone could have proposed placing the burden on the lowest earners, and such a suggestion is far more aggravating coming from a billionaire than from a Mayor of lesser means. Yet, the billionaire Mayor who says he is indispensable has nothing more to offer than to increase the most regressive tax we have in our city's system.
It Gets Worse
The Bloomberg budget proposal includes many other objectionable provisions, but its most glaring flaw is that it conveniently avoids hard choices and offers no long-term solutions. It is a stop-gap, election-year gambit, and we doubt that the sophisticated people of New York City will fall for this gambit.
Interest groups are attacking his cuts in homeless services.
Others concerns include his reliance on cuts in the city payroll and his reduction in services in New York City's correctional facilities.
We are focused on the disconnect between Mayor Bloomberg's self-described role as the indispensable redeemer of our city's fiscal and economic health and his real-world role as unimaginative regressive-tax promoting politician. His recent performance helps explain why he will not agree to limit his campaign spending.
We hope that you will demand better performance from the Mayor as he closes out his second term and morphs into a full-time candidate.
Budget Mess
Mayor Bloomberg says that he is indispensable and that we must re-write the rules that govern our great city (the world's greatest city by any objective analysis) to allow him to serve a third term as the city's chief executive. But, he also says that his 7+ years in leading our city have led us into a fiscal crisis. The two concepts are incompatible. If Bloomberg has led us into the mess we're in, how can he argue with a straight face that he is the only person prepared to clean up his mess. As President Barack Obama stated in one of his most effective attacks on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when they were both US Senators fighting for the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States:
"Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is: Who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch?"
Indeed. Who drove us into this ditch?
Who was at the helm when we developed the $4 billion deficit we now endure? Could the person who led us into the ditch possibly be indispensable as the leader to help us dig out of the mess he created?
The current mayor in New York City has a tremendous challenge in front of him in terms of explaining why it was important to overturn the will of the voters to allow him to seek a third term and why he, of all people, should be in charge of leading the city through this dark time after his leadership brought the darkness to us.
In a poetic move that underscores the lack of creativity and the lack of leadership in the Mayor's office at this time, the Mayor unveiled his budget last week, and he was proud to announce that he was leaving it to the individuals with the lowest incomes to fill the budget deficit by paying higher taxes.
Ugly Solution
Regressive taxation 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.
Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg's approach to closing the huge budget deficit that emerged under his leadership is to raise revenues for the government through a regressive sales tax increase. The sales taxes are implemented as an equal percentage for all purchasers. Therefore, those with the lowest incomes will pay the greatest percentage of their income in sales taxes. This proposed sales tax increase takes a regressive tax and amplifies its impact.
Ironically, anyone could have proposed placing the burden on the lowest earners, and such a suggestion is far more aggravating coming from a billionaire than from a Mayor of lesser means. Yet, the billionaire Mayor who says he is indispensable has nothing more to offer than to increase the most regressive tax we have in our city's system.
It Gets Worse
The Bloomberg budget proposal includes many other objectionable provisions, but its most glaring flaw is that it conveniently avoids hard choices and offers no long-term solutions. It is a stop-gap, election-year gambit, and we doubt that the sophisticated people of New York City will fall for this gambit.
Interest groups are attacking his cuts in homeless services.
Others concerns include his reliance on cuts in the city payroll and his reduction in services in New York City's correctional facilities.
We are focused on the disconnect between Mayor Bloomberg's self-described role as the indispensable redeemer of our city's fiscal and economic health and his real-world role as unimaginative regressive-tax promoting politician. His recent performance helps explain why he will not agree to limit his campaign spending.
We hope that you will demand better performance from the Mayor as he closes out his second term and morphs into a full-time candidate.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Limits of Term Limits in Manhattan and NYC
While there are many good arguments for term limits, Manhattan Viewpoint believes that the arguments against term limits are superior. Nonetheless, the people of the City of New York have spoken loudly and clearly on two recent occasions to demonstrate that they favor term limits in NYC that limited elected officials to a maximum of 8 consecutive years of service and one successful re-election effort as an incumbent. The elected leadership of NYC would abuse their authority to test the limits of their power by overturning term limits without a vote of the people.
Term Limits - A Bad Idea Whose Time Came in NYC
The National Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered limiting the terms of members of Congress and the President. The participants at the convention decided against the idea, but the debate never ended.
The arguments in favor of term limits are based on the concept that incumbency advantage (which is real and observable) is unfair and corrosive. Lord Acton said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and term limits are part of a theory of reducing the sense of absolute power for elected officials. Many proponents of term limits also argue that unlimited tenure prevents fresh faces from joining in the governing process. One might view proponents of terms limits as generally pessimistic about the quality of their elected officials; because those that are elected will generally be "bums", a policy that throws elected officials out of office based on the passage of time since their first election is a perpetual (and effective) "throw the bums out" mechanism. Lord Acton's famous quotation ends with "Great men are almost always bad men." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html
The arguments opposing terms limits center around voter choice. Such opponents often argue that voters have the opportunity to limit terms at every election and that voters should not be told that they cannot elect their favorite candidate simply because that candidate has earned their support in the past. One of the basic tenets of republican democracy is that elected officials work to serve the needs and desires of their constituents in order to be re-elected. Elected officials who are repeatedly re-elected may be viewed as experts in serving their constituents. Throwing out long-serving elected officials because of their long tenure suggests that success in being re-elected and years of experience in office are threats rather than benefits to the constituents served by those officials. Such a policy also suggests that voters are incapable of properly identifying the best candidates for the the next term of office and that a blanket prohibition of continuing service is needed to protect voters from their own poor choices.
Manhattan Viewpoint believes that voters should have the authority to choose their elected officials from pools of candidates that include those they've elected in the past, and Manhattan Viewpoint sees value in experience in office as well as in the infusion of new energy and new people into the community of elected officials.
However, Manhattan Viewpoint respects the power and majesty of democracy too much to endorse a weakening of term limits that a transparent and fully democratic process has supported and refused to weaken. The voters of New York City adopted term limits in 1993 and re-affirmed their support for them in 1996 (in 1996, the voters rejected an attempt to extend term limits from 8 years to 12 years).
Second Thoughts and Do-Overs
The day after voters adopted term limits by a 60% to 40% landslide in 1993, the Speaker of the City Council suggested a second referendum might be proposed to overturn term limits. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDA163AF937A35752C1A965958260
The 1996 referendum was just such an effort, but rather than looking to eliminate term limits, the 1996 referendum was designed to reduce their impact by creating staggered terms in the City Council in addition to the aforementioned extension from 8 years to 12 years. Term limits of 8 years won again; the margin was substantial, but it was smaller than the margin in 1993. The proponents of term limits started to see their success in New York City as a mechanism for making major changes in Albany http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/1996/11/12/1996-11-12_ronald_lauder__phone_albany.html , but the momentum didn't transfer.
The terrorist attacks of September 2001 gave Mayor Giuliani the excuse he needed to suggest that his terms should not be limited, but his efforts failed.
Now, it is 2008, and Mayor Bloomberg is arguing that the financial meltdown that has recently gripped Wall Street and the looming recession are appropriate excuses for his term of office to be extended beyond the limits set by the two referenda of the 1990's. Christine Quinn, the current City Council Speaker, announced a week ago that she would support the Bloomberg proposal that all term limits be extended to 12 years in NYC. She is advocating that the City Council make the change to the term limit laws on their own and without a referendum. Her new position doesn't easily mix with her statement of less than a year ago that, "The voters have made their will very, very clear" regarding term limits. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/10/11/2008-10-11_city_council_speaker_christine_quinn_to_.html
Respect the Will of The People
Though the City Charter doesn't demand it, the City Council would be wise to leave the decision to overturn term limits to another referendum. The people of the City of New York are the only entity that can be trusted to overturn the results of the previous two referenda, and no changes that weaken term limits should be implemented without the consent of the people who first approved them and then refused to weaken them a few years later.
Manhattan Viewpoint is joined in its view by Citizens Union http://www.citizensunion.org/site_res_view_template.aspx?id=0f5e5c85-92f0-4f92-bc49-6e4666d13617 and by our Friend of Manhattan, Assemblyman Hakeem Jefferies of Brooklyn. Assemblyman Jefferies is proposing a new state law that would require all municipalities in NY State that have local term limits to submit changes to those term limits laws to a referendum. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/hakeem-s-jeffries/
While Manhattan Viewpoint endorses the proposal of Assemblyman Jefferies, we continue to oppose term limits. Therefore, if Citizens Union, Assemblyman Jefferies, and the other supporters of the referendum-based approach favored by Manhattan Viewpoint are successful in forcing the City Council to let the people of our great city decide this issue, you should be unsurprised to see us using this forum to persuade you to support the referendum's substance (and the weakening of term limits in NYC) while cheering the triumph of democratic principals and cheering the fact that the final decision will be in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the very same City Council that was a primary target of these term limits from the outset.
Term Limits - A Bad Idea Whose Time Came in NYC
The National Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered limiting the terms of members of Congress and the President. The participants at the convention decided against the idea, but the debate never ended.
The arguments in favor of term limits are based on the concept that incumbency advantage (which is real and observable) is unfair and corrosive. Lord Acton said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and term limits are part of a theory of reducing the sense of absolute power for elected officials. Many proponents of term limits also argue that unlimited tenure prevents fresh faces from joining in the governing process. One might view proponents of terms limits as generally pessimistic about the quality of their elected officials; because those that are elected will generally be "bums", a policy that throws elected officials out of office based on the passage of time since their first election is a perpetual (and effective) "throw the bums out" mechanism. Lord Acton's famous quotation ends with "Great men are almost always bad men." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html
The arguments opposing terms limits center around voter choice. Such opponents often argue that voters have the opportunity to limit terms at every election and that voters should not be told that they cannot elect their favorite candidate simply because that candidate has earned their support in the past. One of the basic tenets of republican democracy is that elected officials work to serve the needs and desires of their constituents in order to be re-elected. Elected officials who are repeatedly re-elected may be viewed as experts in serving their constituents. Throwing out long-serving elected officials because of their long tenure suggests that success in being re-elected and years of experience in office are threats rather than benefits to the constituents served by those officials. Such a policy also suggests that voters are incapable of properly identifying the best candidates for the the next term of office and that a blanket prohibition of continuing service is needed to protect voters from their own poor choices.
Manhattan Viewpoint believes that voters should have the authority to choose their elected officials from pools of candidates that include those they've elected in the past, and Manhattan Viewpoint sees value in experience in office as well as in the infusion of new energy and new people into the community of elected officials.
However, Manhattan Viewpoint respects the power and majesty of democracy too much to endorse a weakening of term limits that a transparent and fully democratic process has supported and refused to weaken. The voters of New York City adopted term limits in 1993 and re-affirmed their support for them in 1996 (in 1996, the voters rejected an attempt to extend term limits from 8 years to 12 years).
Second Thoughts and Do-Overs
The day after voters adopted term limits by a 60% to 40% landslide in 1993, the Speaker of the City Council suggested a second referendum might be proposed to overturn term limits. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDA163AF937A35752C1A965958260
The 1996 referendum was just such an effort, but rather than looking to eliminate term limits, the 1996 referendum was designed to reduce their impact by creating staggered terms in the City Council in addition to the aforementioned extension from 8 years to 12 years. Term limits of 8 years won again; the margin was substantial, but it was smaller than the margin in 1993. The proponents of term limits started to see their success in New York City as a mechanism for making major changes in Albany http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/1996/11/12/1996-11-12_ronald_lauder__phone_albany.html , but the momentum didn't transfer.
The terrorist attacks of September 2001 gave Mayor Giuliani the excuse he needed to suggest that his terms should not be limited, but his efforts failed.
Now, it is 2008, and Mayor Bloomberg is arguing that the financial meltdown that has recently gripped Wall Street and the looming recession are appropriate excuses for his term of office to be extended beyond the limits set by the two referenda of the 1990's. Christine Quinn, the current City Council Speaker, announced a week ago that she would support the Bloomberg proposal that all term limits be extended to 12 years in NYC. She is advocating that the City Council make the change to the term limit laws on their own and without a referendum. Her new position doesn't easily mix with her statement of less than a year ago that, "The voters have made their will very, very clear" regarding term limits. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/10/11/2008-10-11_city_council_speaker_christine_quinn_to_.html
Respect the Will of The People
Though the City Charter doesn't demand it, the City Council would be wise to leave the decision to overturn term limits to another referendum. The people of the City of New York are the only entity that can be trusted to overturn the results of the previous two referenda, and no changes that weaken term limits should be implemented without the consent of the people who first approved them and then refused to weaken them a few years later.
Manhattan Viewpoint is joined in its view by Citizens Union http://www.citizensunion.org/site_res_view_template.aspx?id=0f5e5c85-92f0-4f92-bc49-6e4666d13617 and by our Friend of Manhattan, Assemblyman Hakeem Jefferies of Brooklyn. Assemblyman Jefferies is proposing a new state law that would require all municipalities in NY State that have local term limits to submit changes to those term limits laws to a referendum. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/hakeem-s-jeffries/
While Manhattan Viewpoint endorses the proposal of Assemblyman Jefferies, we continue to oppose term limits. Therefore, if Citizens Union, Assemblyman Jefferies, and the other supporters of the referendum-based approach favored by Manhattan Viewpoint are successful in forcing the City Council to let the people of our great city decide this issue, you should be unsurprised to see us using this forum to persuade you to support the referendum's substance (and the weakening of term limits in NYC) while cheering the triumph of democratic principals and cheering the fact that the final decision will be in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the very same City Council that was a primary target of these term limits from the outset.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)