Posts
Today is Memorial Day in the United States. While the day has come to symbolize the start of the summer season, its true meaning - which was first established in New York - endures.
New York Gives Birth to Memorial Day
The town of Waterloo, NY is officially credited with creating what is now called Memorial Day to honor those Union soldiers who died during the Civil War. In 1866, Waterloo (a town that can be reached in an hour from Ithaca, Rochester, and Syracuse) set aside a day in early May for observances related to the fallen soldiers of the Civil War.
The Grand Army of the Republic (an organization comprised of Union veterans of the Civil War) was led by a friend of the founders of the Waterloo observances. That friend, General John A. Logan, chose May 30th for the 1868 observances because it was not the date of a Civil War battle. The May 30th date remained in place until 100 years later when Congress voted to move a number of holidays to Mondays to create three-day weekends. Memorial Day has been observed on the final Monday in May since 1971.
New York City Activities
Like the rest of the United States, New York City celebrates Memorial Day with a mixture of observances honoring those brave souls who gave their lives in service to our country and summer kick-off events.
Today, from 11am to noon, a traditional Memorial Day service will take place aboard the Intrepid, here in Manhattan, with a wreath laying and a flyover. The Intrepid is a floating museum located at 46th Street to the west of the West Side Highway in the Hudson River.
Click here for a listing of family-oriented events throughout New York City.
Remembering
Memorial Day is set aside for us to remind ourselves of the tremendous debt we owe to those who have protected this country and who have died while undertaking that responsibility. It is a debt we can never repay. The best we can do is to remember the sacrifices that have provided us the opportunity to enjoy the privileges of liberty, hope, and opportunity in the greatest country of the world. If we forget those sacrifices most days, today gives us a chance to make up for lost time.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
NYPD Stop and Frisk Outrage - Part II
Skin color remains as the key law enforcement proxy for criminality in New York City. After numerous studies and law suits, the largest city in a state with a Black Governor in a country with a Black President continues to equate being non-white with crime.
Making a Bad Situation Worse
In January of this year, on the eve of the inauguration of our new President and on the day that we commemorated the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, we addressed the outrage of racial profiling by the NYPD. We saw that nearly all of the New York City residents who faced a "stop and frisk" by the NYPD were people of color and that only 10% of those stopped were arrested or even received a summons. This pattern of harassment of our neighbors must stop immediately.
Unfortunately, the NYPD is on a pace to set a record for the number of stop and frisk incidents in our city in 2009. So far, the 2009 pace is 18% higher than the 2008 pace, and now people of color are 91% of stops instead of 80% of the stops as they were previously. Our city's population is 53% people of color, but 91% of those stopped and frisked by the police are people of color. More and more, the "crime" of walking-while-black is the focus of the NYPD.
Previous reports have shown the extent to which race is driving the behavior of the NYPD.
As the NYCLU has pointed out, every one of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who are stopped by the police each year has his or her personal information stored in an NYPD database permanently. Though no summons is issued and no arrest is made, the personal information is collected and retained. Since the stops occur only in non-white communities, this process amounts to a catalogue of personal details on the non-white population of our city with the target group skewing younger than the city as a whole.
The outrage of the stops is amplified and exacerbated by the scandal of the information collection.
End Race-Based Policing
As we stated in January:
These problems are hardening and intensifying. We must take action at the polls and in our communities to reverse this trend toward the criminalization of being a non-white New Yorker.
Making a Bad Situation Worse
In January of this year, on the eve of the inauguration of our new President and on the day that we commemorated the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, we addressed the outrage of racial profiling by the NYPD. We saw that nearly all of the New York City residents who faced a "stop and frisk" by the NYPD were people of color and that only 10% of those stopped were arrested or even received a summons. This pattern of harassment of our neighbors must stop immediately.
Unfortunately, the NYPD is on a pace to set a record for the number of stop and frisk incidents in our city in 2009. So far, the 2009 pace is 18% higher than the 2008 pace, and now people of color are 91% of stops instead of 80% of the stops as they were previously. Our city's population is 53% people of color, but 91% of those stopped and frisked by the police are people of color. More and more, the "crime" of walking-while-black is the focus of the NYPD.
Previous reports have shown the extent to which race is driving the behavior of the NYPD.
- In 2006, 55 percent of the stops were of Black people – more than double the Black population percentage.
- Cops found guns, drugs, or stolen property on whites about twice as often as they did on black suspects.
- 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.
- Residents of Brownsville's 73rd Precinct and Harlem's 28th Precinct had a 30 to 36 percent chance of being stopped and questioned by police in 2006. Citywide, the average was about 6 percent.
As the NYCLU has pointed out, every one of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who are stopped by the police each year has his or her personal information stored in an NYPD database permanently. Though no summons is issued and no arrest is made, the personal information is collected and retained. Since the stops occur only in non-white communities, this process amounts to a catalogue of personal details on the non-white population of our city with the target group skewing younger than the city as a whole.
The outrage of the stops is amplified and exacerbated by the scandal of the information collection.
End Race-Based Policing
As we stated in January:
There are those that argue that racial profiling is a legitimate tool of police work and should continue, but they typically fail to understand the real impact of racialized policing. In 1999, former NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton talked about the early days of his career in law enforcement in Boston, and he described the police response to escalating numbers of stolen Lincoln Continentals. He said that white drivers were assumed to own the Lincoln they drove and that young black males in Lincolns would be stopped. As a result, many stolen Lincolns were recovered. Of course, the value of recovering the Lincolns is undoubtedly outweighed by the stress, humiliation, and lost respect for the police experienced by all of the law-abiding black males who were stopped because they were black and male and driving a Lincoln. Moreover, the value of recovering the stolen Lincolns would be outweighed by the message sent by the law enforcement approach: white Bostonians can steal as many Lincolns as they wish without fear of being stopped by the police. It is the celebration of the recovered Lincolns to the exclusion of a focus on the horrors of government-led racial discrimination that permits our problems here in New York City to persist.
These problems are hardening and intensifying. We must take action at the polls and in our communities to reverse this trend toward the criminalization of being a non-white New Yorker.
Monday, May 11, 2009
NYC School Test Results Controversy
Last week, New York City announced that 11% more NYC public school students passed the New York State reading test in 2009 than passed in 2008. Instead of celebration, the announcement of these results raised new questions and left us searching for explanations.
Is Better Actually Better?
The 11% improvement would be worthy of huge celebrations if not for the other data that accompanied it. Buffalo, a city with a reputation for a failing school system, demonstrated more improvement than New York City. In fact, all major cities in New York State demonstrated equal or greater improvement compared to New York City. Perhaps the test was easier for the students to pass, and lower standards lifted all boats. We cannot be certain what caused all of New York State's urban school districts to have gigantic gains in the same 12-month period, but simultaneous improvement in the quality of education in those cities is unlikely to be the full answer. Teachers might be teaching to the test, year to year changes in the weighting of various sections of the test may have shifted this year to raise scores, the test itself may have become less challenging, and maybe . . . just maybe . . . the students really have obtained greater reading aptitude through improvements in their schools.
But, we cannot determine the cause of the improvement. The Daily News article regarding this topic last week contained a passage that illustrated the lack of clarity regarding the cause of the improved test scores.
The skeptics have not been shy in pointing out that Buffalo's improvement has been greater than New York City's improvement. Sarcastically, they ask whether Buffalo's mayor should be asked to run New York City.
Skepticism On Display
Some have labeled the test scores as too good to be true and have questioned why the New York State test shows improvement around the state each year while the national test shows a lack of improvement. We have seen the federal data showing that the changes being made across the country to improve educational achievement have not resulted in a reduction in the achievement gap between white students and students of color. Those results remind us that we must always look behind the initial impressions we might get from the data to discover what the data really means for our children.
Charting a Dangerous Course
Mayor Bloomberg has promoted the concept of increasing the number of charter schools in New York City, but charter schools that design their student populations to be more affluent and less challenged than the communities in which they operate actually make the non-charter public schools in their communities endure the challenges of greater poverty and a higher intensity of problems than they would if those charter schools did not exist. As stated in the Daily News:
As charter schools become more and more a key piece of the educational infrastructure in NYC, we will need to advocate for policies that ensure that they are not leaving the surrounding public schools more challenged and less effective in teaching our children. Unfortunately, our charter schools have largely excluded special education students (5% of the charter school population versus 15% of the public school population). They have also limited their exposure to children from low-income homes (65% in public schools versus 57% in charter schools). These statistics indicate that charter schools might still be part of the problem rather than part of the solution to the problems we face in educating our children in New York City's public schools.
Is Better Actually Better?
The 11% improvement would be worthy of huge celebrations if not for the other data that accompanied it. Buffalo, a city with a reputation for a failing school system, demonstrated more improvement than New York City. In fact, all major cities in New York State demonstrated equal or greater improvement compared to New York City. Perhaps the test was easier for the students to pass, and lower standards lifted all boats. We cannot be certain what caused all of New York State's urban school districts to have gigantic gains in the same 12-month period, but simultaneous improvement in the quality of education in those cities is unlikely to be the full answer. Teachers might be teaching to the test, year to year changes in the weighting of various sections of the test may have shifted this year to raise scores, the test itself may have become less challenging, and maybe . . . just maybe . . . the students really have obtained greater reading aptitude through improvements in their schools.
But, we cannot determine the cause of the improvement. The Daily News article regarding this topic last week contained a passage that illustrated the lack of clarity regarding the cause of the improved test scores.
Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch pointed to an influx of resources, wider access to prekindergarten, a more unified curriculum and improved professional development for scores rising statewide. The number of city children enrolled in pre-K grew to 54,038 from 45,589 in 2005, an increase of almost 8,500 children, city figures show. Per pupil spending was about $11,640 in 2003 and rose to $16,236 in 2007, the most updated figure available from the city Education Department.
"The headline from me should be a four-year story," Tisch said, asking parents to look at long-term trends. She noted that over the last four years, New York City and Rochester improved their scores by 18%, Syracuse by 19% and Buffalo by 24%.Testing experts said the state's reasons made sense, but that more was likely at work. "One of them is a huge increase in test preparation," said former testing chief for the city and NYU professor Robert Tobias. "It's kind of like how you get to Carnegie Hall - practice, practice, practice."
The skeptics have not been shy in pointing out that Buffalo's improvement has been greater than New York City's improvement. Sarcastically, they ask whether Buffalo's mayor should be asked to run New York City.
Skepticism On Display
Some have labeled the test scores as too good to be true and have questioned why the New York State test shows improvement around the state each year while the national test shows a lack of improvement. We have seen the federal data showing that the changes being made across the country to improve educational achievement have not resulted in a reduction in the achievement gap between white students and students of color. Those results remind us that we must always look behind the initial impressions we might get from the data to discover what the data really means for our children.
Charting a Dangerous Course
Mayor Bloomberg has promoted the concept of increasing the number of charter schools in New York City, but charter schools that design their student populations to be more affluent and less challenged than the communities in which they operate actually make the non-charter public schools in their communities endure the challenges of greater poverty and a higher intensity of problems than they would if those charter schools did not exist. As stated in the Daily News:
In other words, if you have language problems, if you're poor, or if you have special needs, you're far more likely to end up in the regular public school population than in a charter school.
As charter schools become more and more a key piece of the educational infrastructure in NYC, we will need to advocate for policies that ensure that they are not leaving the surrounding public schools more challenged and less effective in teaching our children. Unfortunately, our charter schools have largely excluded special education students (5% of the charter school population versus 15% of the public school population). They have also limited their exposure to children from low-income homes (65% in public schools versus 57% in charter schools). These statistics indicate that charter schools might still be part of the problem rather than part of the solution to the problems we face in educating our children in New York City's public schools.
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, April 27, 2009
Finally, Rockefeller Drug Law Repeal
After 36 years, New York State has finally repealed the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The end has seemed near ever since the Democratic Party took over the New York State Senate this year for the first time in more than 45 years. It became official late last week when Governor Paterson signed the long-awaited repeal bill.
Laws That Needed to Be Repealed
The Rockefeller Drug Laws were enacted in 1973 and mandated that New Yorkers who were found guilty of possessing illegal drugs be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison. The Rockefeller Drug Laws were designed to equate drug possession (a non-violent crime) with second-degree murder. In fact, there have been a number of New Yorkers who were imprisoned as first time offenders under the Rockefeller Drug Laws and who then saw those convicted of murdering their loved ones enter and leave prison before they left prison themselves as first-time, non-violent offenders.
The Rockefeller Drug Laws were abused by law enforcement and prosecutors to imprison a large number of young people of color for long periods of time despite their lack of a criminal record or any hint of violence. Ninety percent of those imprisoned in New York State under the Rockefeller Drug Laws are Black or latino despite the fact that white New Yorkers represent 73% of drug users in New York State.
That warrants repeating.
NINETY PERCENT of those imprisoned under New York's drug laws are Black or latino, but 73% of drug users are not Black or latino. The Rockefeller Drug Laws have been an excuse to imprison young people of color and have not been used to abuse the white population in the way that they have been used to abuse communities of color in New York State.
Elections Have Consequences
We argued prior to the November 2008 elections that New Yorkers needed to give the Democrats control of the New York State Senate in order to get legislative reform and other improvements in Albany. One of the key benefits of the victory that the Democrats achieved in November in New York State is the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
It could not have happened without that Democratic victory, and it happened as a direct result of the votes we cast in November.
Fiscal Conservatism Supported Repeal
The repeal of the Rockefeller Drug laws will save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. New York State spends more than one half of a billion dollars each year to imprison non-violent drug offenders, and the reduction in the volume those incarcerations coupled with the reduced prison population that results from the retroactivity of the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws will dramatically reduce New York State's expenditures on prisons. That reduction in spending will allow New York State to avoid some cuts in services and reduces the amount of increased taxation that New York State must undertake in order to balance its budget.
Praise for Albany - For A Change
New York State's elected officials are rarely praised, and often, the lack of praise is appropriate in light of the performance we see in Albany. The repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws shows that Albany can make the changes we need; Albany can make change quickly, and Albany can succeed despite heavy opposition from well organized groups (such as the District Attorneys in the case of the Rockefeller Drug Laws).
Laws That Needed to Be Repealed
The Rockefeller Drug Laws were enacted in 1973 and mandated that New Yorkers who were found guilty of possessing illegal drugs be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison. The Rockefeller Drug Laws were designed to equate drug possession (a non-violent crime) with second-degree murder. In fact, there have been a number of New Yorkers who were imprisoned as first time offenders under the Rockefeller Drug Laws and who then saw those convicted of murdering their loved ones enter and leave prison before they left prison themselves as first-time, non-violent offenders.
The Rockefeller Drug Laws were abused by law enforcement and prosecutors to imprison a large number of young people of color for long periods of time despite their lack of a criminal record or any hint of violence. Ninety percent of those imprisoned in New York State under the Rockefeller Drug Laws are Black or latino despite the fact that white New Yorkers represent 73% of drug users in New York State.
That warrants repeating.
NINETY PERCENT of those imprisoned under New York's drug laws are Black or latino, but 73% of drug users are not Black or latino. The Rockefeller Drug Laws have been an excuse to imprison young people of color and have not been used to abuse the white population in the way that they have been used to abuse communities of color in New York State.
Elections Have Consequences
We argued prior to the November 2008 elections that New Yorkers needed to give the Democrats control of the New York State Senate in order to get legislative reform and other improvements in Albany. One of the key benefits of the victory that the Democrats achieved in November in New York State is the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
It could not have happened without that Democratic victory, and it happened as a direct result of the votes we cast in November.
Fiscal Conservatism Supported Repeal
The repeal of the Rockefeller Drug laws will save hundreds of millions of dollars each year. New York State spends more than one half of a billion dollars each year to imprison non-violent drug offenders, and the reduction in the volume those incarcerations coupled with the reduced prison population that results from the retroactivity of the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws will dramatically reduce New York State's expenditures on prisons. That reduction in spending will allow New York State to avoid some cuts in services and reduces the amount of increased taxation that New York State must undertake in order to balance its budget.
Praise for Albany - For A Change
New York State's elected officials are rarely praised, and often, the lack of praise is appropriate in light of the performance we see in Albany. The repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws shows that Albany can make the changes we need; Albany can make change quickly, and Albany can succeed despite heavy opposition from well organized groups (such as the District Attorneys in the case of the Rockefeller Drug Laws).
It took more than three decades for New York to correct this mistake, but it's finally happened. And, for a change, we can rejoice in an Albany achievement. - Gabe Pressman, NBC
Monday, April 20, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Tax Day in Manhattan - 2009
Two days from today, it will be Tax Day in Manhattan as well as in all of the other 3,141 counties in the United States. This is an excellent time to look carefully at the level of taxation we face here in what is truly the capital of the world.
Tax Burden Falls Heavy on Manhattan
Of the most taxed Congressional districts, three of the top five are in Manhattan, and the most taxed Congressional district in the country is the Manhattan district represented by Carolyn Maloney.
Manhattan's tax burden will likely increase in the near future as income tax increases are a part of the plan for future federal budgets and are already included in the New York State budget for next year. As we have stated previously, increasing taxes in New York State is a necessary evil, while the increase in federal taxes would be a mistake representing a poor understanding of macroeconomics. Because the New York State budget must always be balanced, revenue increases or budget cuts (or both) are necessary during economic downturns. The federal budget should run into deficit spending during economic downturns to spur economic growth. Unfortunately, our national leadership in Washington, DC is now planning to raise taxes despite the economic challenges facing our country, and those tax increases (particularly when coupled with the New York State tax increases already adopted by the New York State legislature) will increase the gap in tax burden between Manhattan and the rest of the counties in the United States.
New York State Also Leading the Country in Tax Burden
For nearly every year of the last 30+ years, New York State has been the most taxed state in the United States. From 2006 to the present, New York has been the second most taxed state in the country (New Jersey replaced New York as the most taxed state in 2006).
Therefore, Manhattan residents live in the most taxed county in the country and are surrounded by other counties with high tax burdens in a state that ranks second only to its neighboring state as the most taxed state in the United States.
Manhattan's Voice Is Needed
As we stated in the aftermath of the election of President Barack Obama, Manhattan led the way in the financing of the successful Obama campaign.
It is important that Manhattan, which has the greatest tax burden and played the greatest role in the election of the current President, have a strong voice in national policy. The leadership of our country has been on the attack against Manhattan for many weeks, and Manhattan must fight back. Our place as the capital of the world should give us the confidence to fight back. Our position as the most tax-burdened county gives us ample moral authority to demand that we be heard.
Tax Burden Falls Heavy on Manhattan
As taxpayers across our country prepare for the deadline for filing their tax returns, we look at the tax burden of our county, New York County, which is synonymous with the borough of Manhattan and find that Manhattan residents have a greater tax burden than residents of any other county in the United States.
Manhattan's highest-in-the-country tax burden is 20% of income, more than one-half of one percent higher than the next closest county, which is Fairfield County, a Connecticut county in the New York City area and the home of General Electric. Westchester County, the county immediately to the north of New York City's Bronx county, ranks as the fourth most burdened county in terms of taxes with a burden of 18% of income. Elsewhere in the top ten are two New Jersey counties in the New York City area. Those counties are Somerset and Morris counties.Of the most taxed Congressional districts, three of the top five are in Manhattan, and the most taxed Congressional district in the country is the Manhattan district represented by Carolyn Maloney.
Manhattan's tax burden will likely increase in the near future as income tax increases are a part of the plan for future federal budgets and are already included in the New York State budget for next year. As we have stated previously, increasing taxes in New York State is a necessary evil, while the increase in federal taxes would be a mistake representing a poor understanding of macroeconomics. Because the New York State budget must always be balanced, revenue increases or budget cuts (or both) are necessary during economic downturns. The federal budget should run into deficit spending during economic downturns to spur economic growth. Unfortunately, our national leadership in Washington, DC is now planning to raise taxes despite the economic challenges facing our country, and those tax increases (particularly when coupled with the New York State tax increases already adopted by the New York State legislature) will increase the gap in tax burden between Manhattan and the rest of the counties in the United States.
New York State Also Leading the Country in Tax Burden
For nearly every year of the last 30+ years, New York State has been the most taxed state in the United States. From 2006 to the present, New York has been the second most taxed state in the country (New Jersey replaced New York as the most taxed state in 2006).
Therefore, Manhattan residents live in the most taxed county in the country and are surrounded by other counties with high tax burdens in a state that ranks second only to its neighboring state as the most taxed state in the United States.
Manhattan's Voice Is Needed
As we stated in the aftermath of the election of President Barack Obama, Manhattan led the way in the financing of the successful Obama campaign.
It is important that Manhattan, which has the greatest tax burden and played the greatest role in the election of the current President, have a strong voice in national policy. The leadership of our country has been on the attack against Manhattan for many weeks, and Manhattan must fight back. Our place as the capital of the world should give us the confidence to fight back. Our position as the most tax-burdened county gives us ample moral authority to demand that we be heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)