RAGGED THOTS

My time in Boulder is coming to an end and I've enjoyed the heck out of  the Conference on World Affairs.  However, the only time all week I wished I was back home was yesterday when the news broke that Mayor Mike Bloomberg had canned his schools chancellor, Cathie Black -- after three months and a week!!

While the action occurred yesterday, it couldn't have been easy for the mayor to wake up up to this morning's headlines.  All papers carried analysis of what this meant -- with a fair amount of unanimity that this most disastrous hire underscored what a mess Bloomberg's third term had become.  I discussed some of those problems last month.  Based on the Bloomberg quote noted therein: "I've always said that if you want lifetime employment in our administration, you just get The Post to demand that I fire you." I'm guessing that Ms. Black might wish that New York's  tabloids had called for he head right away.

Labels: Cathie Black, Michael Bloomberg

Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it. So goes the saying and Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the walking embodiment. He wanted a third term, got the term limits law overridden to attain it -- and now finds headaches on all fronts. He's quietly feuding with Gov. Andrew Cuomo over the parameters of how to layoff city teachers.  There's a stunningly embarrassing $800 million fraud-and-cost-overrun scandal involving a contract to develop an electronic timesheet for city employees.

But scholars Fred Siegel and Sol Stern go into full detail on why the, ahem, bloom has left the rose of this administration.  While last December's snow storm perfectly dramatized the collapse of Bloomberg's much vaunted "managerial" reputation, Siegel and Stern assert that the writing was on the wall much earlier:

It is tempting to depict Michael Bloomberg’s reversal of fortune in his third term in office — a term he secured by muscling through a change in the city’s term-limits law before spending $150 million to win only 50.7% of the vote — with hubris metaphors drawn from classical tragedy. But this assumes there was glory before the fall. In reality, there never was greatness. There have been no lasting fiscal or education reforms.

The story of Bloomberg’s mayoralty is this: There is no there there.

It is now abundantly clear that the myth of Bloomberg’s accomplishments was the result of two forces: his own immense wealth and the city tax dollars generated by the stock-market surge of the 2000s. Both sources of revenue, private and public, were used to co-opt and silence his opposition and thereby allow the glamorized portrait of an indispensable manager and the guardian of the public purse to be drawn without countervailing criticism. 

An objective accounting of Bloomberg’s tenure reveals the many ways that Bloomberg’s standing as New York’s richest citizen actually undermined New York’s democracy, even as the city’s fiscal health and essential infrastructure deteriorated.

It's an excellent, comprehensive piece. The "New York's richest citizen" part should be kept in mind throughout.

Meanwhile, if Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and departed Schools Chancellor Joel Klein epitomized the sturdy professionalism of Bloomberg's first two terms, a different individual symbolizes the third one. The Times explored the vexing problem of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, who has managed to infuriate parts of all five boroughs with what, to many, seems like an anti-car agenda -- bike lanes everywhere and traffic shut down on Broadway at Times and Herald squares.  Indeed, residents of the Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn have filed suit over a bike lane around Prospect Park. 

Counterintuitively, The Post, in a rather tongue-in-cheek editorial Monday, urged the mayor to keep Sadik-Khan -- after first noting a Bloomberg quote from last year:

"I've always said that if you want lifetime employment in our administration, you just get The Post to demand that I fire you," you said last December.

Lest anyone think the above quote from Bloomberg on whether he listens to media when it comes to dealing with his closest aides was simple throw-off line that the mayor didn't really believe, I humbly refer you to the following commentary. It didn't see print at the time, but was written by yours truly three-and-a-half years ago after an interesting encounter with Hizzoner. The date was August 28th, 2007. Some elements of the present day troubles might be gleaned even then.

Read more »

Labels: Janette Sadik-Khan, Michael Bloomberg, New York City

The first two days of 2011 brought much-welcome 50-degree weather to New York City -- a gift that helped produce a Great (though Incomplete) Melting of the Great Blizzard of 2010.  However, the diminution of the white stuff has hardly restored the pre-storm political status quo in the city. As a wise man, once said, there's no Republican or Democratic way to pick up garbage.  Well, there's hardly a liberal or conservative way to spin the reaction to how Bloomberg mishandled the snow clean-up, thus, this Daily Kos diarist basically nails it.


One of Michael Bloomberg's worst weeks in office began one week ago, as the city revolted over his administration's non-handling of the 19" storm.  That this huge failure on the part of city sanitation department occurred just weeks after:


1) the full revelation of an $800 million cost-overrun city-consultant scandal;
2) Bloomberg declaring that the city should take over from the state the responsibility of the incarceration of juvenile criminals;
3) Bloomberg, again, gearing up what seemed to be a strategy for national office.


So, at a time when the mayor calls for more power and more responsibility, he's shown incapable of dealing with a major part of his current portfolio. Not so good. The storm also hit at a time when the mayor has been taking major hits for his naming of Hearst publishing executive Cathie Black as city schools chancellor. Bloomberg won that battle, but it was just one more indication that -- like previous big New York political figures -- third terms can become a disaster.


The one minor saving grace in the storm story, however, was The Post's scoop that -- as bad as Bloomberg's management was -- there may have been another factor in the non-cleanup:  The Department of Sanitation workers union may have staged intentional wildcat work "slowdowns" to protest announced layoffs.  If true, given an already increasing backlash against public sector unions and their generous benefit packages, this story could be the proverbial straw to break the union-camel's back -- even in historically pro-labor New York. Look for their to be much support for the launch of an investigation into the DSNY workers.  


If the fallout from the snow could end up being the deserved comeuppance of both an arrogant out-of-touch billionaire mayor and an arrogant out-of-touch public labor force, well, the temporary misery of New Yorkers may well have been worth it.  


Catch my drift?  

Labels: Michael Bloomberg

Even before his hard-fought, expensively-purchased third term begins January 1st, Mike Bloomberg may already be a lame duck.

Labels: Michael Bloomberg

Last fall's economic meltdown had such an impact on New York City's fortunes that it required a change of the city's term limit laws that had been twice affirmed by voter referendum. Michael Bloomberg asserted that the public should be given the right to vote for someone of his financial caliber to keep the city from collapsing into the abyss.

Labels: Michael Bloomberg, term-limits

So, exactly how popular are rich people who, in the middle of a tough recession -- which saw another 600,000 jobs lost last month -- flaunt their wealth? You know the type -- the Gucci shoes, great furs, two or three cars (or planes). Indeed, proving that pride goeth before fall, Merrill Lynch/Bank of America's John Thain was forced to resign shortly after it was revealed he redecorated his office to the tune of $1.2 million -- while Merrill was racking up a $15 billion loss in the last quarter. That Thain gave bonuses of $4 billion to his executives at the same time is now the subject of a New York attorney general probe.

In any event, conspicuous consumption never plays well -- but especially not in tough times!

Does that extend to, you know, buying people?

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is putting that to the test. It's not enough that he spent about $150 million combined in his first two runs; it's not enough that he got a compliant city council to overturn term limits that had been approved twice by the public. No, the mayor has to practically guarantee a third term by purchasing the services of consultants previously in the employ of his likely opponents.

The mayor is still popular among the public -- though the term-limits overturning has caused his personal attributes to take a slight hit. On balance, he's done a reasonable job running the city. But at some point, there may be a case of the straw breaking the camel's back. At some point, the power of one man to buy anything -- and anyone -- his heart desires creates righteous envy.

Whether that is something that Bloomberg's possible opponents can tap into -- asking New Yorkers if they feel they are becoming serfs in King Michael's dominion -- will be something to track as this year goes by.

Labels: Michael Bloomberg, New York City

The Plaxico Burress situation has been making headlines in New York all week. For the most part, it fell into the category of "dumb" football player making a pretty stupid mistake: Football player with unlicensed gun in his sweatpants, goes into nightclub, last Friday night/early Saturday morning; gun slides down his pantleg, he tries to reach for it; gun goes off, wounding player.


From there it becomes uber-complicated, as Burress' fellow Giant -- defenseman Antonio Pierce -- allegedly hides the gun in his (or another player's car); Plaxico is taken to a hospital where other Giants have been treated before; his wound is treated -- but, contrary to New York laws, the hospital doesn't report the gun shot wound to the cops. The club didn't report the incident either; the Giants didn't report the incident, even though they reportedly learned about it several hours before the cops. (The Giants dispute this allegation.)


However, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case has been the attitude of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. One of the mayor's biggest causes over the last few years has been has been his jihad against illegal guns. He's formed an ad hoc association with other mayors to pressure Congress for stronger laws against illegal guns (Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- how creative).


So, this Burress situation is right in Bloomberg's wheelhouse. This week, he's been taking every opportunity to insert himself into the case. On Monday, he demanded that Burress be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." He demanded to know why the hospital hadn't followed the law; he was enraged that the State Liquor Authority hadn't started looking into the nightclub's liquor license. Not surprisingly, with each pronouncement coming out of the mayor's mouth, each city -- and often, state, agency -- has been making sure that every "i" is being dotted and "t" crossed on this case. The law Burress may have broken is a tough one: He's been hit with two charges of gun possession and faces 3 1/2-15 years in prison. The Giants have essentially suspended him for the season.


That isn't to say that there hasn't been a little bit of backlash on the mayor. Several callers to local TV and radio sports shows have noticed that the mayor's outrage in following the law is rather selective. You see, Bloomberg and the New York City Council recently changed a term limits law twice passed by referendum. As a result, the mayor and council members now have a twelve years in office, instead of eight. Bloomberg, barely a year ago said that no change to the term limits law should be made without it being put through the referendum process. So much for that. (The fact that the mayor also seemed more exercised over a football player who shot himself in the leg -- rather than a city bus driver who was brutally stabbed to death by a thug who got on without paying -- also raised questions about Hizzoner's priorities.)


And then comes Dave Kopel. Writing in the Wall St. Journal online, he touches on a point that, unfortunately, no one else has: There may actually be a difference between an "illegal" gun and an "unlicensed" one. No one disputes that Burress' gun is not licensed in New York. However, it has yet to be proven that he purchased the gun illegally: Burress has had a gun permit for the state of Florida where he maintains a home. And, significantly, New York has likely the most stringent gun control law in the country. Indeed, in light of the Supreme Court's recent District of Columbia v. Heller decision, New York's law might be unconstitutional:

The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

And then there is the issue of the permitting process for residents. In 40 states, including Connecticut, law-abiding adults are issued permits once they pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. In New Jersey, carry permits are virtually never issued. In New York City, carry permits are issued, but to applicants with some form of political clout rather than on the basis of his or her need for protection.

The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City's licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including sheer arbitrariness.

To underscore, Kopel's point: Non-residents, like Burress, aren't even allowed to apply for a permit in New York.

Now, none of the above takes away from the fact that Burress was reckless in the handling of his gun -- not having it holstered, having the safety off, possibly drinking while carrying it, etc. However, similarly the facts of the case can't eliminate the likelihood that the law Burress is accused of breaking is unconstitutional -- and even a gun-hating mayor has to follow the constitution, whether he likes its particular application in this situation or not.

Labels: gun control, Michael Bloomberg, New York, plaxico burress

...as Michael Bloomberg officially takes himself out of the presidential pool -- really, really this time!

But, of course, he wants to be noticed -- and courted:

In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

"Helping" can mean many things -- an endorsement, perhaps? But does Bloomberg really have a constituency that could sway votes to the Democratic or Republican nominee?

Or, how about being someone's vice-presidential choice?

Well, Obama certainly doesn't need Bloomberg's billions on the ticket. Would he lend Obama some "gravitas" (that's what Dick Cheney brought to George W. Bush way back when)? Perhaps, but he doesn't give Obama any foreign-policy experience. And Obama doesn't need him to win New York.

On the other hand, Bloomberg came to McCain's defense over the New York Times story. Could McCain select him? But would he have to promise not to use any of Bloomberg's money for the run? And what would conservatives do if McCain selected a liberal Republican independent as his running mate?

Dance Number Two begins...

UPDATE: For those wondering to what I was referring when I said "dance," let me reiterate and expand on what I wrote in the Comments section: The "dance" to which I refer was Bloomberg's "No, I'm not running" official stance contrasted with the other signals that he was sending -- having his right hand man say the exact opposite off the record, hiring pollsters to test his chances, meeting with the Perot people, having his top strategist conveniently release a book about "independent" politicians, etc. My Post colleague Dave Seifman addresses Bloomberg's less-than-above-board game-playing. In short, this speculation wasn't just pundit-driven (and I'm not saying that because I was one of the first to bring up the point).

Furthermore, had the major-party nominees been say, Hillary and Mitt Romney, I'm pretty sure that he would have been even more tempted to get in.

Dance Number Two refers to Bloomberg's attempt to make himself relevant in the fall campaign.

Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain, Michael Bloomberg

Apparently, it just struck The New York Times that an independent run by Michael Bloomberg could hurt the Democratic nominee more than the Republican. And so, the paper seems to be going all out to, ahem, gently dissuade, the mayor from jumping into the race. On Sunday, a story appeared underscoring Bloomberg's Democrat ties and positions.

Then, today, we see a story about how the rise of Obama "deflates...talk of a Bloomberg run".

Yes, objectively, Obama's message of "change" and trying to rise "above partisanship" certainly does eat into some of Bloomberg's appeal (as would a McCain candidacy on the Republican side), however TWO Times stories in three days trying to throw cold water on "independent" Michael Bloomberg.

Quite a coincidence. (Geez, if the Times was so concerned about this, they should have checked here 18 months ago, when this blog noted that a Bloomberg run "could spell complete disaster" for the Democrats.)

Labels: Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg

Further signs of Eliot Spitzer's problems.

Mike Bloomberg -- governor? Perhaps. Aides to the mayor apparently reach out to NY GOP legendary strategist Bill Powers to explore the viability of challenging Spitzer in 2010. Unlike the Bloomberg-for-Prez boomlet, this has the advantage of being well within the realm of probability.

Labels: Eliot Spitzer, Michael Bloomberg

How weird is this? Despite the rather diverse (in all senses of the word) candidate field, the 2008 presidential contest could ultimately be dominated by two odd states -- New York and Tennessee.

Consider all the variables counting all announced and unannounced candidates:

1) It could be two New Yorkers facing each other -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton vs. Republican Rudy Giuliani.

2) Three New Yorkers facing each other -- Clinton vs. Giuliani vs. Independent Michael Bloomberg.

3) Two Tennesseans going at it -- Democrat Al Gore vs. Republican Fred Thompson

4) New York Democrat Clinton vs Tennessee Republican Thompson

5) Tennessee Democrat Gore vs. New York Republican Giuliani

6, 7 & 8) The last three plus Bloomberg as an independent.

Meanwhile, one-time Ross Perot adviser Ed Rollins lends his perspective on a possible Bloomberg independent run

Labels: Al Gore, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani

Rise of the independent.

That screech you just heard was from a certain lady living in Chappaqua, NY -- for reasons detailed here, little less than a year ago.

UPDATE: Appropos of my previous post, Hillary's Celine Dion theme song choice was strangely prescient: Titanic was a large, expensive vessel that sank after being struck by an iceberg.

As the old joke goes..."Eh, iceberg...Bloomberg, what's the difference?"

Labels: independent candidacy, Michael Bloomberg

The local papers heat up their presidential coverage. Today, it's a Rudy (and Mike)-palooza:

My Post colleague Geoff Earle reports on the controversial decision to place the city's Emergency Response Center in an office building next door to the World Trade Center -- after the first WTC bombing in 1993.

The Times focuses on the growing health concerns of Ground Zero workers and the possible impact on Giuliani's campaign.

The Daily News reports on New Yorker sentiments on their two recent mayors as presidential candidates.

The Gray Lady also does a snapshot on Mike Bloomberg's Bloomy a big fat wet kiss (also from The Post).

Labels: 9/11, GOP 2008 President, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani

The Virginia Tech massacre will get various gun-control and gun-rights advocates into their predictable positions. New York Daily News columnist Michael Daly can barely hold back his glee at mocking Virginia for having "lax" gun laws (others might describe it as a Second Amendment-friendly state).

I will say, however, that an incident like this is, politically, a great opportunity for a potential candidate who has made the proliferation of "illegal" guns a major point in his administration. The possibility of a Michael Bloomberg independent presidential run just increased, in my view.

The mayor visited Ohio and Kentucky last Thursday to discuss the issue. As everyone knows, there aren't that many electoral votes in Ohio, right?

UPDATE: The New York Sun's Josh Gerstein examines how the shooting makes it harder for Democrats to duck the politics of gun control, which has damaged the party with rural and Southern voters in recenet years. Still, the NRA shouldn't be crowing too much. Politics can change in the blink of an eye:

Based on the polls, there could conceivably three pro-gun control candidates running in the 2008 general election: Hillary Clinton, Rudy Clinton Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. Now it is unlikely that Bloomberg would run were Rudy the GOP nominee.

But it's not out of the question either.

UPDATE II: The correct link has now been added to the "unlikely that Bloomberg" phrase; it's a December New York profile of Bloomberg and his possible mayoral run.

UPDATE III: The Rudy reference above was, obviously, a typo. Even despite all those marriages, there's no way Rudy would take Hillary's name...right? Um, unless there's some same-sex thing going on between Rudy and Bill...

Labels: gun control, Michael Bloomberg, Second Amendment, Virginia Tech

It's been a while since I wrote on local New York politics. So, let's take note of Michael Bloomberg.

Given the bulk of his "State of the City" speech Wednesday, one could almost be led to believe that the mayor really is planning on running for president -- as a Republican!!! What else are we to think when he actually champions tax cuts and education reform that starts moving perilously close to the land of vouchers?

With revenue rolling in because of the still-booming NY real estate market, Bloomberg announced a $1 billion package of property and sales tax cuts. It's only a 5 percent cut -- $750 million for one year, plus a $400 "rebate" for the third year in a row. But considering that the centerpiece for Bloomberg's first budget in 2002 was an 18.5 percent property tax increase, this is a marked improvement.

However, as Manhattan Institute scholar Nicole Gelinas points out, this is still not enough:

Bloomberg proposes only a one-year cut. He said yesterday, "It would be great if we can extend this in the years to come, but we can't know that we'll be as fortunate in the future with our revenues and expenses so right now it would not be fiscally sensible to commit to doing so."

Due to this caveat, while homeowners will no doubt put their savings to good use, New York's economy won't benefit from this cut as much as it could.

Why? Commercial-property investors and their tenants, as well as rental-property investors, will still have to budget new projects or renovations using the higher tax rate, since there's no guarantee the savings won't vanish next year.

If Bloomberg is set on property-tax cuts, he'd do better to at least enact a permanent tax cut - and then pledge to keep spending permanently in line to pay for it. But what the city's property-tax structure really needs is complete reform - rental-property owners and condo residents, for example, now pay far more than their fair share of property taxes, pushing costs up for free-market tenants and owners alike.

And in fact, to spur private investment in the city's economy, an income-tax cut would be better than a property-tax cut. A permanent cut in the city's top 3.6 percent income-tax rate, even a modest one, would have two positive effects.

First, it would encourage the creation of the new jobs the city constantly needs. Second, it would reduce New York's dangerous dependence on volatile tax revenue from Wall Streeters. These traders and others directly provide more than a fifth of city in- come-tax cash - but their incomes tend to fluctuate from year to year, creating wild swings in the city's annual surpluses and deficits.

As Nicole says -- make the tax cuts permanent. Whether commercial property or a single-family dwelling, it becomes very difficult to get people to come to NY to raise a family -- if there's not greater year-to-year tax relief. Why would someone move to New York if they knew that the odds were that they'd be facing a de farcto taxe hike, the following year?

Meanwhile, Bloomberg did even better for his ongoing school reform -- including accountability standards for principals, revising tenure eligibility for teachers (yep, that wailing howl you just heard was the city teachers union.

But most significantly, Bloomberg wants to:

overhaul a decades-old school funding system that, solely for political reasons, rewards some schools over others. You wont believe this, but today, funding gaps between comparable schools can top $1 million, or $2,000 per student, year after year.

That's not right and we're going to fix it.

Starting in September, we're going to fund students instead of schools, basing our investment on the number of students enrolled, and their particular needs. The goal is equitable funding among our schools and ensuring that each school has what it needs to teach its students.

The possible implications for this could be huge.

Tying funding formulas to students rather than schools has been a goal of school voucher advocates for years. As the New York Sun notes, Bloomberg's plan opens the door to a school choice/voucher discussion:

If the money is going to follow a student, why not let it follow him or her right into a private independent or parochial school?

So far the mayor and his schools chancellor, Joel Klein, have opposed school vouchers, while enthusiastically backing charter schools. But the change they are proposing could one day allow a mayor and schools chancellor who succeed them — perhaps emboldened by the disappointing record of only incremental improvement within the public monopoly system, even under capable management — to try vouchers. Or at least it could give them a wedge for opening up the issue in Albany.

In liberal New York, Bloomberg undoubtedly can't be as candid as he might wish to be. However, one can't ignore the fact that the cumaulative impact of all of the changes that the mayor and his school chancellor have been making over the years -- accountabilty, more freedom for principals and now this revised funding formula -- is to take apart the schlerotic parts of the public school system and insert something that is far more child- and parent-centered.

Right now it is taking the principles of charter schools and making it system-based. A few years down the line, however, and we could be looking at voucher pilot programs in the Big Apple.

Oh, as for my observation above that one can only "almost" believe that this combination of tax cuts and education reform means Bloomberg is thinking of running for president as a real Republican, be advised that he also devoted a significant part of his speech to his favorite inter-state concern -- "illegal" guns!

C'est la vie.

UPDATE: I appeared this morning on local public radio station, WNYC's Brian Lehrer show, discussing Bloomberg's tax cuts. Listen to liberal pundit Andrea Batista Schlesinger who is on right before me, as I respond to a few of her comments.

Labels: Michael Bloomberg, New York City, school choice, tax cuts