The wages of sin: your wages, their sin

Now that our great and glorious leader Michael Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn Quisling have succeeded in their power play, here’s a little question to consider this fine fall weekend: at what cost?

I am not asking about the political cost, which is, in many ways, immeasurable—at least as yet—I am talking about the real cost in New York City tax dollars that have already gone or will have to go quite literally to pay homage to our new born king. For along with the millions upon millions that have already been spent out of the mayor’s publicly financed slush fund to buy the votes he needed on the City Council (an impeachable offense, as best I can tell), NYC will now have to spend more taxpayer dollars to defend itself against the lawsuits that naturally had to arise from this extralegal end run around the city charter (two have already been filed, with the promise of more on the way).

It will certainly be in the millions of dollars—how many millions, I can’t say. I doubt anyone in the city government would dare give an estimate.

But, millions and millions of city dollars have been spent, and millions and millions of city dollars will be spent. . . all so that we can keep Mike Bloomberg and his supposedly irreplaceable expertise in place to guide the city through the dire fiscal crisis to come.

* * *

By the way, Mike and Chris caught the eye and ire of the national media on Thursday, making Keith Olbermann’s list of Worst Persons in the World.




(cross-posted on Daily Kos, guy2k and The Seminal)

Liar, liar

Sensing a groundswell of increasingly organized opposition to the Bloomberg-Quinn term limits override plan, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has rush-scheduled a vote on the proposal for tomorrow, Thursday, 10/23.

A new Quinnipiac poll shows a “dramatic swing” away from support for billionaire Bloomberg’s power grab: 51% of NYC voters now oppose a third term for Mayor Mike, up from 42% just two weeks ago. The same poll revealed that city residents prefer changing the term limits law through referendum by a whopping 89% to 7%.

Bloomberg could probably buy himself another election, but has continued to push his cheaper plan. As detailed yesterday, the mayor has used both public dollars from a previously secret slush fund, and donations from his philanthropies to buy what he thinks is enough support inside the City Council to avoid a less predictable plebiscite.

Democracy is messy. Bloomberg is famously phobic of messy.

You know what else can be messy? The facts. So, naturally, Hizzoner (his dishonor?) doesn’t like them, either:

Asked about the public’s preference that term limits be decided through referendum, Mr. Bloomberg said it was too late and too legally problematic to call for a special election or referendum. He also dismissed suggestions that he chose to work through the Council since he could be more confident of the result.

“I’m not trying to manipulate the system for an outcome,” he said, during an event at the P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center. . . .

He then hightailed it back to City Hall. . . where he continued to meet in private with nominally wavering council members.

One of those who had been officially undecided, Peter Vallone Jr., decided—he’ll stay bought support the mayor.

“I’m doing what I think is right,” said Mr. Vallone, the son of a former City Council speaker who is also an avid supporter.

Vallone then said, “If you’ll excuse me, I have to go back to counting my money.”

Metaphorically, anyway. Vallone Jr. received $400,000 from Bloomberg’s slush fund (making him the third largest beneficiary), and has been granted a discretionary budget of $1.1 million—about twice the council average—for both 2008 and 2009.

I guess if you take the second-term councilman’s statement to mean that he is doing what he thinks is right for himself, then I guess that Vallone isn’t a liar. . . so I would still need a second liar to justify my headline. . . .

Well, there is billionaire Republican Ronald Lauder, who (as previously mentioned) bankrolled the previous two term limit referendums. Lauder has publicly decided that in Bloomberg’s case, his previous efforts shouldn’t count:

It was Mr. Lauder’s money and advocacy that originally paved the way for term limits, and it was only recently that Mr. Bloomberg convinced a reluctant Mr. Lauder that the economic crisis necessitated a third term for the mayor. In exchange for Mr. Lauder’s support, Mr. Bloomberg promised him a seat on a charter revision commission that would probably try to restore the two-term limit in a subsequent referendum, likely in 2010.

“I believe very strongly that the mayor should get the extra term and the City Council should get a third term,” Mr. Lauder said in an interview. “That is part of the deal. But I never spoke about the first-term council members.”

Well, actually, Lauder is being kind of honest there, isn’t he? He is publicly announcing to all the world that he cut a deal with Michael Bloomberg. Yes, that’s right, the laws can change because two billionaires made a deal.

But only for the mayor and some of the council members—not the first term-ers. Gosh, that’s not how the deal is being sold by Council Speaker Chris Quinn. As she sells tells it, the one time extension to three terms applies to the mayor, the whole council, and the city’s comptroller, public advocate, and five borough presidents. Could the City Council be voting Thursday on something other than what they’ve been told?

I think we’ve found our second liar.


(cross-posted on guy2k and The Seminal)

Impeach Bloomberg

And, while you’re at it, impeach Quinn, Markowitz, Felder, Recchia, Valone, Dilan, and Sears, too.

I know I should learn more about the rules and bylaws that govern New York City’s impeachment process—and maybe I’ll get to that later—but right now I don’t care. All I know is that there is already a stack of stories on how Mayor Michael Bloomberg has used both personal and public funds in a covertly choreographed attempt to buy the support he needs to override the city’s term limits law, and he can no longer be trusted as an honest steward of our interests.

He has also used our tax dollars for his master plan, so, beyond being forced from office, he probably belongs in jail.

Someday. . . I’ll call upon you to do a service for me. . . .

It has now been reported that Bloomberg and/or Deputy Mayors Linda Gibbs, Edward Skyler, and Kevin Sheekey (all New York City employees, paid with tax dollars, in case that’s not obvious) placed calls to at least five community, arts, and neighborhood groups that had received city contracts and/or large donations from Bloomberg’s private philanthropies. The mayor and his deputies asked if those organizations might testify before the City Council on behalf of Bloomberg, or lobby council members behind he scenes to vote for the mayor’s position postponing term limits.

One leader of a civic group made it clear that it was an offer they couldn’t refuse.

Yet, when representatives from these organizations testified before the council late last week, none revealed their financial ties to Bloomberg.

It has also been revealed that money from the mayor’s previously secret slush fund (it was discovered in June after a similar, City Council Speaker slush fund was exposed) was disproportionately ferried to City Council members who sit on the committee that must first approve Bloomberg’s third term scheme before it can come to a vote before the entire council.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a close ally of the mayor who made her support known last week, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, a vocal advocate for the Bloomberg plan, were also recipients of supersized amounts of Mayor Mike’s munificence.

And, just to reiterate, this largess is public money. It is from a kitty funded by New York City taxpayers.

Does not pass the smell test

Not surprisingly, two mayoral hopefuls are not pleased:

“It is an abuse of power, and it must stop,” said the city’s top financial watchdog, the New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., who may run for mayor next year.

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, another likely candidate for mayor, said that “if you rely on the mayor or the administration to fund your organization, saying no when the mayor calls is not an option.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s tactic, he said, “walks right up to the line of coercion, and it’s very corrosive.”

But there are plenty of others from many different sectors that find these abuses equally (or even more) untoward:

Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College, said it was inappropriate for the mayor to be asking the groups that are so dependent on his good graces to take a position on his legislation.

“It’s distasteful. And what’s distasteful about it is leaning on weak people — people who are vulnerable,” Mr. Sherrill said. “The problem is in the implicit threat that if you don’t help, we’re going to remember.”

….

Fred Siegel, a professor of history at Cooper Union who has studied New York City politics for decades, said Mr. Bloomberg had cynically “reversed the flow of money” in politics to build the illusion, if not the reality, of widespread support.

“The traditional politicians are bought by special interest groups, but Bloomberg buys special interest groups,” he said.

But wait, there’s more:

Mr. Bloomberg’s critics argue that changing term limits will not expand choice because it will all but guarantee his re-election, given his willingness, in two previous campaigns, to spend $80 million to win the office.

Gene Russianoff, a senior lawyer for the New York Public Interest Research Group, said that asking groups who receive city money to support the term limits bill “looks like an administration desperately abusing its power to stay in office. It just does not pass the smell test.”

Betsy Gotbaum, New York City’s public advocate, called the tactic “wrong.” She added, “You have the right to give all the money you want, but because you give support, you shouldn’t have to get support.”

Well, “you”—meaning Billionaire Bloomberg—might have the right to give all you/he wants. . . of his money! But if public funds are allocated on a quid pro quo, that would be not just smelly, but almost certainly illegal.

And, though not yet illegal, perhaps we need a law that requires full disclosure of financial ties from those testifying before public bodies. There needs to be some counter balance, some disincentive for this and future mayors and their client organizations.

Mike Bloomberg’s obscene wealth and the way he used it to pollute the electoral process has always been problematic (to say the least), but this current power play has crossed a new and more dangerous line. The use of personal funds to create the illusion of widespread support and to, let’s face it, bribe public officials should probably be made illegal. The use of taxpayer dollars to do the same sorts of things almost certainly already is.

Forget a third term; Mayor Bloomberg should not be allowed to finish his second.

(h/t DM)


(cross-posted on guy2k, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

Continuity this!

OK, I’ve put it off long enough. . . I suppose it is time for me to give up my copper on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s little plan to abrogate override extend term limits, allowing him to run for buy another four years in office.

I probably have more than two cents to add. . . I probably should have been down at the City Council hearings on Thursday, watching the goings on in the packed, stuffy room, impatiently waiting the 10, 12, 14 hours it might have taken for them to get to my two minutes of “fame.” But, truth be told, I had to spend 20 hours fighting with Time Warner about my dead internet connection, and, truth be told again, I was afraid that if I went, I would wind up with my own set of plastic bracelets. . . .

Yes, I am that angry. (I was that angry with Time Warner, too, but I had the benefit of being able to just slam the phone down when I though I was getting out of control.)

Let me just say straight out: I hate, hate, hate term limits. I believe that they are undemocratic. I believe they deny we the people the opportunity to fully exercise our franchise. In other words, I believe we already have term limits—they’re called elections.

Yes, we have a problem of entrenched incumbents, we do, but they are entrenched because incumbency can too easily become an entrée to influence peddling. It gives politicians easy access to powerful, moneyed interests who are all too happy to spread the wealth (sorry, Johnny Mac) in exchange for tax breaks, zoning changes, pay-to-play contracts, and a myriad of other secret-handshake and/or look-the-other-way deals.

But the way to end all this numismatic noblesse oblige is not to force out the good with the bad. Incumbency in-and-of itself is not a bad thing. There is a lot to be said for a professional government, one with institutional memory, one that knows how to grab the reigns of power, build coalitions, plumb the obscure depths of the law, and actually get things done on behalf of the electorate. And I believe that there are incumbents who behave in just that manner. . . and many who might even do more for their constituents if it weren’t for the incessant necessity of raising money for the next election.

Unless, of course, you are so disgustingly rich that you don’t have to work on that level—but more on that later. . . .

Term limits are a blunt instrument (dare I say “a hatchet?”); a quick fix that isn’t really a fix at all. And, perhaps worse, they are cynical. Inherent in the term limits equation is the assumption that all politicians are the same, and that this same is something just this side of pond scum. If I believed that, I would probably never vote again. I have a feeling that for some in the ruling class, it would be just fine if my cohort and I went to just such an unhappy place. “Democracy” is so much more manageable when most of us turn off, tune out, and stay home.

Instead of encouraging such cynicism, I’d rather we discourage the cronyism. Full public financing of political campaigns—coupled with laws and initiatives that protect, ease, and encourage near universal participation of those eligible to vote—would go a long way toward solving both the problem of incumbent-coddling influence peddling and the problem of the supremely wealthy simply buying their way in.

So, if term limits disappeared tomorrow, and we could start working on public financing and universal participation, well, that would very much calm my jangled nerves.

So, yeah, I hate term limits. . . but, you know what? I think I hate Mike Bloomberg—and, now, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn—even more.

Don’t get me wrong, if those two—the tweedle deaf and tweedle dumb of this current battle—were actually proposing to do away with term limits altogether, and to do it by putting it to a popular vote (because the term limits were imposed by popular vote), I would probably hold my nose and salute. (What kind of salute? Well, uh, let’s move on. . .) If Mayor Mike would spend half as much as he did to get elected (or reelected—when he spent even more) to campaign for the repeal of term limits rather than glad handing, arm twisting, and featherbedding his way to a city council majority, I bet he could get the result he wanted.

(The fact of the matter is, we only really have term limits because another billionaire, Republican and failed gubernatorial candidate Ronald Lauder (with some help from conservative billionaire and failed gubernatorial candidate Tom Golisano), flooded the airways and mailboxes of New York with pro-term limit propaganda. They outspent the anti-term limits groups by such a factor as to render them invisible. It was not a fair fight; it was not—thanks to the corrupting influence of money—an honest plebiscite. Ironic, no?)

But Bloomberg—previously a staunch defender of a two-term limit—has not done that. He actually said he thought that a popular vote would be “distracting” and “messy.” Democracy is a bitch (when you’re rich). The mayor has instead chosen to pursue the cleaner (cheaper?) route: a mere 26 members of the City Council.

Step one toward corralling the 26: include them in on the deal.

Oh, and I should probably mention what that deal is.

What it is not is an abolition of term limits. No. It is simply an extension of term limits. A one-term extension. Oh, and, not forever, either. Nope. It is a one time, one term extension.

Because that’s the deal that Bloomberg had to cut with Ron Lauder to keep him—and his money—on the sidelines.

Is this all feeling creepy enough for you yet? Wait, there’s more.

With much of the City Council also about to be term limited out of office, they have a dog in the fight, too—a lap dog.

It’s another of the problems with term limits. By the time you make a name for yourself in city politics, by the time you build connections or coalitions, by the time you have enough alliances to, say, get elected Speaker of the council, it’s the legally mandated time to leave. If you want to continue in city politics, you have to change jobs. But there are only so many jobs to go around—Mayor, Borough President, maybe Comptroller. That’s not really enough to give everybody a chance to achieve “greatness,” or even, just maybe, build a couple of new libraries or push for a change in the tax laws.

Christine Quinn, for instance, has been running for mayor pretty much from the day she was elected Speaker. She has to—she’s in her last term. Several other council members also would like to sow a few more seeds; part of the deal that Quinn struck to get the Speaker’s gavel was to agree to take up term extensions.

Quinn commissioned a private poll. The numbers didn’t look good; it would reflect badly on Quinn if she pushed it. So, she let the issue of an extension quietly drop.

This time around, Speaker Quinn waited ten days from the mayor’s official announcement before she publicly decided to side with Bloomberg. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Quinn, who had fought the Mayor on several issues in her pre-Speaker days, has been thisclose to Millionaire Mike for the last three years.

But that’s not really why you shouldn’t be surprised. I have a feeling Quinn spent those ten days doing some other polling. Already well behind US Representative Anthony Weiner in fundraising, Quinn might have seen that she would lose not only to Weiner, but also to City Comptroller William Thompson, if a Democratic Mayoral primary were held today.

Realizing that she had nowhere to go but nowhere, Quinn took a meeting (or two) with Bloomberg, and a deal was cut. I have no idea what that deal might look like—OK, I have some idea—but pretty much only Chris and Mike are pretending there is no Quinn pro quo.

So, we have Mayor Bloomberg, a man who a few years back threatened to veto a term limit extension, and Speaker Quinn, a woman who pretended to think this over, now united in extending term limits for themselves, for just this once. . . . And get this, this is what really has me. . . they are doing it for us.

It’s the economic crisis, you see—a cataclysmic event so distractingly perfect if it weren’t real, they’d have to create it. (Wait a minute there. . . oh, never mind.)

Apparently, in times this desperate, this scary—this undercapitalized—there is only one billionaire that can save us. Only one, one, one!

Absurd, ridiculous, insulting even—I mean, really fucking insulting—but that’s not the worst of it. Both Bloomberg and Quinn have said that in these troubled times we need a “continuity of government.”

Continuity of government. Now, I know, its taken me a long time to get here, but it is the use of this term that would have had me screaming and waving my finger at council members should I have been crazy enough to head downtown. That term, continuity of government, is what we in democracies talk about when we talk about the transition from one elected officeholder to another. Continuity of government refers to the system, not to the people. It refers to the rule of law—and how it does not change at the mere whim of the current executive—because (and, beware, I am going to go all caps on you) WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS; NOT A GOVERNMENT OF MEN!

To use “continuity of government” to mean the polar opposite is positively (negatively) Orwellian. Worse, it is. . . well, like with the salute, I won’t go there. . . .

Let’s just say that it is not leadership through a crisis. And it is certainly not what those of us who truly, passionately, and objectively hate term limits advocate for: democracy.

No, instead, it is part and parcel of the problem that gave us this economic crisis. It is plutocracy—the rule of a society by its wealthiest members. And it is this continuation of such rule that Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is trying to ram down the throats of New Yorkers under the war-equals-peace, poverty-equals-wealth twisting of the term, the concept, the ideal of continuity of government.

Well, Michael—and Christine—continuity this!

[Insert the gesture of your choice]


(cross-posted on The Seminal and Daily Kos)