I was in a local convenience store when I noticed several of the two liter bottles of soda carried a tag made by the convenience store. They read something like: "Gov. Paterson wants you to pay 68 cents more tax on this bottle of soda" and then encouraged customers to go to a website to lobby the "part-time" state legislature (with its full-time salary) against this tax. The tag was found on bottles of Pepsi, Mountain Dew and Diet Pepsi. I removed the tag from the bottle of Diet Pepsi because it's simply not true. The 'fat tax' advocated by the governor and his health commissioner would add a penny per ounce tax to sugared sodas. Diet Pepsi is not a sugared soda.
I've stated before that the 'fat tax' is a poor and ineffective way to advance the public policy goal of reducing costly obesity; a more rational system of farm subsidies and food production would be much better. But case can be made without invoking the lie that the governor wants to tax diet soda.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
'Economic development' entities: useful tools or patronage factories?
I'd love to know why the city of Glens Falls (GF) spends so much money on so many different "economic development"-type entities. In addition to the Urban Renewal Agency (which may have a distinct purpose), the city also has:
-The Greater GF Local Development Corporation
-The GF Industrial Development Agency
... which largely duplicate the following county-level organizations...
-The Warren County Economic Development Corporation
-The Warren/Washington County Industrial Development Agency
... in addition to several economic development related positions inside City Hall itself...
-An economic/community development director (held by former mayor Ed Bartholomew)
-An economic development consultant (was Ken Green until he resigned following to DWI charges)
The city used to have a tourism coordinator (which itself mimicked the county tourism office) and a downtown events' coordinator as well, though I'm not sure if those positions are still filled.
Is all the money being spent by taxpayers of this small city on this plethora of unelected, unaccountable agencies, directors, consultants and coordinators really recouped by the work they do? Why can't all the City Hall functions be consolidated into a single position and the quasi-public agencies folded into their county counterparts? Do any business owners know what these entities are doing to validate their existence? In the midst of this economic tumult in a city with already high property taxes, I'd love to see hard economic numbers justifying all this apparent duplication.
-The Greater GF Local Development Corporation
-The GF Industrial Development Agency
... which largely duplicate the following county-level organizations...
-The Warren County Economic Development Corporation
-The Warren/Washington County Industrial Development Agency
... in addition to several economic development related positions inside City Hall itself...
-An economic/community development director (held by former mayor Ed Bartholomew)
-An economic development consultant (was Ken Green until he resigned following to DWI charges)
The city used to have a tourism coordinator (which itself mimicked the county tourism office) and a downtown events' coordinator as well, though I'm not sure if those positions are still filled.
Is all the money being spent by taxpayers of this small city on this plethora of unelected, unaccountable agencies, directors, consultants and coordinators really recouped by the work they do? Why can't all the City Hall functions be consolidated into a single position and the quasi-public agencies folded into their county counterparts? Do any business owners know what these entities are doing to validate their existence? In the midst of this economic tumult in a city with already high property taxes, I'd love to see hard economic numbers justifying all this apparent duplication.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The triumph of rhetoric
"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.
North Country Public Radio did a news report on a northern New York meeting of fiscally conservative Republicans.
It was a seemingly ordinary piece that brought to light the complete intellectual bankruptcy of most of those (non-libertarians) who espouse fiscal conservatives.
All the interviewees preached the standard mantra of less spending, lower taxes and smaller government... all stuff that sounds great in theory. But when pushed for specifics to translate that theory into reality, it was one giant #fail, as Tweeters might say.
The self-described fiscal conservatives talked a good game until it was pointed out that the politically conservative region is heavily dependent on taxpayer money, particularly from Albany and Washington. With the Fort Drum military bases, universities, school teachers, park rangers and prison guards, NNY's economy is very heavily based on jobs in the public sector or that are funded by public money.
When challenged with this fact, the small-government types reassured their potential supporters that this reality was no impediment to their ideology. It would be no problem preserving the taxpayer spigot to NNY; they could just make other regions suffer the budget cuts instead.
One interviewee pretended to sound specific by suggesting that Medicaid spending be slashed. When asked what particular Medicaid programs she'd want to cut, she said she didn't know.
I didn't hear one thing in this piece that showed that these so-called fiscal conservatives were the tiniest bit serious. Cheap NIMBY rhetoric is good for the fantasy world of rabble rousing, not for the real world of governance.
North Country Public Radio did a news report on a northern New York meeting of fiscally conservative Republicans.
It was a seemingly ordinary piece that brought to light the complete intellectual bankruptcy of most of those (non-libertarians) who espouse fiscal conservatives.
All the interviewees preached the standard mantra of less spending, lower taxes and smaller government... all stuff that sounds great in theory. But when pushed for specifics to translate that theory into reality, it was one giant #fail, as Tweeters might say.
The self-described fiscal conservatives talked a good game until it was pointed out that the politically conservative region is heavily dependent on taxpayer money, particularly from Albany and Washington. With the Fort Drum military bases, universities, school teachers, park rangers and prison guards, NNY's economy is very heavily based on jobs in the public sector or that are funded by public money.
When challenged with this fact, the small-government types reassured their potential supporters that this reality was no impediment to their ideology. It would be no problem preserving the taxpayer spigot to NNY; they could just make other regions suffer the budget cuts instead.
One interviewee pretended to sound specific by suggesting that Medicaid spending be slashed. When asked what particular Medicaid programs she'd want to cut, she said she didn't know.
I didn't hear one thing in this piece that showed that these so-called fiscal conservatives were the tiniest bit serious. Cheap NIMBY rhetoric is good for the fantasy world of rabble rousing, not for the real world of governance.
A rational system of funding education
Unfortunately I can't post these thoughts on The Post-Star's website because technical difficulties with comments appear to linger, contrary to what Managing Editor Ken Tingley's blog states but...
It's little secret that I strongly disagree with Post-Star projects' editor Will Doolittle's opinion of green groups and their alleged relationship with the state of New York. However, he tends to be pretty sensible on most other issues.
Take this column on the dysfunctional system of education funding in New York.
New York is responsible for educating its kids. The state should cover that cost the same way it pays for other state operations, through the state income tax. Education's price tag won't go down, but the tax burden will be distributed more fairly - among districts and among individuals.
He echoes what I've been saying for years.
Anything mandated by the state should be paid for in full by Albany. Anything mandated by the feds should be paid for in full by Washington. The only things that should be funded locally are things that the local school boards voluntarily choose to offer (e.g.: sports, music, extracurriculars).
Right now, there is tension in many communities between property owners and school teachers. Property owners claim that regressive school taxes are too high. Teachers claim that they are required to have strenuous (and expensive) academic qualifications for their job and deserve to be compensated accordingly.
Doolittle, like myself, recognizes that BOTH sides are right. Teachers do deserve to be fairly compensated for their required qualifications. And property owners in New York state DO face a crushing tax burden.
He deserves praise for advocating a fundamental overhaul of this irrational funding structure, for advocating an actual solution, a fair solution, rather than throwing out cheap populism.
The current system creates unnecessary tension between two of the main stakeholders in education.
Doolittle wisely takes enough of a long view to recognize this. His short-sighted colleague Tingley does not.
The Managing Editor wrote a column blasting the Glens Falls teachers' union for, in his view, undermining quality education in the city district.
Now, I'm a bit skeptical the union made the right decision for its members regarding a temporary pay freeze (or deferral, depending on whom you ask). But Tingley's harsh rhetoric demonstrates a complete lack of perspective. The teachers are not the problem.
Unlike Doolittle, Tingley fails to see the forest for the trees. Tingley and the rest of the daily's editorial board should read Doolittle's column, re-read it and keep reading it until they get it. Rather than bashing the professionals who educate the children he piously claims to care about, the managing editor (along with the editorial board) should instead be thumping their chests to demand a sane, rational method of funding education in New York state. Rather than playing to community divisions, leaders should be trying to unite people.
THAT, not cheap populism and union-bashing, is the only way to ensure the quality education Tingley claims to care about.
It's little secret that I strongly disagree with Post-Star projects' editor Will Doolittle's opinion of green groups and their alleged relationship with the state of New York. However, he tends to be pretty sensible on most other issues.
Take this column on the dysfunctional system of education funding in New York.
New York is responsible for educating its kids. The state should cover that cost the same way it pays for other state operations, through the state income tax. Education's price tag won't go down, but the tax burden will be distributed more fairly - among districts and among individuals.
He echoes what I've been saying for years.
Anything mandated by the state should be paid for in full by Albany. Anything mandated by the feds should be paid for in full by Washington. The only things that should be funded locally are things that the local school boards voluntarily choose to offer (e.g.: sports, music, extracurriculars).
Right now, there is tension in many communities between property owners and school teachers. Property owners claim that regressive school taxes are too high. Teachers claim that they are required to have strenuous (and expensive) academic qualifications for their job and deserve to be compensated accordingly.
Doolittle, like myself, recognizes that BOTH sides are right. Teachers do deserve to be fairly compensated for their required qualifications. And property owners in New York state DO face a crushing tax burden.
He deserves praise for advocating a fundamental overhaul of this irrational funding structure, for advocating an actual solution, a fair solution, rather than throwing out cheap populism.
The current system creates unnecessary tension between two of the main stakeholders in education.
Doolittle wisely takes enough of a long view to recognize this. His short-sighted colleague Tingley does not.
The Managing Editor wrote a column blasting the Glens Falls teachers' union for, in his view, undermining quality education in the city district.
Now, I'm a bit skeptical the union made the right decision for its members regarding a temporary pay freeze (or deferral, depending on whom you ask). But Tingley's harsh rhetoric demonstrates a complete lack of perspective. The teachers are not the problem.
Unlike Doolittle, Tingley fails to see the forest for the trees. Tingley and the rest of the daily's editorial board should read Doolittle's column, re-read it and keep reading it until they get it. Rather than bashing the professionals who educate the children he piously claims to care about, the managing editor (along with the editorial board) should instead be thumping their chests to demand a sane, rational method of funding education in New York state. Rather than playing to community divisions, leaders should be trying to unite people.
THAT, not cheap populism and union-bashing, is the only way to ensure the quality education Tingley claims to care about.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Fat tax vs rational farm policy
North Country Public Radio's In Box blog has an interesting discussion on 'Who's responsibility is it to protect kids from bad food?'
The essay is within the context of a controversial proposal strongly pushed by New York state's health commissioner to tax, among other things, sugary sodas, generally referred to as the 'fat tax.'
Nearly all commenters agreed it was the parents' responsibility to protect kids from bad food. This ignores the fact that parents can't control their kids every movement. If 15 year old with a few bucks wants a bag of potato chips and a Rice Krispies treat for lunch and his school cafeteria has a vending machine that sells those things, that's what he's going to eat.
But more broadly, it's hard to argue with the 'take responsibility for you and your kids' mantra. Parents DO have a critical role in shaping the nutritional habits of their children, especially when they're younger.
After all, no one wants the state stick its nose in personal decisions unnecessarily.
Except the state is already distorting these decisions via public policy... via public policy that favors BAD food.
When I was a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa, processed and fast food was relatively much more expensive than fresh food. Upon returning to the US, I was struck by how the situation was totally the opposite in this country. A head of lettuce at the supermarket might cost you more than two double cheeseburgers at McDonald's.
Not coincidentally, I noticed something else. In West Africa, relatively obese people were almost inevitably businessmen and bureaucrats, people from the small upper middle class. These are people on the high end of the income scale and can more easily afford processed food.
In the United States, it's the poor people who are disproportionately affected by obesity. They can't easily afford fresh fruits and vegetables and often don't have much access to them even if they could. They also can't afford things like gym memberships and are too busy working three crappy jobs anyway. But spending $4 on two double cheesburgers, an order of fries and a Mountain Dew at the Golden Arches is much more within their budget.
I wondered why it was that bad food in the US was so much cheaper than good food. Then I noticed this graphic from Andrew Sullivan's blog on theatlantic.com
According to nutritionists, meat and dairy are supposed to be 24% of our diet and yet they gorge on nearly 74% of public farm subsidies.
By contrast, fruits and vegetables are supposed to be 36% of our diet and yet starve on not even 0.4% of subsidies.
Sugar, oil, starch and alcohol receive nearly 30 times more subsidies than fruits and vegetables.
No wonder the pricing structure of food is so irrational.
Instead of punishing people for bad behaviors (that don't harm other people), public policy should be used to encourage people to practice desirable behaviors.
The fat tax gets it backwards. It raises the price of bad food but does nothing to make more affordable the price of good food.
We offer massive public subsidies to farm products used to create unhealthy products. We should re-jigger those subsidies so they're used to support products that are good for us, including organic.
Obviously, subsidies are more about politics than health and nutrition. Meat and dairy gets most of the subsidies because meat and dairy state legislators are very powerful.
Making bad food more expensive makes everyone resentful because people still have to spend a lot on the good food to replace it. You can know something is good for you but if you can't afford it, so what?
Making our system of subsidies more sane is much better than a fat tax. It will do more than discourage people from bad food; it will encourage them toward good food.
In short, we should use less stick and more carrot (and lettuce and tomato...).
The essay is within the context of a controversial proposal strongly pushed by New York state's health commissioner to tax, among other things, sugary sodas, generally referred to as the 'fat tax.'
Nearly all commenters agreed it was the parents' responsibility to protect kids from bad food. This ignores the fact that parents can't control their kids every movement. If 15 year old with a few bucks wants a bag of potato chips and a Rice Krispies treat for lunch and his school cafeteria has a vending machine that sells those things, that's what he's going to eat.
But more broadly, it's hard to argue with the 'take responsibility for you and your kids' mantra. Parents DO have a critical role in shaping the nutritional habits of their children, especially when they're younger.
After all, no one wants the state stick its nose in personal decisions unnecessarily.
Except the state is already distorting these decisions via public policy... via public policy that favors BAD food.
When I was a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa, processed and fast food was relatively much more expensive than fresh food. Upon returning to the US, I was struck by how the situation was totally the opposite in this country. A head of lettuce at the supermarket might cost you more than two double cheeseburgers at McDonald's.
Not coincidentally, I noticed something else. In West Africa, relatively obese people were almost inevitably businessmen and bureaucrats, people from the small upper middle class. These are people on the high end of the income scale and can more easily afford processed food.
In the United States, it's the poor people who are disproportionately affected by obesity. They can't easily afford fresh fruits and vegetables and often don't have much access to them even if they could. They also can't afford things like gym memberships and are too busy working three crappy jobs anyway. But spending $4 on two double cheesburgers, an order of fries and a Mountain Dew at the Golden Arches is much more within their budget.
I wondered why it was that bad food in the US was so much cheaper than good food. Then I noticed this graphic from Andrew Sullivan's blog on theatlantic.com
According to nutritionists, meat and dairy are supposed to be 24% of our diet and yet they gorge on nearly 74% of public farm subsidies.
By contrast, fruits and vegetables are supposed to be 36% of our diet and yet starve on not even 0.4% of subsidies.
Sugar, oil, starch and alcohol receive nearly 30 times more subsidies than fruits and vegetables.
No wonder the pricing structure of food is so irrational.
Instead of punishing people for bad behaviors (that don't harm other people), public policy should be used to encourage people to practice desirable behaviors.
The fat tax gets it backwards. It raises the price of bad food but does nothing to make more affordable the price of good food.
We offer massive public subsidies to farm products used to create unhealthy products. We should re-jigger those subsidies so they're used to support products that are good for us, including organic.
Obviously, subsidies are more about politics than health and nutrition. Meat and dairy gets most of the subsidies because meat and dairy state legislators are very powerful.
Making bad food more expensive makes everyone resentful because people still have to spend a lot on the good food to replace it. You can know something is good for you but if you can't afford it, so what?
Making our system of subsidies more sane is much better than a fat tax. It will do more than discourage people from bad food; it will encourage them toward good food.
In short, we should use less stick and more carrot (and lettuce and tomato...).
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Espada to enter Albany's Pantheon of convicts?
State Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada, of coup infamy, is reported under investigation for alleged corruption. According to The New York Times, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo alleged that that Mr. Espada, his family and his political aides had siphoned more than $14 million from a health care nonprofit he founded to pay for meals, vacations and campaign expenses.
The organization's board approved a $9 million severance package for Espada, reported the NYT.
The not-for-profit, surprise surprise, receives the 'vast majority' of its funding from taxpayers.
If convicted, Espada would join a long list of high-ranking New York leaders in recent times to be forced out of office due to criminal activity.
-Assembly Speaker Mel Miller (convicted of fraud, 1991)
-Chief Judge Sol Wachtler (convicted of intimidation and attempted kidnapping, 1993)
-Comptroller Alan Hevesi (convicted of defrauding the government, 2006)
-Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (convicted of corruption and mail fraud, 2009) (note: he resigned during the investigation but before the indictment)
-Governor Eliot Spitzer (we all know that story)
This list does not even include lower level dregs like convicted domestic abuser and expelled senator Hiram Monserrate.
Update: Commenter Bob from Planet Albany blog points out that during the current legislative session, all 62 members of the Senate has voted to make Espada either president pro temp (and thus at the time acting lieutenant governor) or majority leader.
The organization's board approved a $9 million severance package for Espada, reported the NYT.
The not-for-profit, surprise surprise, receives the 'vast majority' of its funding from taxpayers.
If convicted, Espada would join a long list of high-ranking New York leaders in recent times to be forced out of office due to criminal activity.
-Assembly Speaker Mel Miller (convicted of fraud, 1991)
-Chief Judge Sol Wachtler (convicted of intimidation and attempted kidnapping, 1993)
-Comptroller Alan Hevesi (convicted of defrauding the government, 2006)
-Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (convicted of corruption and mail fraud, 2009) (note: he resigned during the investigation but before the indictment)
-Governor Eliot Spitzer (we all know that story)
This list does not even include lower level dregs like convicted domestic abuser and expelled senator Hiram Monserrate.
Update: Commenter Bob from Planet Albany blog points out that during the current legislative session, all 62 members of the Senate has voted to make Espada either president pro temp (and thus at the time acting lieutenant governor) or majority leader.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Further de-bunking of the hit job against The Nature Conservancy
Another follow up to my original piece about The New York Post state editor Fred Dicker's smear on the Nature Conservancy (TNC)...
The Adirondack Daily Enterprise's editorial page, a venue not typically sympathetic to environmentalists, blasted Dicker's hit job.
Additionally, North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann filed a report noting that it appears that the land sale included a series of checks and balances designed to insure a fair deal.
The report also pointed out that (shock!) Dicker's trash omitted several key facts. It noted, for example, that the state used five separate appraisals before agreeing a sale price.
When asked by NCPR if he had concrete proof of an unethical working relationship between TNC and the state, Warren County Board of Supervisors Chairman Fred Monroe (Dicker's main source) admitted, "Do I have any evidence? No."
So much like The Post-Star's Will Doolittle, The Post's Dicker parroted serious allegations of (likely criminal) collusion between the state and TNC without insisting that the accusers offer a single shred of evidence. To call this merely irresponsible would be a huge understatement. I'm surprised TNC hasn't filed a lawsuit.
And journalistic big wigs think that you have to be a Fox- or MSNBC-loving ideologue mistrust the mainstream news media.
The Adirondack Daily Enterprise's editorial page, a venue not typically sympathetic to environmentalists, blasted Dicker's hit job.
Additionally, North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann filed a report noting that it appears that the land sale included a series of checks and balances designed to insure a fair deal.
The report also pointed out that (shock!) Dicker's trash omitted several key facts. It noted, for example, that the state used five separate appraisals before agreeing a sale price.
When asked by NCPR if he had concrete proof of an unethical working relationship between TNC and the state, Warren County Board of Supervisors Chairman Fred Monroe (Dicker's main source) admitted, "Do I have any evidence? No."
So much like The Post-Star's Will Doolittle, The Post's Dicker parroted serious allegations of (likely criminal) collusion between the state and TNC without insisting that the accusers offer a single shred of evidence. To call this merely irresponsible would be a huge understatement. I'm surprised TNC hasn't filed a lawsuit.
And journalistic big wigs think that you have to be a Fox- or MSNBC-loving ideologue mistrust the mainstream news media.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
News and observations
News item: Study: Insurance companies hold billions in fast food stock (CNN)
Observation: This is a bit like mining companies taking out life insurance on their employees
**
News item: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hard right turn (Maclean's)
Observation: It's too bad that America's noxious mix of religion and politics (which inevitably corrupts both) has drifted northward.
**
Comment [verbatim]: "Since we seem to be the worlds policeman. The US should be paid for it. If we are going to be in the Pursian Gulf , Pursia needs to pay the US (I think they can afford it." (seen on an NCPR blog entry)
Observation: "There's nothing scarier than ignorance in action." -Tom Smothers
Further observation: "The argument against democracy is to spend 5 minutes with the average voter." -My old high school friend Dan
***
Article: The Return of Christian Terrorism:Threats of right-wing violence have doubled in the past year. What is behind the latest upsurge in the movement to create a Christian theocratic state? (Alternet)
Observation: Probably the arrival of a president who, though religious, doesn't shove his religion down people's throats at every waking instant. This is seen by Christian theocrats as "secularism."
**
Article: How the FCC Can Protect the Internet from Pro-Corporate Judges and Greedy Telecoms (Alternet)
Observation: If you don't want your internet provider to routinely block your favorite website (whether TheDailyShow.com, GlennBeck.com or anything in between), you should support net neutrality.
Observation: This is a bit like mining companies taking out life insurance on their employees
**
News item: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hard right turn (Maclean's)
Observation: It's too bad that America's noxious mix of religion and politics (which inevitably corrupts both) has drifted northward.
**
Comment [verbatim]: "Since we seem to be the worlds policeman. The US should be paid for it. If we are going to be in the Pursian Gulf , Pursia needs to pay the US (I think they can afford it." (seen on an NCPR blog entry)
Observation: "There's nothing scarier than ignorance in action." -Tom Smothers
Further observation: "The argument against democracy is to spend 5 minutes with the average voter." -My old high school friend Dan
***
Article: The Return of Christian Terrorism:Threats of right-wing violence have doubled in the past year. What is behind the latest upsurge in the movement to create a Christian theocratic state? (Alternet)
Observation: Probably the arrival of a president who, though religious, doesn't shove his religion down people's throats at every waking instant. This is seen by Christian theocrats as "secularism."
**
Article: How the FCC Can Protect the Internet from Pro-Corporate Judges and Greedy Telecoms (Alternet)
Observation: If you don't want your internet provider to routinely block your favorite website (whether TheDailyShow.com, GlennBeck.com or anything in between), you should support net neutrality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)