10. December 2011 by admin.

In 2010, I voted for Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate, in the New York gubernatorial election.  He was the Tea Party candidate, and a bit of a nut, but I couldn’t to bring myself to vote for Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic candidate, because he was just another politician.  (That, and his father had been governor before him.)

I doubted that Paladino would actually win, and I was right.

But I was pleasantly surprised with the first few months of Governor Cuomo.  He stood up to the rest of the government and was able to balance the budget with no new taxes.  Even though I didn’t vote for him, I was pleased to see him succeed.

Until this week.

In 2009, New York passed a temporary income tax surcharge on those earning over about $200k/year.  The surcharge is set to expire at the end of this year.  It’s the mirror image of the Federal ‘Bush tax cuts’ in that it’s a temporary increase in tax rates.

For the last few months, Governor Cuomo was insisting that he would not renew the surcharge.  But he’s apparently been worn down.  In the last two weeks, he has been talking about ‘using the tax code to create new jobs.’  I have no idea what that means.

And now this week, we have new income tax rates.  The highest rate is now 8.82%, well above the pre-surcharge rate of 6.85%, but below the surcharged rate of 8.97%.  For the rest of us, we get a 0.2% rate cut, or about 3-4% of the average New Yorker’s state income taxes.

Oh, goody: I got a tax cut.  It’s not enough to even pay for my daily newspaper, but I’m supposed to be all happy about it.

And if I earned millions, I could still say I got a tax cut, at least with respect to last year’s tax rates.

I still can’t see for the life of me how such tweakage will create one single job.

Posted in New York State, Dysfunctional Government | 1 Comment »

6. December 2011 by admin.

A limited audit of the Federal Reserve Bank, conducted as part of recent ‘bank reform’ legislation, revealed that the Fed had lent some $16 trillion to US and foreign banks between 2007 and 2010.

This shouldn’t really be a surprise: bits and pieces about how the Federal Reserve was throwing money around in an effort to restart the economy appeared from time to time.  But since it’s a story that requires more than eight seconds to explain, the media didn’t really say very much about it.

OK: the Fed did what it’s supposedly intended to: maintain the money supply as the cornerstone of a functioning economy.  But in September 2008, when we were told that the would would come to an end if the government didn’t allocate $700 billion right this instant to bail out banks and insurance companies, we were being played for fools.

If the government hadn’t allocated the funds, the Fed would have.  It would make their $16 trillion pot a little more risky, which would have tweaked interest rates up a bit.  But life, and the economy, would have gone on.

We won’t get fooled again… I hope.

But beyond that, the actions of the Fed reveal that it doesn’t really matter what the government does: the Fed, and the banks, will do what they want anyway.

Posted in Dysfunctional Government, Money | No Comments »

4. December 2011 by admin.

One of my observations about the Occupy movement was that while it highlighted the growing disparity between rich and poor in this country, it didn’t have any practical suggestions for dealing with it.  But that wasn’t entirely true.  There was no agenda for directly addressing the problems, but there were two practical suggestions:

• Get money out of politics;
• Reform the banks.

These items were between the lines in a lot of discussions about the Occupy movement, and were a frequent subtext of many protesters’ placards, but never got much play in the media.

They’re worthy goals, although I can’t say that I agree with the methods the Occupiers would suggest to address them.

The essential concern of those who would want to get money out of politics is that, right now, we have politicians in the image of those who fund them: the very rich and the bankers.  I completely agree.

The usual solution is for government funding of campaigns.  But that won’t change the reality that politicians reflect their funding.  So instead of having politicians in the image of the bankers, we have politicians in the image of the previous government.  I’m not sure which is worse.

The bigger problem is the quality of political candidates.   In 2009, I was disappointed with Mayor Bloomberg.  He had finagled a change to the law enabling him to run for a third term.  He was actually doing pretty well, and had a decent shot at succeeding in a referendum to abolish term limits if it had been attempted in 2008.

But I voted for him anyway, because the other candidate, William Thompson, was worse.  Thompson represented the traditional approach to city government: raise taxes and pay off the unions.

A similar thing is happening now in the Presidential campaign.  The different Republican candidates all have their strengths and weaknesses.  But none of them is a compelling alternative to Obama, although some of them represent the lesser of two evils.  OK, maybe Ron Paul, but the party establishment seems to consider him an embarrassment.

Until we get better candidates, I’m not sure changes to campaign financing will help.

As far as reforming the banks, it sounds like a good idea: the regulated banks of the latter 20th century helped to make us prosperous, and when the regulations were removed, the banks promptly drove themselves into the ditch.  And indeed, new bank regulations were enacted into law this year.

But the regulations don’t seem to do very much, other than nibbling at the edges of minor inconveniences (like not having three weeks to pay one’s credit card bill), and making it harder for smaller banks to function (so that they can get swallowed by bigger banks).  Unfortunately, bank reform is in the hands of our… politicians.

Real bank reform, unfortunately, will have to wait for politicians capable of executing it.

Posted in Popular Discontent, Media | No Comments »

3. December 2011 by admin.

It’s December, and I’m getting nervous.

Not about getting people Christmas presents, or the vast pile of work at the office, although those are concerns.  It’s almost the end of the year, and I haven’t come across a single candidate for my Song of the Year.

Last year, it was easy: ‘Telephone,’ by Lady Gaga.  Yes, the record came out in late 2009, but I was first aware of the song in January 2010, which is what counts.  ’Telephone’ is exciting and propulsive, a good song to play in the back of your mind while bicycling.  I was thinking of disqualifying it after watching the music video of Lady Gaga and Beyoncé as mass murderers, but there was really no competition.

But this year… nothing.  A couple of times, the Song of the Year has been a James Bond theme, but the last James Bond movie came out in 2008.

This morning, I forced myself to sit through the new Lady Gaga video, ‘Marry the Night.’  The video is a pastiche of mental illness, physical fitness, and arson: spare me.  But, as with last year, I’ll give a pass if the song is good.

Which, alas, it isn’t.  There isn’t much of a melody, but it could have worked if it was presented clearly and assertively.  But there was more noise than music, and Gaga herself knew the words were mere poetic fluff (unlike ‘Telephone’) and couldn’t bring herself to sing them like she meant it.

The song might have gotten my attention with different lyrics, perhaps with a guy singing it, but not the way it was.  Not even close.

My first Song of the Year was in 1975, when I was 14: ‘Brazil’ by the Ritchie Family.  Through about 2000, there were generally several candidates every year.  But then things simply dried up.

I’ll find something.  Maybe.

Posted in Music | No Comments »