Saturday, October 30, 2010
Cuomo made a speech, saying that the WFP would have to conform to "his" agenda, if he was to accept their endorsement. They gave him their ticket, but who do they answer to if they lied? Nobody. It's a "wink and nod," folks! Cuomo doesn't expect them to support lower taxes, or spending restraint.
Whether Cuomo sides with their agenda or not is not important. I can't vote for him because he acceded to running on their party line. I will never vote for any candidate on the WFP line, whichever other "major" party cross-endorses them. I have shunned GOP candidates on this basis as well.
The name "Working Families Party" suggests that they represent, and advocate policies that will help "working families." Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than detailing the corruption and job-killing policies they promote, I'd like to expose how they use "well-intentioned" Hollywood liberals to promote their destructive agenda.
First, watch this video of Matt Damon supporting the WFP. He makes a promise that if the WFP gets over 200,000 votes, he will make another video, wearing a NY Yankees cap. As Damon is a famous Boston Red Sox fan, this is baseball "treason." What motivates him to this end? He says that the WFP is fighting for lower Metrocard prices, and better health care, among other things. Noble goals, but there's one problem: The WFP's union founders are the reason that the MTA and NY's healthcare system are reaching into working families' pockets for more money!
He instructs us to "vote for the candidate you want, but vote for them on the (WFP) line." This is so that the party gets enough votes to be guaranteed a spot on the next election cycle's ballot. This enables them to force the state Dems to the left, and become more involved on the national front. Damon mentions the that "they're the ones who helped push Democrats to pass meaningful health care reform." How's that working out for "working families?"
If Damon takes a "light and funny" approach to his pitch, Cynthia Nixon's WFP video ("Miranda" from "Sex in the City") comes off as an earnest, if somewhat scripted appeal. I had to laugh at this line: "They look at the records of all of the candidates running for office, and support the ones who will do the most to improve our lives." As any "politically aware" NY'er knows, all you had to do to get the WFP endorsement is pay the right people. It used to be the WFP's "private" political consulting firm, Data and Field Services, until that was exposed.
Ms. Nixon compares the WFP to Tiffany and Niagara Falls, as the premier political party in the state, if not the world. She mentions Andrew Cuomo and Eric Schneiderman by name, which is interesting. Cuomo is a lock to be the next Governor, but even the liberal Ed Koch has endorsed Schneiderman's opponent, Staten Island DA Dan Donovan. State Sen. Schneiderman is a symbol of Albany corruption, which is why he's a perfect fit with the WFP.
As a former "upper west side liberal," I understand their mindset. It's just a shame that they are either dupes themselves, or duping numerous "knee jerk" liberals to continue voting for parties that are crushing real working families. The data is out there, and it's blatantly obvious: the liberal agenda is driving New York, California, and several other states into bankruptcy. The cost of living in "liberalworld" is much higher than in the rest of the nation. The WFP is in the camp of those who are making the problem worse.
We're seeing a national reaction to the WFP's, and other radical-left groups' increased influence since President Obama took office. It's called the "Tea Party" movement, and though it's not a political party, it is definitely a political force. Corrupt interests have, and will continue to try to use it, as they have the WFP, but at this point, the Tea Party seems more honest about their goals: fiscal responsibility (controls on government spending; ending bailouts), enforcing constitutional limits on government's power (repealing or otherwise defeating Obamacare, as one example), enforcing existing laws eqally across the board, whether on immigration or financial contracts, and most importantly, knowing what's actually in a piece of legislation before voting on it, so there's no excuse for lying to constituents.
Individuals who identify with the Tea Party are skeptical, even of candidates they support. We want all politicians to know that they are on "lifetime probation," and will not settle for less than a full hearing of, and fight for these principles. We may not have many "celebrity videos," but we've got Chuck Norriss and Ray Stevens on our side. We'll see how this plays out in NYS, but I'm not holding my breath.
Monday, October 18, 2010
New York State government has long been known as "dysfunctional," with "corrupt" being a quick second thought. For a long time, people have lost faith in the electoral process, and given in to the left-wing coalition that has a big "ground game." This year is somewhat different. The right-leaning Tea Party movement has become an effective, and organized counter-movement, in most of the nation. As a "Tea Party" proponent, I have to say that we have a long way to go, in NYS.
Let's start with the race for governor, between Carl Paladino, Andrew Cuomo, and several others. My problem with Cuomo is that I already gave the last Democrat "reformer" the benefit of the doubt, and he was thrown out of office! I have serious doubts that Cuomo will do anything to change the "status quo" in Albany. As much as I can't vote for "more of the same," I can't vote for "Archie Bunker" (Carl Paladino), either. Or I can, but I won't give him LEAVWORLD's endorsement! It would be a "protest" vote, because everyone knows that Cuomo will be the next governor.
LEAVWORLD endorses Charles Barron for governor, on the Freedom Party line. I've heard that White people aren't allowed in that party, so I thought they deserved a "token nod," to get that message out there. NY is very tolerant of intolerance. I chose him over Howie Hawkins, Jimmy McMillan, Warren Redlich, and the lovely Kristin M. Davis, who allegedly provided Gov. Spitzer with concubines...
As opposed to the "Goofiness/loudness" of the gubenatorial race, the two senate contests have been "low key," to a degree. Sen. Schumer faces no threat from the valiant Jay Townsend . Sen. Kirstin Gillebrand is in a closer race with Joe DioGuardi. LEAVWORLD endorses both of the challengers, and encourages others to vote for them! OUT WITH THE BUMS!!!
There are two other "statewide" positions on the ballot, this year. The State "Comptroller" and "Attorney General" races are even more important, with the certianty of a Cuomo governorship. Incumbent Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli is under investigation, and was hand-picked by the (corrupt) State Assembly, not elected to his office. LEAVWORLD endorses Harry Wilson for NYS Comptroller. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not an Assembly political crony!
I'm scared. Really, I'm scared that Eric Schneiderman may become NYS Attorney General. He beat out the "moderate" Dem candidate, which happened to be LEAVWORLD's local (Nassau County) District Attorney, Kathleen Rice. It matters when the statewide Dems nominate extreme lefties. Fair-minded independents and open-minded conservatives who have been alienated from participating in the political process have to rejoin it! LEAVWORLD endorses Staten Island DA Dan Donovan for NYS Attorney General, enthusiastically! We need a competent person as the AG, not a left-wing ideologue.
Finally, my "local" congressional representative is up for a vote this year, as well. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy votes in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi, and a lot of people in NY's 4th CD are up in arms about this. I'm reminded of when she took the seat from some "invisible" GOP guy, many years ago. He thought Long Island was a GOP "stronghold," and wouldn't respond to his constituents. Rep. McCarthy finds herself in a similar situation, as a multi-term incumbent with a bad record.
LEAVWORLD endorses Francis X. Becker for congress. I'll trade seniority on committees for a legislator that listens to all of his constituents, not just "contributors." There are alot of us that are "coming back" to, or "just entering" political activity. Many of us are motivated by the failure, in the real world, of our president's version of "change," as enacted by a congressional majority of his own party. Nothing's changed for the average person since Bush's "great crash." Obama, and the Dems say "We're doing much better than we would have been, without the stimulus..." How does that sound? Not good, which is why we need to fire the inept people representing us at all levels of government.
Election day is aproaching, and LEAVWORLD endorses all free market conservatives, with one exception: Charles "anybody but a whitey" Barron, who narrowly beat out Carl "Archie Bunker" Paladino for LEAVWORLD's endorsement (no money was exchanged, I personally assure you). I predict Paladino will get more votes than Barron, LEAVWORLD's endorsement notwithstanding. Perhaps Andrew Cuomo will be the "knight in shining armor" that this state needs, after all...riiight.
Look up the candidates LEAVWORLD has endorsed here. They're not "perfect" candidates. I urge you to vote for them because they are "better" representatives than the ones we have in office. If I can grab the theme that my "Tea Party" Friends profess, "bring in the new!" How far this message will reach in New York State, I can't predict, other than to say it won't be enough to elect "Archie Bunker" (Paladino). I hope to see Jay Townsend, Joe DioGuardi, Harry Wilson, Dan Donovan, and Francis Becker get elected.
Those who do get elected, whether I supported them or not, will be critically analyzed by me, and those "rabble rousing" Tea Party "activists," God bless 'em! I think they'll "keep the heat up" for some time to come, regardless of the political framework. Count me as a supporter of the Tea Party principles!
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Keeping the current tax rates in place is projected to "cost," over the next 10 years, $700 billion for the "rich," and around $3 trillion for "the rest of us taxpayers." Doing nothing means everyone's tax rate will increase on Jan. 1st, so the political pressure is as high as it's ever been. Those are the parameters of the debate so far, but I'd like to personalize this, a little.
The owners of the business I work for belong to the group labeled "rich," and I am one of "the rest of us." I have seen the slowdown in our business, and understood the commensurate drops in bonus pay and raises. I've also been well-rewarded in good times, after previous recessions. Raising taxes on "them" will definitely have a bad impact on me, because I work for "them." It's common sense, but I don't think that our President understands this. His argument plays on "class envy," hoping that "the rest of us taxpayers" will team up with "non-taxpayers" to "screw the rich." It's an old strategy, and not working anymore, at least for me.
I don't hate rich people. In fact, I hope to be one, when I grow up. All kidding aside, many people do "hate the rich," and don't think they deserve the wealth they have. These people are easily used by left-wing politicians. The claim that taxing the rich at a higher rate is "fair" may sound good, but it flies in the face of the definition of the word. In any case, "the rich" are already paying a higher tax rate than "the rest of us." Obama proposes to "let it increase," while my taxes will stay the same. Somehow, I don't think this is going to lead to an "increase" in my salary, for at least the next two years.
Okay, now a little more about the policy and politics. The projected "costs" of these tax rates are phony, because the economy is not static. The CBO has to project these numbers with a "static" model, and they are rarely right. They tend to underestimate the cost of new programs, and "invent" costs of tax cuts. I often wonder if they ever projected a loss in revenue when a tax was increased? Never happened, and a dynamic private economy is anathema to the crowd in the White House. They are siding with Pelosi on this "tax the rich" idea, and trying to claim the Republicans are holding "the rest of us" "hostage" over it. That's a big 180, since his party controlls both houses of Congress.
It's Speaker Pelosi who won't let a bill to continue all current tax rates for the next two years, much less keep them indefinitely. Politically, she's playing to her "left wing" base, but the price is being paid by "the rest of us taxpayers." Even the ones she wants to "cut taxes" (ie:keep them the same) for, as noted above. This pot is going to boil over before election day. Whose "narrative" will resonate, in the polls? Will Pelosi "cave," and will the President sign a bill keeping the "tax cuts for the rich?" Or will (GOP Minority Leader) Boehner, and (GOP Senate Minority Leader) McConnell "cave" first, and hope to not harm the economy too much?
Not much chance of the latter happening, of course. Regardless of how this is portrayed in the media, there are more Dems that are willing to go with the GOP than vice-versa, and "the taxpayers" are voting this year in numbers that rival the "non-taxpayers," who are an organized "staple" Democratic voting block. These taxpayers come from all income ranges, and they are not as organized as the Democrats (or Republicans) "volunteer machines." Still, between all of these "disaffected" GOP and independent voters who have just returned to political activity, and the ones who just started "tuning in" over the last few years, the GOP will get the benefit at the polls, this November. There is no political reason to keep the GOP from "sticking to their guns," on this issue.
PS: If it seems "altruistic" of Pelosi to support raising her own taxes, is it "altrustic" that I want to keep her tax rate the same? I think the money is best kept in private hands, rather than the government's. Over the next 10 years, that 3.7 Trillion dollars in private hands will generate multiples of that amount in tax revenue. This is where her argument falls apart, and all that's left is "the rich should pay more." Here's some more "altruism": I'd even support a "fair/flat tax," which might increase my own tax rate, but make it easier for me to earn a higher wage. (But that's for another column.)