Shared Sacrifice

Politicians keep demanding "shared sacrifice" from public sector employees, although in reality the pain of layoffs and wage and benefit reductions is seldom shared.

Last week, I attended an event featuring Howard Wolfson, a NYC deputy mayor who in the private sector functioned as an attack dog for political candidates who preferred not to attack opponents directly (campaign examples: Bloomberg v Thompson and Clinton v Tasini).

When I asked Wolfson what sacrifices he was making, he repeated the Bloomberg line that wealthy people would leave NYC if taxes were increased on them.

Only after I repeated my question about Wolfson's own sacrifices did he respond directly by claiming that he made more money when he worked in the private sector. While undoubtedly this is true, it also is likely that our billionaire mayor will reward Wolfson for his relatively brief service in city government.

So again I pose the question, which should be asked of all politicians who oppose targeted tax increases but advocate solving budget problems through benefit reductions for employees and the public: Where is the shared sacrifice?

Wolfson other deputy mayors and commissioners should take substantial salary cuts before asking the rest of us for "shared sacrifice."

Scott

NYPD Internal Affairs

The Village Voice cover story about corruption and incompetence within the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau ("Dirty Little Secrets in NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau," December 1 - December 7, 2010) is outrageous on its face. The Voice story details a pattern in which Internal Affairs breaches confidentiality rules, drags out and buries investigations, provides little transparency and is arbitrary and capricious in its decisions.

Here is the link to the Voice story: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-12-01/news/internal-injustice-in-nypd-s-internal-affairs-bureau/

As shocking as this story is, I'm equally disturbed by the silence of most elected officials in NYC to say anything publicly about this issue, or about the five cover stories in The Voice which exposed systemic abuse and civil liberties violations by the NYPD. In response to my questions, many elected officials tell me that they don't read The Voice and don't follow this issue closely.

Public officials have a civic responsibility to educate themselves about police misconduct - and to hold Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly accountable for civil liberties violations by his department.

Scott

Congressman Rangel

The New York County Democratic Committee emailed party members to attend a Community Press Conference in support of Congressman Charles B. Rangel. County Leader Keith L.T. Wright wrote: “We want to let everyone know that we love our Congressman, that we have his back and that we want the Democrats to vote no to censure.”

The County Committee added: "Earlier this week, the House Ethics Committee found Rangel guilty of sloppy and careless mistakes, but not corruption, in the handling of his personal finances and support of a public service program at City College for minority students. The full House is expected to vote after the Thanksgiving break whether he should be censured for his errors."

I applaud Congressman Rangel's service to our country and his progressive leadership in the House of Representatives. But I must distinguish his positive contributions from his recent Ethics Committee conviction. At the very last minute, just as the hearing was to begin, Rangel chose to walk out (effectively waiving a defense), claiming that he couldn't afford legal representation - even though he was advised to set up a legal defense fund way back in 2008.

Charles Rangel's behavior is symbolic of the personal entitlement which typifies too many politicians once they forget that public service is one of the highest callings there is. Failure to pay income taxes on rental income and accepting four rent-stabilized apartments are not mere "sloppy and careless mistakes," as characterized by New York County Democrats. Rangel's conviction is a serious transgression which deserves punishment, regardless of the congressman's record and accomplishments in the House of Representatives.

Attending the "Community Press Conference" would send a message that ethics violations don't matter. I want no part of that message, so I didn't go.

Scott

NYC Charter Questions

NYC voters should vote YES on the Charter Revision Commission's two charter questions, even if they are somewhat flawed.

Question 1 undoes the cynical term limits vote of the NYC Council which by legislative fiat wiped away two voter referenda on term limits.

Reasonable arguments can be made that a term limit of three terms is preferable to two; and that legislators should be subjected to longer term limits than executives, in order to strengthen the city council against all-powerful mayors.

Nonetheless, it is a conflict of interest for elected officials to decide the length of their own terms in office. Question 1 would restore the term limits law to what it was before the mayor and city council speaker put self-interest above the fundamental right of voters to decide this issue.

Question 2 is a muddled collection of unrelated items. On balance, though, the proposal is an improvement over the status quo.

Among other things, this proposal would reduce the number of petition signatures required for political candidates to appear on ballots, thereby weakening the Incumbent Protection Plan which is built into all elections.

In addition, Question 2 would amend the Charter to require individuals and entities to disclose expenditures designed to influence elections and referenda. Voters have the right to know about attempts to influence elections -- including secret expenditures aimed at buying party ballot lines.

I urge YES votes on both NYC charter questions.

Scott

Jon Stewart's "Million Moderate March"

Jon Stewart has announced plans to organize a "Rally to Restore Sanity" in Washington, DC on October 30 - a rally which he also has called a "Million Moderate March."

Here is my response to the Daily Show's Facebook's posting:

- Scott

I like the Daily Show, but I must take issue with the whole idea of a Million Moderate March.

President Obama's problems stem from his efforts to be everything to everyone - instead of appealing to the progressives who once were his base.

Jon Stewart is fundamentally wrong when he compares, and equates, attacks from the right with those from the left - and cites as an example of unjustified attacks from the left those who accused President Bush of being a war criminal.

The Center for Constitutional Rights outlined a strong legal case for impeachment:
http://ccrjustice.org/files/impeach_06.03.06_AlterNet.pdf

The Bush administration was not held accountable for its assault on civil liberties through its use of extraordinary rendition, torture and the establishment of secret prisons beyond the reach of American law or international treaties.

Congress and the Obama administration made calculated political decisions not to investigate transgressions by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Conservative Republicans do not have a monopoly on anger.

Progressives have a legitimate right to be angry with Presidents Bush and Obama - and with Democrats who refuse to pursue a real progressive agenda in the interest of achieving a futile bipartisan coalition.

A "moderate" vision is not the answer to our nation's ills. Progressives should not concede the fight to change this country - even if too many Democrats join Republicans in deciding that a progressive agenda is off the table.

Thank You, Governor Paterson

The Stop and Frisk Bill, which Governor David Paterson signed into law on July 16, 2010, does not curb the abusive practice in which more than half a million innocent New Yorkers, predominantly African Americans and Latinos, are stopped, questioned and frisked each year -- but not charged with a crime or even a violation.

But the bill is an important first step. This bill, which significantly applies only to stops in New York City, prohibits the NYPD from retaining personal information on people who are stopped-and-frisked but not criminally charged. This is a victory for the privacy rights of innocent people.

The symbolism of the bill signing ceremony cannot go unmentioned: Thanks to the hard work of the bill's sponsors, State Sen. Eric Adams and Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, elected officials from New York City stood with the governor to champion a bill which was bitterly opposed by both the mayor and police commissioner. In so doing, the state legislature performed an important check on Mayor Bloomberg's administration -- something which the New York City Council, under the leadership of Speaker Christine Quinn, has largely refused to do.

In exercising this limited control over the NYPD, the legislature's New York City delegation sends a subtle message to those police officers who live outside NYC but sometimes act as if they own our streets and neighborhoods, reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani's infamous Street Crimes Unit: This is our city. You work for us.

Maybe it is time for the NYPD to revisit the concept of community policing, in which police officers work with community leaders and residents -- a policing technique which Raymond Kelly favored until Rudy Giuliani declined to reappoint him to be his police commissioner after David Dinkins stepped down.

It is ironic indeed that Raymond Kelly has chose to embrace the police practices -- "broken windows" and "quality of life" -- of the very mayor who declined to retain him.

Scott

40 Years Later

Leonard Levitt's take on the ongoing corruption scandal at the NYPD, involving a deliberate downgrading of felonies to misdemeanors, clearing of streets through false arrests and preventative detention, intimidation of crime victims, and the forced hospitalization in a psych ward of police whistle-blower Adrian Schoolcraft, is, in a word, stunning.

The famed police reporter compares the latest scandal to one of forty years ago, when no one initially believed Frank Serpico but eventually a full-blown corruption scandal emerged.

Leavitt notes that police union presidents publicly complained about the practice of downgrading crimes in 2005. But when the chairman of the mayor's corruption commission sought records to investigate the allegations, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly refused to provide them, Mayor Michael Bloomberg remained silent... and the commission chairman resigned.

End of story?

Please read Leonard Levitt's column: http://nypdconfidential.com/columns/2010/100712.html

And please urge our public officials to demand the appointment of an independent commission, with subpoena power and public hearings, to investigate the latest corruption allegations against the NYPD.

The NYPD couldn't be trusted to investigate itself 40 years ago. And it can't be trusted with this responsibility now.

Scott