27 May 2009

This President Does Not Chop Brush.

May 26, 2009.
by: Mike Madden
illustrations by: Ben Heine - "Change" & "I am the Boss": Ben's Blog

It didn't take long for Barack Obama to make clear that the days when the president would flee the White House, and the District of Columbia, for a weekend of chopping brush at a remote Texas ranch were over.

"We all share the same vision for our cities," he said in February, the day after he signed an executive order establishing a White House Office of Urban Affairs. "Vibrant places that provide our children with every chance to learn and to grow, that allow our businesses and workers the best opportunity to innovate and succeed, that let our older Americans live out their best years in the midst of all that metropolitan life can offer."

Obama comes by that vision naturally; more than any of his predecessors since Boston native John F. Kennedy, he is an urban president. Raised in Honolulu (and Jakarta, Indonesia), he studied in Los Angeles, New York, and Boston and lived in Chicago for nearly 20 years. On the campaign trail last year, he spoke of the importance of thriving cities and metropolitan areas in the national economy; he beat John McCain in urban areas by 28 points, and narrowly edged him out in the surrounding suburbs, as well.

For Obama, unlike the impression George W. Bush often gave, living in a city wasn't just the downside of moving into the White House. So even before he was sworn in, Obama played basketball at a D.C. rec center and sampled chili half-smokes in the heart of Washington's historic black neighborhood. Since then, he's dropped into D.C.-area restaurants both fancy and otherwise, zoomed up 16th Street to visit schools, and generally tried to fit into his new neighborhood (as much as possible for a guy who travels with an armed counter-assault team at all times). The new organic White House garden is even tended by local kids, from just a few miles away from the executive mansion.

Having an urbanite-in-chief in the White House has already raised the hopes of mayors, policy experts and activists. "His heart is in the right place," says Larry Rosenthal, executive director of the Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy. "If you've elected to send Chicago to the White House, ultimately you're going to have some very interesting programming."

The administration has proposed putting money back into existing housing and education programs that Bush cut heavily; advocates are also excited about a $10 million proposal to fund grants for community organizations to develop comprehensive plans for child-friendly "Promise Neighborhoods," based on the Harlem Children's Zone in New York. A general focus on alternative energy -- and alternative modes of transportation besides cars -- fits with what most cities have already been trying to do. And an $8 billion initiative to start developing inter-city high-speed rail sounded like a dream come true to urban planners and smart growth advocates, even if it's nowhere near enough money to actually build the system out.

But while the new administration is sending encouraging signals to cities, so far, Obama and his aides haven't done much to overhaul the way the federal government deals with cities and metropolitan areas, a key part of Obama's urban policy platform during last year's campaign. The money is dribbling out slowly, as well: Most of the $787 billion doled out by the economic stimulus bill Obama championed still went directly to state governments through long-standing federal formulas that tend to ignore cities. And the new White House Office of Urban Affairs, which Obama established in February, has been practically invisible since the fanfare of its launch.

"Hope is there," says Tom Cochran, executive director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and a 40-year veteran of urban policy battles in Washington. "But change is going to be a little bit longer."

Even the slow start the administration has gotten off to was a big change from the last eight years. Transition aides were already meeting with urban planners and advocates before Obama took office. Some prominent experts on progressive city planning, including MIT's Xavier de Souza Briggs, Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, and Seton Hall University's Rachel Godsil, took high-profile jobs with the White House or with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Former King County, Wash., executive Ron Sims took on a post as HUD's deputy in charge of building sustainable communities. The difference with the previous administration's approach couldn't be much starker.

"The Bush administration was one of the most hostile of all," says Mark Muro, director of policy at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program. "In most respects, [Bush] ignored urban and metropolitan claims and needs and potential." Cities -- and, more important, their surrounding suburbs, which most planners now like to see as interconnected metropolitan areas -- account for a huge share of the U.S. economy; 65 percent of the country's population lives in just the 100 largest metropolitan areas and nearly 75 percent of the nation's economic output is produced there. But that didn't seem to matter for the last eight years. "There was an indifference," Cochran says. "There was no there there."

Just being friendlier to cities than Bush was, though, is a pretty low bar. Obama promised last summer to revamp the way the government deals with cities and metropolitan areas, to realign major agencies so they took a regional approach to grants and programs. "

"We need to promote strong cities as the backbone of regional growth," Obama told the U.S. Conference of Mayors in June, months before he was elected. "And yet, Washington remains trapped in an earlier era, wedded to an outdated 'urban' agenda that focuses exclusively on the problems in our cities, and ignores our growing metro areas; an agenda that confuses anti-poverty policy with a metropolitan strategy, and ends up hurting both."

But the administration's stimulus plan -- which is, so far, the only major federal spending legislation Obama has weighed in on as president -- mostly kept up that old approach, sending money to state highway departments and to state legislatures to divvy up as they wanted. The administration told advocates they didn't have a choice but to do it that way, says Carolyn Coleman, the top lobbyist for the National League of Cities. Getting the money spent quickly, to help the recovery, was more important than fitting the stimulus plan to farther-reaching goals.

The bill did still earmark $17 billion for public transit, and Obama's budget proposal -- released this month -- was more promising for urban policy experts. But it's too early to tell yet how much of it will make it through Congress. "This is a city- and metro-friendly administration at this point," says the Brookings Institution's Muro. "How metro-friendly the implementation and policy uptake will be, and how fast, is still an open question."

What has been a disappointment already, though, is the Urban Affairs office. Its director, former Bronx Borough President Adolfo CarriĆ³n, hasn't made a public appearance since Obama named him to the job, weighed down by reports of a corruption scandal involving New York developers. The White House wouldn't make him available to discuss the administration's urban outlook. "They've been really hunkered down" trying to figure out the office's mission, an administration official told Salon. Eventually, the aide said, the goal is for the White House office to help keep lines of communication open between various Cabinet agencies that deal with cities, like HUD, Energy and Transportation.

For now, senior advisor and longtime Obama friend Valerie Jarrett is coordinating a lot of the administration's urban policy -- which may be better than anything CarriĆ³n could produce, anyway. "She's closer to the president than anybody in this administration," Cochran says. "She's like the third Obama." And some agencies, whether pushed by the White House or not, are already showing signs of working together. HUD and the Energy Department, for example, signed an agreement to make it easier for urban buildings to qualify for grants to improve their energy efficiency.

Advocates are hoping Obama's urban outlook will -- soon -- add up to more than just city boosterism. "We're on the road to wonderful, Cochran says. "But that's where we are -- on the road right now. We're getting there."



LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

14 May 2009

Working Families Party Readies Green-Jobs Push.

May 12, 2009.
by: Daniel Massey

Labor-backed political group will announce program to retrofit 120,000 New York homes for higher energy efficiency.

The labor-backed Working Families Party—known for its campaigns advocating taxes on the rich and protesting against subway fare increases—is now looking to conserve a little energy and create jobs in the process.

The group’s policy arm, the Center for Working Families, will unveil a strategy Friday for New York state to achieve wide-scale, energy-efficient retrofits of 1 million housing units during the next five years. The program would create more than 14,000 full-time jobs over its five-year life. Pay would be pegged at living wage in the different areas where work will be performed, and contractors would receive preferences for local hiring.

It would be the largest residential retrofit program in the country’s history and could serve as a nationwide model on how to achieve the much-talked-about economic potential of green jobs. Municipal programs exist in places like Babylon, N.Y., and Berkeley, Calif., but thus far nobody has replicated the idea on a statewide level.

The announcement will be made along with the Center for American Progress and Half in Ten, both liberal policy groups. Van Jones, President Barack Obama’s special adviser on green jobs, is expected to give the keynote address at a launch event in Washington D.C. Friday.

The program would leverage $5 billion in private investments to pay for retrofits through the creation of a new homeowner financing model. That model would provide investors guaranteed returns of about 7%, based on projected homeowner savings that result from the green technology. Potential investors include the city and state pension funds and other institutional investors.

“With a relatively simple and small investment, we can make an intervention that has a huge impact,” said Emmaia Gelman, director of green policy for the Center for Working Families.

Residential buildings account for 21% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, a figure that can be lowered substantially through simple retrofits, Ms. Gelman contends.

The state Energy Research and Development Authority would run the program, but legislation is first needed to establish the investment fund and worker protections. The Center hopes to have Albany’s approval by the end of the current session in June.


LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live
your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

12 May 2009

Out of Control Rents in NYC.

May 12, 2009.

Everybody's talking about the foreclosure crisis. Why aren't we hearing more talk about the rent crisis?

In New York City, rent has been going up at nearly double the rate of family incomes.1 The result? As rents skyrocket, more and more New Yorkers find they can no longer afford the neighborhood they call home.

But we can do something about it. It's time to speak out.
Add your voice to the call for genuine, specific legal changes that all tenants need.

The result of rapidly rising rents? Displacement of hundreds of thousands of residents from their own neighborhoods and an increasing share of the economic pie going to landlords and real estate investment companies.

Elected officials are definitely getting the message. Earlier today, elected officials and tenant leaders gathered on the steps of the Capitol in Albany to demand stronger rent laws2 so that you don't have to be a millionaire to continue living in the city. Add your voice to those of hundreds of others in demanding change.

Millions of New Yorkers from the city and suburbs have been losing out because of weak rent laws. Hundreds of WFP supporters have already signed our petition to Albany and written about how the rent crisis is affecting them: Jeanine wrote: "Manhattan should not be allowed to become a playground for the privileged."

It's fairly common for working families in New York to spend upwards of half their income in rent, like Rosa tells us: "We are already spending half of our salary in rent. If we pay more we are not going to be able to pay for food."

New York is an amazing place to live because of its diversity. We don't have to stand by and simply let landlords and 'the market' remove a major support system for middle- and working-class families.

Tell Albany - we support stronger rent laws that strengthen our economy.

Today marks the start of a campaign to pass stronger rent laws in Albany that will help keep people in their homes. A package of long-overdue reforms3 is now possible because the Republicans are no longer in control of the State Senate.

But with the landlords throwing money around to sabotage average New Yorkers, it's going to be a tough fight. Will you join us?

Take action here:

http://action.workingfamiliesparty.org/t/3865/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=537

Thank you!

Charles Lenchner

Working Families Party

Sources: 1. According to a study by the Community Service Society, between 1996 and 2005, median market rents rose by 50%, while renter incomes only increased 31%. 2. See report on today's Albany action here: http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/05/push-for-stronger-rent-laws-kicks-off-in-albany/. 3. List of bills WFP is supporting can be seen here: http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/05/bills-in-support-of-tenants-and-affordable-housing/

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live
your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


11 May 2009

UI Lobby Day! $405 is NOT ENOUGH!



New York Working Families Deserve Extended Benefits!

** Tuesday, May 12th, Albany NY **

In this economy, Unemployment Insurance is more important than ever. Join us on Tuesday, May 12th in Albany as we visit our elected leaders and let them know why a better UI system is good for working families, and good for New York!

Unemployment has been skyrocketing in New York - with nearly 766,000 workers out of a job, more families than ever are counting on UI to help them make it through this tough economy.Yet, in New York, adjusted for cost-of-living, benefits are woefully low - working families can receive a maximum of only $405 per week - and too many workers are left out of the program altogether.

And, with our unemployment rate remaining at a staggering 7.8 percent for the last two months, thousands of workers are about to run out of their benefits without a further extension.

So, what can we do?

Legislation has been introduced both the Assembly and the Senate which would raise the maximum benefit and benefit levels for lower-wage workers, allow more workers to enter the program, and enable New York to receive an additional 13 weeks of federally-funded Extended Benefits. We need to let leaders in Albany know this legislation in crucial to working families in New York, particularly as it becomes harder and harder to find a job!

Join us tomorrow, May 12th, as we visit our elected leaders in Albany and let them know we care about the UI safety net for working families in NY!

PLEASE ACT NOW! Click HERE to contact your assembly member on UI reform.

We'll be meeting at the AFL-CIO Conference Room at 11:00am before heading out to meet with various elected officials for the day. All transportation costs (train / subway, travel to Albany) will be covered, and meals will be provided. If you're leaving from the NYC area, we will provide transportation from our office, leaving at 8am. See below for more details about travel and meeting places.

Please contact Christine, at criordan@nelp.org or 212.285.3025 ext.302, if you're able to attend or would like more information. Click here for a UI Lobby Day flyer. We hope to see you there!

Travel and Meeting Details:

In Albany, we will be meeting at the AFL-CIO Conference Room, 100 South Swan St, at 11:00am.

If you're leaving from the NYC Area, we can provide transportation. Meet at the NELP Office at 8:00 AM - the office is located at 75 Maiden Lane, Suite 601, at Maiden Lane and William St. You can get to our office on the following MTA Subway lines: A, C (Broadway-Nassau); 2, 3, 4, 5 (Fulton St.); or J, M, Z (Broad Street). Please RSVP so that we can accommodate those wishing to attend who need transportation.

Legislation Basics:

  • Raises the maximum UI benefit incrementally over a number of years, and provides for automatic adjustment with wages by 2013.
  • Provides higher benefits for low-wage working families.
  • Provides benefits for educational workers, workers who leave their jobs due to domestic violence, and long-term unemployed workers who are in job retraining.
  • Makes New York's UI system more sustainable through better financing.
  • Provides an additional 13 weeks of federally-funded Extended Benefits for families who are exhausting all current benefits and extensions available.

Relevant Bills: UI Reform: A8013/S4053, A8100/S2245; Extended Benefits: A8013, A8100, S4110

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live
your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

09 May 2009

So What Do YOU Say? The Senate LAUGHS About How Many Police It Takes To Silence The American People On Single Payer Health Care.

Illustration by: Marty Coleman
Napkin Dad Daily blog

How many police does it take to silence the voice of the people?


That's a question a despot might ask in a totalitarian police state. But, this week the Senate Finance Committee thought it was a hilarious joke as they ejected one brave activist after another, for protesting that not even one spokesperson for single payer health care was being allowed to sit at the hearing table. Yes, Senator Max Baucus (MT), who had preemptively declared that consideration of a single payer option was off the table, actually joked "We need more police [1:58 on video]." And, the rest of the Senate panel just laughed their heads off.

Senator Chuck Grassley (IA), the ranking Republican ~ not to be outdone in his contempt for the people ~ then asked if there was "somewhere they can watch it on television [2:05 on video]," which elicited additional hearty guffaws. Yes, what a wonderful entertaining show that would be, the spectacle of the will of the people being excluded while corporate special interests, like butchers, carve up our pocketbooks and our bodies.

Visit the Single Payer Action Page HERE

On the action page is an extended video where you can hear for yourself those Senators openly laughing at us, and you'll be just at outraged as we are. It's time for the U.S. Senate to get the message that We the People are not just a joke to be laughed off. Why is it that not ONE senator on that committee has the integrity to stand up for a even handed debate of health care issues? Why should any of them be elected to public office ever again?

So let's see a show of hands. How many of you would like to sign up now for a commie Marxist national health care system ... like in Canada, England and other pinko Bolshevik countries such as these? How stupid do they think we are, to try to reduce the terms of the debate to such an ignorant level? Meet the new mass media scare label, "socialized" medicine. As opposed to like what ... the ANTI-social corporate medical insurance industry we have now, where patients have no role except to be cash cows, by design never to be actually cured?

If you or anyone in your family has ever been seriously ill, and as we might ALL be someday, you know the medical industry will pick your bones clean of every dime you ever earned in your life, just in time to drop you into the cheapest possible pine box.

Visit the Single Payer Action Page HERE:

Why are members of Congress fighting so hard to keep single payer health care out of the public debate? Because there are no fat profits in it for their special interest corporate campaign contributors, who maximize their profits the sicker we are. They cannot compete with a low overhead efficiently run government program, just like we have NOW with the existing proven Medicare & VA systems.

Instead, they'll line up a bunch of corporate lobbyists and stooges to tell bald faced lies. Just like Senator Jim Bunning himself who asserted that Canada and England had tax rate of at LEAST 60% to support single payer. But, they don't even want anyone around to even have a chance to call them out on their willful and malicious lies.

Yes, all those who love to preach to the rest of us about the free market and competition are shown to be only interested in a rigged market and a rigged debate. Baucus may put on a face of being slightly chastened, but ,he STILL WILL NOT allow any honest testimony on single payer.

But, WE can beat THEM.

This is the pivotal moment. We have been speaking out for HR 676 (Medicare for all) for YEARS. And now eight incredibly brave activists have been hauled away because they would not remain silent. But in doing so, in putting their own bodies on the line, they have shown up the current "debate" for the total sham that it is.

We are not asking you to put your body on the line. All we are asking you to do is submit a one click action page that we have specially configured to send your message to the Senate Finance Committee as a hard copy pdf that they can't just laugh off, because it will be part of the permanent record. Plus, your message will go to all your regular members of Congress, plus your nearest daily local newspaper as well if that option is selected.

Single Payer Action Page HERE:

At 3:20 of the video posted on the action page above you will hear a woman loudly ask, " I wonder how many there are?"

Let's show them.


Let's show them there are millions and millions of us out here who will no longer be ignored, who will no longer be laughed off. Because they KNOW we can stop them if ~ and only if ~ large numbers of us will raise our voices NOW.


Let's just do it.

Here's a list of all Senators on the Finance Committee, including at least a couple who you might have considered to be "liberals". Where are their voices? Is there not a single one of them who will stand up and say, "No , wait a minute, we need to hear what the single payer advocates have to say." So, if one of the below is one of YOUR personal Senator, they especially need to hear from you NOW. The list includes:

Max BAUCUS, MT, John D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV, Kent CONRAD, ND, Jeff BINGAMAN, NM, John F. KERRY, MA, Blance L. LINCOLN, AR, Ron WYDEN, OR, Charles E. SCHUMER, NY, Debbie STABENOW, MI, Maria CANTWELL, WA, Bill NELSON, FL, Robert MENENDEZ, NJ, Thomas CARPER, DE, Chuck GRASSLEY, IA, Orrin G. HATCH, UT, Olympia J. SNOWE, ME, Jon KYL, AZ, Jim BUNNING, KY, Mike CRAPO, ID, Pat ROBERTS, KS, John ENSIGN, NV, Mike ENZI, WY, John CORNYN, TX,

It's time to tell your "representative" that, "No, we don't need more police. In fact, what we need are fewer Senators with plugs in their ears, like Max Baucus." And, he and the rest of them need to hear that.

You can also respond to this action through the new Twitter gateway. Just send the following Twitter reply, and add any personal comment you like to ---> " @cxs #p982 "

(If you need a step by step explanation of how to set up the Twitter thing here is the link for that: Twitter Activism, a Step-By-Step guide HERE )

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this blog alert as widely as possible.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live
your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.



LET MORE BUDDING BUSINESSES SET UP SHOP ON CITY SIDEWALKS.

Published: May 9, 2009.
by: MICHAEL WELLS and CHEIKH FALL

photo 1 by: Bernay Roman
photo 2 by: Ed Schipul
photo 3 by: Al, flickr user arubow4

For generations, New York's streets were an arena of second chances. During the Great Depression, 14,000 former bankers, brokers and other jobless New Yorkers were able to make ends meet by taking to the city's sidewalks and selling the iconic 5-cent apple - some say, helping popularize the city's "Big Apple" moniker.

Today, New Yorkers are once again looking for second chances - and second jobs - working as street vendors. Only this time, the streets and avenues where famous businesses like Macy's, Bloomingdales and D'Agostino once got their start now offer few opportunities for aspiring entrepreneurs. That's because outdated city laws stifle these once-thriving avenues of opportunity. There are no permits available for would-be pushcart peddlers, and the wait for a general vending license is several decades. The waiting list - overflowing with more than 10,000 names - has been closed since 1992.

Despite the non-existent supply, demand for permits is skyrocketing. Since the economic crisis began, interest in street vending has risen dramatically as a low startup cost, flexible path to self-employment. Leading vendor cart manufacturers are reporting 20%-30% increases in orders since the recession hit; last month, the Street Vendor Project fielded more than 240 phone calls from would-be vendors in need of a permit.

It's like we're going back to the future. During World War I and the Great Depression, the city eased vending restrictions, helping countless New Yorkers pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Although these loosened rules put New Yorkers back to work, they also incited the ire of some powerful business interests, who viewed the stands as competition, and have engaged in a vending tug-of-war with pushcart peddlers and city leaders ever since - resulting in the first hard caps on street vending in 1979.

You might be saying, "Wait a second, I still see street vendors everywhere." It's true: By setting the caps far below vendor supply and public demand, the city unintentionally creates a thriving and exploitive black market, where aspiring vendors "rent" permits from illegal middlemen for more than $8,000. Other vendors are driven underground, where they're unlicensed and unregulated. This just isn't working.

Raising the caps to realistic levels would help bring vendors out of the shadows and into the legal mainstream.

Thankfully, the City Council is currently considering a bill that would do exactly that - by raising the permit caps 10-fold. That would help eliminate the illegal black market and create much-needed jobs.

With an ample number of permits, New York's sidewalks could double as incubators - fostering innovative new start-ups for those short on capital, but large on concept. Sidewalk chefs could have the flexibility to start as mobile food purveyors, rather than diving right into costly retail space. Inventors would be able to test their creations on passersby, instead of relying on Internet word of mouth. Budding entrepreneurs could break new ground while breathing new life into our neighborhoods.

We estimate the move could quickly create 10,000 new jobs.

Mayor Bloomberg's Five-Borough Economic Plan is innovative- but its focus is entirely long-term - and New York needs jobs now. Current city laws put a stranglehold on what could be a vital source of jobs for the city's newly unemployed. By opening up our sidewalks to more vendors, the Mayor and the City Council could open the door to immediate work for thousands of New Yorkers.

Street vendors have demonstrated time and time again that if you allow honest, hardworking men and women to earn a living selling their wares on the city's sidewalks, they'll take care of the rest. Which is why city government shouldn't stand in their way.

** Wells and Fall are co-directors of the Urban Justice Center's Street Vendor Project. **


LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live
your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

07 May 2009

Study: Most Liberal States Are Least Free.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 1:03 PM
by: Dave Eberhart
Illustration
: "Democrats Hunting Democrats" by: BEN HEINE. High resolution version of this image (for printing purposes) available HERE ::: Cartoonist, Journalist, Teacher ::: ::: Toonpool.com Executive Belgium ::: My Site ::: My Blog ::: My Toonpool ::: My Flickr :::

According to a new study released by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, some of the most liberal U.S. states rank lowest when it comes to personal freedom.

The study, which calls itself the “first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres,” made a host of findings:


  • The freest states in the country are: New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending -- and middling levels of regulation and paternalism.

  • New York is the least overall free by a considerable margin, followed by: New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland.

    Unfortunately, say the report authors, these freedom-disadvantaged states “make up a substantial portion of the total American population. Moreover, these bottom five states have considerable ground to make up even to move off this ignoble list, let alone into a creditable position in the rankings.”

  • When weighing personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear.

    Sarah Palin’s Alaska does extremely well on personal freedom, conclude study authors. Reasons for its high personal freedom alone score include: fully legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana (accomplished through a court ruling), the best (least restrictive) gun laws in the country, recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships, and possibly the best homeschooling laws in the country.

  • As for freedom in the different regions of the country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall -- while the Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal freedom.

    There are real benefits to scoring high on economic and personal freedoms, conclude the study’s authors. Their analysis demonstrated that states enjoying more economic and personal freedom tend to attract substantially higher rates of internal net migration.

    The Problem with Being Liberal

    According to the study, previous research has shown that, as of 2006, Alabama and Mississippi were the most conservative states in the country, while New York and New Jersey were the most liberal. In the index put forth by the new study, Alabama and Mississippi fall in the middle, while New York and New Jersey are at the bottom.

    The problem is that the cultural values of liberal governments seem on balance to require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments,” say the study’s authors. “While liberal states are freer than conservative states on marijuana and same-sex partnership policies, when it comes to gun owners, home schoolers, motorists, or smokers, liberal states are nanny states, while conservative states are more tolerant.”

    Some Individual State Profiles

  • Illinois is one of the worst states to live in from a personal freedom perspective (#49). On economic freedom it is in the middle of the pack (#29). Illinois has the fourth harshest gun control laws in the country, after California, Maryland, and New York, and the state’s victimless crimes arrest rates are almost unfathomable: In 2006, more than 2 percent of the state’s population was arrested for a victimless crime (and that figure does not count under-18s). Nearly one-third of all arrests were for victimless crimes.

  • Texas (#7 economic, #5 personal, #5 overall) has one of the smallest state governments in the country. As a percentage of corrected GSP, Texas has the second lowest tax burden in the country, and the third lowest grants-adjusted government spending. However, government employment is a standard deviation higher than the national average. Gun control is better than average, but the state falls short on open-carry laws, stricter-than-federal minimum age for purchase rules, and dealer licensing.

    Alcohol is less regulated than in most other states, and taxes are low. Low-level marijuana cultivation is a misdemeanor, but otherwise marijuana laws are very harsh.

  • Colorado, the #2 state, achieved its ranking through excellent fiscal numbers and above-average numbers on regulation and paternalism. The state is the most fiscally decentralized in the country, with localities raising fully 44.5 percent of all state and local expenditures. By percentage of adjusted GSP, Colorado has the third lowest tax burden in the country, surpassed only by Tennessee and Texas. It has resisted the temptation of “sin taxes,” with low rates on beer, wine, spirits, and cigarettes. On the other hand, Colorado’s smoking bans are among the most extreme in the country, with no exceptions or local option for any locations other than workplaces. Colorado is 1 of 12 states to have decriminalized low-level marijuana possession.

  • Oregon (#36 economic, #7 personal, #27 overall) is the freest Pacific state. Oddly, government spending is high but taxes are low, resulting in rather high state debt. Public safety and administration look particularly ripe for cutting. Gun control laws are about average. Marijuana possession is decriminalized below a certain level, and there is medical marijuana (cultivation and sale are felonies, though). Oregon is one of the few states to refuse to authorize sobriety checkpoints. Oregon is the only state to permit physician-assisted suicide. Private and home school regulations are quite reasonable. State land use planning is far advanced. The minimum wage is the highest in the country when adjusted for average wages.

    The study touts that it improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states in three primary ways: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens’ rights to educate their own children, own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (2) it includes far more variables, even on economic policies alone, than prior studies, and there are no missing data on any variable; and (3) it uses new, more accurate measurements of key variables, particularly state fiscal policies.

    We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual’s ability to do the same,” note the author.


  • LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

    Thanks for all you do!
    Live
    your values. Love your country.
    And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

    FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

    06 May 2009

    MTA Rescue Plan Elicits Muted Applause.

    May 06, 2009 - 8:40am
    by:
    Erik Engquist

    Business and transit groups relieved at state’s agreement on a rescue package that limits fare increases to 10%, but concerned it’s only a short-term fix.

    Local business and transit groups breathed a sigh of relief Wednesday as the state Legislature moved to approve a rescue plan for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

    All are grateful that the 32 Senate Democrats finally reached consensus on a plan that will stave off service cuts and shrink a planned 23% fare increase to about 10%. But they recognize that it’s a short-term fix that probably won’t last more than two years, and maybe not even one.

    It’s important to recognize the victory. We have avoided what would have been the biggest fare hike in a generation and the most draconian service cuts in at least as long,” said Paul Steely White, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, an anti-car advocacy group. “In this economy, getting $2 billion in new money is no small feat.

    But he said the $400 million in annual capital funding provided by the plan is just a fraction of what is needed to keep the system in good repair and fund new projects.

    The capital plan is still largely unfunded,” said Mr. White. “We’re going to be back at this juncture again, maybe even before the year is out.”

    The Legislature’s package of new taxes and fees provides funding for two years of what is expected to be a five-year, $25 billion MTA capital plan beginning in 2010. Lawmakers are now hoping that the economy recovers enough to provide the tax revenue needed for the balance of the capital plan.

    I’m not sure that the MTA is really fixed, said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “It’s definitely a stopgap measure at best.

    Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group, said, “The fact that there is a funding plan to maintain the transportation system for the next two years is a good thing.” But she said the Legislature should have put tolls on the East River bridges, as the Ravitch Commission suggested last fall, or enacted congestion pricing, which state lawmakers rejected in April 2008. Either measure would have reduced traffic congestion and provided hundreds of millions of dollars for enhanced bus service.

    Indeed, while the new plan raises money for the MTA from motorists through increased registration fees, it does nothing to discourage driving.

    There seems to be widespread belief now that drivers do have to pay their fair share, and that in this plan, they don’t do that,” Mr. White said. He added, “A 10% fare increase in another environment would be a big fight. The fact that we’re even calling this a victory speaks to the unique and dire circumstance we find ourselves in.”


    LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

    Thanks for all you do!
    Live
    your values. Love your country.
    And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

    FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.