Posted on 10/08/2009 3:17:23 AM PDT by Grammar Nazi
The Working Families Party was the big winner in this year's Democratic primary elections - having backed the winning candidates in both the public advocate's race and the contest for city controller.
That's not good for mainstream Democrats, and it is not good for New Yorkers.
As liberals, we recognize the value of left-wing advocates pushing against corporate interests. The WFP has played a useful role in helping to win an increase in the minimum wage and in rolling back tax breaks for luxury development.
But as "liberals with sanity," we see danger when narrow agendas overwhelm the public good. That happened this spring in Albany, when the WFP masterminded a whopping 9% increase in state spending in a year when the state's economy is actually contracting. The spending was financed in part by a steep tax hike and in part by more than $6 billion in one-time-only federal stimulus money - which will leave a gaping budget hole for next year.
Or a few years ago, when the WFP pressured a majority of City Council members to sign on to a proposal for a "stock transfer tax" in New York City. Sticking it to Wall Street may sound good to a lot of people - all the more so now - but a moment's thought should tell you that the idea would be ruinous for New York. The New York Stock Exchange would move to Connecticut overnight.
The problem is that the WFP is driven not simply by ideology, but also by the very specific interests of its component parts - namely, the city's largest labor unions. These organizations have a very direct financial stake in the state and city budgets, an interest that is often at odds with the public interest.
For example: The WFP's largest funder is Local 1199/SEIU, the union representing health care workers. It is unalterably opposed to efforts to rein in Medicaid spending, even though New York's Medicaid program is the most expensive in the nation. That helps explain the state budget mess.
Another major funder is the United Federation of Teachers. Much of the UFT agenda is good for the city's 1 million public school students, such as the UFT's role in helping assure the continuation of mayoral control over the schools. But when it comes to pension reform, the UFT, of course, represents its members, not the public. That's a problem, considering that city taxpayers' annual contribution to the pension system has soared to $6 billion from $1 billion in the past decade. That's money we won't have to avoid layoffs in the police force, to keep class sizes small or to keep senior centers open.
Labor unions have always been major political forces in New York - and rightfully so - but the WFP has increased their clout exponentially. For one thing, the WFP effectively allows unions to spend far more on the campaigns of candidates they favor than campaign finance laws would otherwise allow. New York City law imposes on unions (and on any individual or organization, for that matter) a limit on campaign contributions of $4,950 to a citywide candidate and $2,750 to a Council candidate. It appears that in this year's elections, the WFP may have spent considerably more on seven local races. We say "appears" because the WFP does not file detailed disclosure statements.
Perhaps even more important, the WFP has enabled labor unions to coordinate their voter turnout efforts for maximum effect. In an ordinary election year, the ability of the WFP to pull voters to the polls is significant; in a low-turnout year like this one, that voter pool is decisive.
Having played a major role in selecting the Democratic nominees for public advocate, controller and at least five new Council members, the WFP will be looking to expand its policy-making role in city government. It will be up to mainstream Democrats to ensure that the WFP's good ideas get a hearing, but that the public interest remains paramount.
Our most serious concern in the coming years for the city's financial situation will be the efforts that the WFP and their officeholder supporters whom they elected will make to overextend the city's expenditures through increased pensions, salaries and benefits for municipal employees as well as public programs New York cannot afford.
Koch was mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989. Yassky, a city councilman, ran unsuccessfully for city controller this year against John Liu, who was endorsed by the Working Families Party.
Cry me a River ,Live by the sword ,die by the sword
Question:
What is the difference between the Working Family, Liberal, and Democrat Parties in New York City?
Answer:
Nothing, nothing at all.
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many
in too small a pen.
Homo Sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily
does this to himself.
Robert Anson Heinlein
Eh, Koch is probably the closest thing to a “liberal with sanity” to come out of NYC in a while. Maybe him and Nat Hentoff, who is one of the very few liberal writers who I respect.
}:-)4
hmm. the daily news?
“As liberals, we recognize the value of left-wing advocates pushing against corporate interests.”
Tee hee hee. That is so stupid it doesn’t need amplification.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.