Gene Russionoff Doesn’t Understand
Gene Russianoff, the grand poobah of the New York Public Interest Research Group and the Straphangers Campaign, is oft-quoted in the city’s media, and usually reliable for sensible good government critique. But Gene, apparently, doesn’t have a clue how unions work.
Responding in the Times to a City Council bill that recognizes that local unions are distinct political entities with their own agendas that are distinct from the larger federations to which they belong, Gene says, “It will allow the same decision-maker to make multiple contributions.”
I guess Gene’s opinion is skewed by how NYPIRG operates, where from Albany to Queens College to Stony Brook, the chapters carry the same message and work on the same campaigns: those that Gene decides. But in labor, while unity is the goal, the locals have their own goals and loyalties. For example, in SEIU, Local 1199 (health care workers) endorsed Freddy Ferrer while Local 32BJ endorsed Bloomberg. Obviously, SEIU President Andy Stern wasn’t “calling the shots” here.
The situation becomes even more complicated with mergers. The garment workers local 23-25 of UNITE HERE simply does not have the same political agenda as the hotel workers local 6 of UNITE HERE. The garment workers lobby to preserve special zoning for factories in the garment district. Without that special zoning, hotels would pop up in that valuable midtown district.
But the Campaign Finance Board, in interpreting the city’s campaign finance law, decided to consider all locals of the same international union one political entity and to cap their donations severely. The decision was an insult to labor and a threat to the integrity of the campaign finance law itself. Gene should do some more research.
Why Tuesday?
Like a good citizen, I voted today. “Yes” on 1 and 2, “No” on 3 and 4, against Whitey for Mayor, Socialist Workers where I could, Working Families where I could not and write-in votes for “Socialism” for the judges and Public Advocate.
One question: why the Hell are we voting on a Tuesday?
Election Day Voting Advice from the Socialist Party
The Socialist Party of New York City has endorsed only one candidate in the 2005 citywide elections: Gloria Mattera for Brooklyn Borough President. Gloria is a seasoned community activist with whom we have worked and who has secured our trust. Her Green Party campaign is a historic challenge to Democratic machine politics in Brooklyn, enlisting the support of hundreds of activists, raising tens of thousands of dollars (and potentially qualifying for matching funds). She not only deserves your vote in November, she deserves a campaign donation from you now.
There are four ballot questions on the November general election ballot. The first items questions are statewide questions. The Socialist Party of New York State recommends that you
VOTE “YES” ON QUESTION 1
It’s hard to get excited about this question State budgets in New York are essentially drafted and approved by three men: the governor, the speaker of the assembly and the leader of the senate. This constitutional amendment would give two of those men, representing the state legislature, more power to draft and amend the budget. Plus, in a stroke of brilliance, this ballot question aims to redress the perennial problem of late state budgets by simply making the fiscal year begin a month later!
Nevertheless, the shift in power from the state executive to the state legislature is a timid step forward for bourgeois democracy, and the creation of an Independent Budget Office and other safeguards may one day translate into slightly less patronage and graft. You might as well vote “yes” if you’re already standing in the voting booth.
VOTE “YES” ON QUESTION 2
This item would authorize the state to borrow $1.45 billion investment in transportation infrastructure. Half would go to the state Department of Transportation for spending on roads and highways, and half to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for spending on railroads and mass transit.
The MTA has a maddening tendency to obscure its budget process. Commuters who are upset by repeated subway, Metro North and LIRR fare increases might be tempted to vote “no” out of spite. Furthermore, the lack of clear priorities means that projects that are closer to the hearts of voters (such as our-long delayed Second Avenue subway) could be pushed aside for business-favored boondoggles like the rail connection from JFK airport to Wall Street that Governor Pataki favors.
In principle, the Socialist Party detests these kinds of bond acts because it places the financial burden – an already cumbersome state debt load – on the shoulders of the working class rather than taking it from the hides of the rich. Nevertheless, the MTA needs massive amounts of new money now. We still call for higher taxes on the wealthy and their cars and gas, as well as higher tolls on our bridges and roads to provide more money for mass transit. This bond act doesn’t preclude more radical matters. It simply pumps more money into the system now.
Voters have already rejected a similar bond act five years ago. We urge you to cross your fingers, hold your nose and vote “yes.” The MTA clearly needs the money. In fact, they kinda already have this borrowed money budgeted in, so if the question fails, you can count on your subway fare increasing and you can probably kiss that Second Avenue subway goodbye for another two decades.
Questions Three and Four are proposed by the City Charter Revision Commission. The Socialist Party of New York City urges you to
VOTE “NO” ON QUESTION 3
This item would amend the city charter to charge the Mayor with establishing a code of ethics for administrative hearing officers. A casual reader of this ballot question would assume that it is in response to the Brooklyn judges scandal and support the measure. It is not. This measure does not deal with judges; it deals with judge-like officers that adjudicate parking tickets, noise complaints and other trivial non-criminal matters.
This ballot measure is superfluous. There is nothing stopping the New York City Council from crafting a code of ethics for these administrative hearing officers. The Mayor is using this item, and the City Charter Revision process, to cynically manipulate other questions (such as one mandating smaller class sizes in public schools) off the ballot. It was a tactic that Mayor Giuliani regularly used, and his Republican successor has learned it well. Send him a message that voters won’t stand for it any more. Shoot this one down.
VOTE “NO” ON QUESTION 4
This item is a blast from the past. During the fiscal crisis in the 1970’s, New York City’s budget was put under strict control of various super-governmental agencies and committees. The last vestiges of this undemocratic control will expire in 2008, when New York State’s Financial Control Board will lose its veto power over our city budgets. This ballot question would codify the austerity budgets that were imposed on us from afar into our own City Charter.
Many of today’s voters probably don’t remember the days when the headlines blared “Ford to City: Drop Dead,” so it might be hard to fathom the expansive government program of affordable transit and housing, free college, publicly-funded art and generous civil service benefits that we had and how it was all stripped away from us by a “crisis” that was manufactured by bankers and right-wing politicians who wanted to make an example of New York City. We are finally set to regain our independence and reclaim our exceptionalism. It’s time for a new headline: “City Voters to Charter Commission: Drop Dead.”
More Turkeys
I got a check for $400 from Mike Bloomberg yesterday. He’s so thoughtful! It came right in the nick of time, too: all those start of the month bills were piling up. What timing.
What timing, indeed. The general election is one month away, and it’s not like that good-for-nothing Freedy Ferrer can afford to cut a check that fat for every voter. However, unlike last year’s property tax rebate, this check wasn’t signed by the Mayor. City ethics rules prevent a candidate’s name from appearing in a high profile city-funded mailing such as this within 90 days of the election.
It’s a nice nod to ethics, but how are the last 90 days supposed to counter-balance an entire term spent plastering the incumbent’s name and face all over government funded mailings, tv ads and billboards? All politicians do this. George Pataki can be heard extolling the beauty of New York in tourism ads, and crowing about health care for tots in PSA’s. In the town of Hempstead (where, yes, I have been spending an awful lot of time), the blasted name Kate Murray is ubiquitous. Her ads are everywhere. Her name appears on every town building, van, pamphlet – you name it. Seniors, got a problem? Call Kate Murray’s senior hotline.
The spoils of office have been exploited since the earliest days of cities and party politics. Tammany Hall hacks famously gave out free turkeys at Thanksgiving to maintain the loyal votes of the poor. So why mask it with this veneer of fairness in the very late days of the election campaign? Just put the mayor’s name and face at the top of the ballot, along with a special message from him saying “these elections are the city’s way of thanking you for keeping New York City strong during difficult times.”
Alternatively, we can ban elected officials from appearing in taxpayer financed advertisements and mailings. In fact, let’s ban anyone with a remote chance of running for office from appearing in these materials. I nominate convicted felons and undocumented immigrants to be the city’s new spokespeople. If this is too controversial, perhaps we could arrange for an anthropomorphic cartoon puppy, or perhaps a reanimated dead celebrity?