The scariest thing you'll read all year

Check out Daily Politics, entitled Mayor for Life:

Asked today whether there's any guarantee he won't try to seek a fourth term if his current bid for a third works out, Mayor Bloomberg didn't exactly rule out the possibility.

The mayor first simply opted for the old "law does not permit it" response. When a reporter noted the law didn't used to permit more than two, four-year terms, either, Bloomberg said:

"But it does now. It permits only three terms, so I don’t know. Talk to your City Council. Let me point out that I had no intention of running for a (third) term up until near the end, as you know."

Does no one remember that Bloomberg promised Ron Lauder his own charter commission -- to reimpose term limits once he had won a third term? But no one should be surprised if he goes back on his word, once again.

Who is the real dictator?

Earlier this week, Erin Einhorn, the fearless City Hall reporter for the Daily News, tried to ask Mayor Bloomberg about whether he should have allowed the public to vote on extending term limits, as did Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. As you can see, the Mayor brushed her aside:

Q: Mayor, it’s hard to compare New York City to Venezuela but as you know, Hugo Chavez did his second effort - this time sucessful - to extend term limits. You chose to go through City Council. Do you have any second thoughts about this? Do you wish you should have had a chance to take to the...

A: I don’t understand your question. What on Earth do we have to do with Hugo Chavez?

Q: Well, like you, he wanted to extend his term.

A: if you wanted to ask Hugo Chavez, call him up! Maybe he’ll take your call. My suspicion is he doesn’t have press conferences and let people ask questions or if they ask questions, he probably throws them, I don’t know he does with them...Who knows? (Laughs). I still fail to see a connection.

While saying that Erin should win an award for her question, the Economist magazine also pointed out that Chavez holds regularly televised press conferences in which ordinary citizens are allowed to query him; one can hardly imagine our petulant Mayor allowing that.

For more on the contrast between Chavez or Bloomberg, and who acted as though he believed in democracy more, see Clyde Haberman's column in today's Times:

The people voted a while back to impose term limits on their political leadership. That was a nuisance for the man in charge. He was in his second term and prohibited by law from running again. But he sorely wanted to try for a third term.

Here’s what he did. He went back to the people to ask if they’d had a change of heart.

Obviously, he was not from New York.

Term limits: the NY Times shows its hypocrisy

The NY Times reveals its double standard when it comes to democracy here in NYC.

Though the editors of the paper now insist that since Venezuelans "believe in their democracy" they should vote against extending term limits for their President, the paper vehemently opposed the same right for New Yorkers less than six months ago.

Indeed, Hugo Chavez has proven himself to be more of a democrat than Bloomberg, who refused to give voters the chance to decide on term limits -- a position that the Times supported. In this case, the ruling class reserved the right to keep one of its own in office -- whatever New Yorkers might prefer.

NY Times Editorial: Venezuelans' Right to Say No
Published: February 13, 2009

Hugo Chávez apparently doesn't believe Venezuelan voters, who just more than a year ago rejected his bid to eliminate the term limits that are blocking his continued rule. On Sunday, he is giving them another chance. For the sake of Venezuela's democracy, they should again vote no on changing the nation's constitution. . . . . Voters should not yield. Mr. Chávez needs to be reminded that Venezuelans believe in their democracy and cherish their right to say no.

NY Times Editorial: Term Limits and the Council
Published: October 22, 2008

The City Council is expected to vote on Thursday on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to revise New York City's term-limits law. The proposal would allow the mayor and most of the city's elected officials to run for a third four-year term. We urge the Council to approve it. . . . We are fully aware that this proposal has stirred great controversy,not least because New York City voters twice voted for term limits, in 1993 and 1996. . . . . .We agree with the mayor that the Council is best positioned to quickly settle the matter. It would be technically difficult and perhaps legally problematic to organize a meaningful citywide referendum before the 2009 elections.

thanks to Mel Meer.

After Term Limits Vote, Tensions Rise at City Hall

I don’t get this NY Times article; the City Council gives a third term to a billionaire bully with dictatorial tendencies, and now they expect him to play nice? What could they be possibly thinking?

Too bad the Obama administration has apparently written Bloomberg off, which might take him off our backs, according to the NY Observer:

…..There’s at least one famous New Yorker who is less likely to get a call from the Obama administration than was once supposed.

Despite the advice he has offered to the next president in Newsweek columns, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is no longer in consideration as a candidate for a top job. To the degree that he was discussed at all, Mr. Bloomberg’s name all but vanished from serious conversation when he pushed a bill to overturn a two-term limit on city elected officials through the New York City Council, according to a number of insiders interviewed for this article.

Their gain but our loss.

The debate over term limits and the billionaire bully who is pulling the strings

See today’s NY Times, which reports how members of the Bloomberg administration, including Linda Gibbs, Deputy mayor for Health and Human services, are urging the beneficiaries of city contracts and his private fortune to lobby the City Council to overturn term limits so he can run for a third term.

The article mentions the involvement of several organizations in giving testimony this week on behalf of the Mayor during the City council hearings on term limits that have received substantial city contracts and private donations from the Mayor. Most prominent among them are the Doe Fund, an organization for the homeless, which has received either $150,000 from the Mayor’s own pockets, according to the Times, or more than $2 million, according to the Daily News (anonymously donated by the Mayor’s accountant after the organization honored Bloomberg at a fundraising dinner in 2005.)

According to the Times, not only did the head of the Doe Fund testify at City Hall in support of overturning term limits, but at least 11 Doe Fund staff members as well, most of whom did not identify their employer, but instead described themselves as ordinary citizens.

See also the Daily News blog, which further details how the organization bused nearly 50 homeless men from shelters in support to City Hall in support of the Mayor, a fact which the organization first denied and then finally admitted. The group’s spokesman later claimed that these men were all volunteers who simply wanted to support the mayor.

One wonders whether how legal this all this – pushing nonprofit groups to literally campaign in favor of the mayor’s ability to run for office again.

Geoffrey Canada is also mentioned as one of the individuals who testified to overturn term limits; Canada is also co-chair of the Mayor’s effort to retain Mayoral control of the schools, and who has received at least $500,000 for his charter school from Bloomberg in recent years.

The Mayor’s bullying tactics have long been clear to many of us in the educational advocacy world – and those organizations that have had the nerve to speak up against his policies have had their city contracts and donations from Bloomberg drastically cut – in some instances, to the tune of nearly one million dollars.

It is about time that the rest of the world finally woke up to the ruthlessness of this Mayor – and his determination to use his personal fortune and political power to ensure that non-profit groups comply with his every whim and keep silent if they disagree with his policies.

Term limits: new poll and new entrant to the fray

A new NY 1 poll asks "Who do you think should decide whether term limits should be changed?”

A vast majority of NYers - 75 percent -said the voters should decide in a referendum. Only 10 percent said the city council should decide and 14 percent said it doesn't make a difference

By nearly 2 to 1 margin (62%-33%) city voters favor term limits for city elected officials.

Yet today, “Bloomberg insisted most New Yorkers support his plan for changing limits now without a public vote, saying a city charter review commission could revisit it in 2010.

"The opposition we're seeing is a handful of people who are very strident and are working very hard. They write 1,000 letters to one City Council person, and then the City Council person says, oh, everybody is against it," Bloomberg said. "The public is in favor of doing it this time, and then having a referendum down the road."

Quite a scene today at City Hall –it was standing room only. Most people were vehemently opposed, and occasionally hooted and booed. But the most important opponent—in this battle of the billionaires – is not back in the country….yet.

It's our decision: new TV ad on term limits

Check out this ad from the Working Families Party; its supposed to air tonight during the debate on NY1, MSNBC, CNN, News 12 and Fox News.

See also this: Arriving in mailboxes today are 100,000 mailings, urging voters to contact 7 City Councilmembers who are yet to take a position on extending term limits without asking the voters.

The mail urges calls to Councilmembers to remind them that voters have twice backed term limits and that any extension should only be up to the public.

The targeted council districts are:

-Alan Gerson
-Melinda Katz
-James Sanders
-David Yassky
-Sara Gonzalez
-Jessica Lappin
-Peter Vallone

Ethics violations charged in term limits run-around the voters

Yesterday, NYPIRG and Common Cause filed complaints with the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board about the Mayor's promise to put billionaire Ron Lauder on a Charter Commission that would reimpose term limits after he wins re-election to a third term. See Groups See Ethics Violation in Mayor’s Pledge to Lauder (NY Times):

Two civic groups said on Thursday that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg violated the city’s ethics laws when he pledged to put Ronald S. Lauder on a charter revision commission in exchange for his support for the mayor’s third-term effort.

The civic groups contend that the deal violates a provision of the City Charter, which says that a mayor cannot “use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant.”

In their complaint, the groups said that “we believe that Mayor Bloomberg has used his position in a prohibited manner to obtain personal advantage in a quid pro quo deal with Ronald Lauder.”

According to Allies Say Mayor Would Spend $80 Million on 3rd-Term Bid (NY Times), insiders in the Mayor’s circle say he is prepared to spend as much as it takes --$80 million, even $100 million, to win re-election:

Already, there are calls for Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire who has financed his own previous campaigns, to abide by the strict spending restrictions in the city’s public finance system. Mr. Bloomberg is not bound by such restriction as long as he spends his own money.

But his advisers, in interviews this week, said the mayor had no intention of limiting his spending. Indeed, they said he would spend whatever was necessary to proclaim his credentials and experience — especially in a time of financial unrest — and undo any damage his reputation suffered as a result of undoing the term limits restrictions.

One person involved in the discussions said: “There is no cap. There is no price tag.”

According to Anger grows at New York 'King' Bloomberg (AFP),

“Council member John Liu says he will certainly vote against. But he concedes that the Bloomberg machine may be unstoppable."This is a game of billionaires," Liu told AFP, "and as much as I can object, I am several digits short of being allowed to play."

Ron Rosenbaum discusses how “The New York mayor's power grab is a symptom of a national problem” in “The Bloomberg Syndrome” (Slate):

“… Anti-globalization writer Naomi Klein called such power grabs "shock doctrine" tactics. The shock doctrine argues that it is the pattern of the übercapitalist plutocrat class to create—or at least take advantage of—economic crises and crashes by using them as excuses to suspend and violate democratic and constitutional principles, getting a panicked populace to cede power to the plutocrats. Or by simply taking power from weakened democratic institutions…. I actually believe that in a democracy, those in the majority on a referendum win. And not just until some mediocre self-congratulatory mayor stomps his foot like a petulant child and says he wants more.”

Finally, Newsday is the only metropolitan daily whose editors have the independence to oppose the Mayor’s naked power grab in Not like that, Mr. Mayor:

“It's been said before that we are a country of laws, not men. It's time to stand down, Mr. Mayor.”

(Daily News mock up thanks to Gothamist.)

Billionaires on term limits

Check out this new video on term limits from Billionaires for Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, the Working Families Party has gotten involved -- their new website is called www.ItsOurDecision.org

Here's a piece on the NY Times blog about the WFP involvement -- with a quote from Dan Cantor, the head of the party:

“This is not necessarily about where you stand on term limits or whether or not you think that Mike Bloomberg has been a good mayor. This about the rules of the game. And you don’t get to change them at the end of the fourth quarter just because your team wants to keep playing....The media and business elite in New York seem to not be willing to hear the voices of regular people," Mr. Cantor said, accusing the publishers — Mortimer B. Zuckerman, of The Daily News; Rupert Murdoch, of the New York Post; and Arthur Sulzberger Jr., of The New York Times – of trying to create “a 21st century Tammany Hall.”

And see this article from today's metro, showing that many members of the NYC Council are wavering, after receiving lots of phone calls from their constituents.

Make your voice heard; call your Councilmember; that is unless you want to leave it up to the Billionaires to decide.

Pork doesn’t stick to Teflon Mike

I’m reasonably good at keeping up with the news, so I'm puzzled that I seem to have missed this item, reported by Grace Rauh of the now-defunct NY Sun on Sept. 25th: “The mayor disclosed in May that he had been giving money to council members through a process somewhat similar to the one used on the other side of City Hall…” (emphasis added) Where was it reported, I wonder?

This past April, a brouhaha erupted over the at best opaque and sometimes downright fraudulent disbursement of member item funds by the City Council. The scandal was widely reported: by the Post and Daily News with their characteristically catchy headiness (“Let’s Butcher the Pork”; “Quinn Porks a Wallop”), and by the NY Times with in-depth articles discussing the origins and political necessity of the Council’s discretionary fund.

The Times noted that the mayor’s “near lock on power” as a result of the 1989 Charter revision left lawmakers “with few ways to wield influence, affect life in their communities or make a name for themselves.” However, the Mayor doesn’t quite have complete control (yet!): he still needs the Council to pass his budget. To smooth the way, he gives the Speaker a generous allowance ($360 million; up from about $15 million two decades ago) to distribute among her colleagues as she sees fit. The problem for Quinn was not that that this clientage system worthy of a banana republic is the “governmental lubricant” of the greatest city in the greatest country in the world; rather, it was that additional funds were held in secret accounts with odd names that should have tipped off the Mayor’s budget sleuths.

One would think the crack reporters at the NY Times would have sniffed out the story-within-a-story: while the Mayor curries favor for his budget by allowing the Speaker to dole out funds for member items, he personally hands out a few extra million on the side to his own special friends. Though the Daily News did mention the practice in a brief editorial, neither the NY Times nor the Post evidently believed it would interest readers.

And who were the beneficiaries of Bloomberg’s largesse? They include assorted Republicans, of course, but the largest single beneficiary (at $5.66 million) has been Simcha Felder—yes, the very same guy who is now running the Council committee considering the term limits bill. And—in case you still believe the cant about Bloomberg’s wealth allowing him to float above politics-as-usual-- consider this: the Mayor gave out the most money ($5.6 million) the year he was running for re-election. This is not his own money, of course—that would be bribery. But he can do that with our own money and we are silent?

Back in June, after some posturing about resisting the Mayor’s cuts to education by voting “no” on the budget, the Council gave up $129 million from its discretionary fund to keep our schools from sinking further into poverty. That this step, which robbed worthy community projects of much-needed funds without addressing the chronic underfunding of our public schools, should be hailed as a victory is a testament to the poverty of our political spirit. No one even asked the Mayor to chip in his own $20 million discretionary fund.

--Paola de Kock

Term limits: Time to storm the castle?

What is really sad is that we have to rely on the shifting views of one quirky billionaire to save us from the arrogant power grab of another billionaire.

Are we living in a democracy or an oligarchy? It seems as though ordinary citizens have no say and we are just as powerless as serfs during the Middle ages.

Latest quote from Bloomberg, all the way from London:

“"I think you can make a good case that he (Lauder) is right, this should be decided by the public, although at the moment, we just don't have the luxury," he said. “This financial crisis is here, and there's no ways to have a special election that would not be tied up in court for a long time."

In other words, democracy is a luxury we just can’t afford. At least there is now a website on this issue: https://www.biggerthanone.com

Time for the serfs to rise up and take the castle! Call your councilmember, before it’s too late!

NY Times vs. Thomas Jefferson on Term Limits

The editors of the New York Times have taken the time to lecture us today on term limits, specifically how they are "profoundly undemocratic" because they interfere with the voters' right to choose. This right, they explain, is the "bedrock of American democracy". They ask the Council to abolish term limits. While term limits are not naturally the focus of an education blog, the concept of four more years of Joel Klein and autocratic rule over the schools is cause for concern.

Since it wasn't so long ago the same Times editors were saying the opposite on this topic, let's instead turn to someone with a more coherent viewpoint on the essentials of American democracy.

Writing in 1787, Thomas Jefferson expressed his two objections to the proposed Constitution in a letter from Paris:

I wish with all my soul, that the nine first conventions may accept the new constitution, because this will secure to us the good it contains, which I think great and important. But equally wish, that the four latest conventions, which ever they be, may refuse to accede to it, till a declaration of rights be annexed. This would probably command the offer of such a declaration, and thus give to the whole fabric, perhaps as much perfection as any one of that kind ever had. By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil, which no honest government should decline.

There is another strong feature in the new constitution, which I as strongly dislike. That is, the perpetual reeligibility of the President. Of this I expect no amendment at present, because I do not see that any body has objected to it on your side the water. But it will be productive of cruel distress to our country, even in your day and mine.

Jefferson saw Presidential term limits as equally important as the bill of rights. What Jefferson feared and what the Times ignores is the grave danger that arises from the intense concentration of power in one man. In our public schools the effect will be all the more profound as the current governance structure of mayoral control already gives the mayor and his chancellor autocratic control.

Any ability of parents or communities to influence the educational policies affecting their children was stripped away years ago. Now the combination of theses two measures, total mayoral control of the schools and what Jefferson called "perpetual reeligibility" of his office will mean every policy and every decision affecting the education of a generation of the city's public school children will be decided exclusively according to the agenda of one man. Nothing could be less democratic.

Bloomberg on term limits

Check out Bloomberg yesterday at his City Hall press conference, signaling a change in his position on term limits, which previously he was vociferous in support:

"Term limits are term limits. I am in favor of them. What's an appropriate level? Whether it's one term, two terms, three terms? I think you can debate that."

Why not five or six? Especially if your name is Bloomberg and you’re one of the richest men in the world – clearly your earlier statements, public opinion and the law shouldn’t matter.

See Bloomberg Shifts on Term Limits (NY Sun); Bloomberg Supports Ending City Council Term Limits (NY1); and Bloomberg rethinks term limit law (Daily News)

Quinnipiac poll on Mayoral control and term limits

See the new Quinnipiac poll that show that even though people like Bloomberg, they strongly oppose (56 - 38 percent) ending term limits.

And while they think he’s done a good job with the schools, they believe that the next Mayor should share power with an independent board. Only 29 percent say the next Mayor should keep complete control of the schools, while 55 percent say he or she should share control with an independent school board.

Despite a massive advertising campaign about the rise in state test scores, Klein’s approval ratings are only up slightly – at 44%, and his disapproval rate remains high at 37%.

Among women, Klein’s approval rate is almost tied with his disapproval rate– 41% compared to 40%.

While 53% of public school parents say they are generally satisfied with the quality of the public schools in New York City, 45% are not.

Klein’s highest disapproval rate is in Staten Island, at 41%.

Staten Island also has the highest rate of those who say that the next Mayor should share power with an independent board.