This issue seems to be a simple one to me.
There are certain truths we should agree on. First, Moslems have a right to practice their religion freely in this country, as do members of every faith. Second, a landowner has a right to build a structure and use it for any purpose permitted under applicable laws and rules. Given the foregoing, the Mosque proponents have a legal right to build the Mosque as and where they want.
That does not make it the right decision. Ground Zero is, for most Americans, hallowed ground like the Gettysburg and Pearl Harbor battlefields. Generally, memorials to those who sacrificed their lives there are erected at such places. I think it is fair to believe that the proposed Mosque and cultural center amount to a monument to a great Islamic "victory".
If the motives of the developers are pure, if it is true that they believe in fostering understanding and cooperation between Islam and America, then they should look for an alternative location. Putting the Mosque so close to Ground Zero, given the passions that have been stirred, cannot achieve those goals.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
More Of The Same
The Democrat & Chronicle reports this morning that we finally have a State Budget.
As we all know, the budget is over four months late. You might be tempted to think that the delay resulted from efforts to rein in spending and cut the $9 billion deficit the State is facing. If you did, you'd be wrong.
The budget "highlights" include the fact that State spending will increase by 7.6% and there will be over $1 billion in new taxes. One of the tax increases is the elimination of the exemption on sales taxes for clothing and shoes costing less than $110.00. That ought to help people with lower incomes struggling to balance their budgets.
I was particularly impressed by the fact that the one bi-partisan vote taken in connection with the budget was a 51-8 vote in the Senate to cap local government's ability to raise property taxes. This was largely symbolic since Speaker Silver will not bring the cap to a vote in the Assembly. Still you have to hand it to our State Senators. They clearly believe in limiting spending and taxation....at any level of government but their own.
As we all know, the budget is over four months late. You might be tempted to think that the delay resulted from efforts to rein in spending and cut the $9 billion deficit the State is facing. If you did, you'd be wrong.
The budget "highlights" include the fact that State spending will increase by 7.6% and there will be over $1 billion in new taxes. One of the tax increases is the elimination of the exemption on sales taxes for clothing and shoes costing less than $110.00. That ought to help people with lower incomes struggling to balance their budgets.
I was particularly impressed by the fact that the one bi-partisan vote taken in connection with the budget was a 51-8 vote in the Senate to cap local government's ability to raise property taxes. This was largely symbolic since Speaker Silver will not bring the cap to a vote in the Assembly. Still you have to hand it to our State Senators. They clearly believe in limiting spending and taxation....at any level of government but their own.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
New Day, Same Story
The Democrat & Chronicle is, at least, consistent.
Today contained yet another story telling us that New York has too many local governments, special districts, etc. While that may be true, the fact that there are numerous taxing entities does not (as they imply) prove that those units of government are the main source of New Yorker's over-taxation.
As I have previously noted (e.g., here), I am sure that consolidation of some of those districts or cooperative service arrangements between them would save taxpayers money. My issue is that the D&C and certain politicians, (i.e., Andrw Cuomo) contend that this is New York's biggest tax problem. The consolidators have grossly oversold the tax savings value of consolidation.
The real taxation problem in New York is obvious to everyone who wants to face it. Our incredibly dysfunctional State Government in Albany is the problem. We have a Legislature that mocks its constituents by gavelling in and out of session without even trying to act on overdue budget legislation. We have a Governor who talks tough but fails to do anything concrete to force fiscally responsible action.
The D&C and others can try to keep the focus on the "big problem" of too many local government units but the fact is that the percentage of our total NY tax bill resulting from local government is peanuts relative to that resulting from the unquenchable need for tax revenue to support our Albany behemoth.
Today contained yet another story telling us that New York has too many local governments, special districts, etc. While that may be true, the fact that there are numerous taxing entities does not (as they imply) prove that those units of government are the main source of New Yorker's over-taxation.
As I have previously noted (e.g., here), I am sure that consolidation of some of those districts or cooperative service arrangements between them would save taxpayers money. My issue is that the D&C and certain politicians, (i.e., Andrw Cuomo) contend that this is New York's biggest tax problem. The consolidators have grossly oversold the tax savings value of consolidation.
The real taxation problem in New York is obvious to everyone who wants to face it. Our incredibly dysfunctional State Government in Albany is the problem. We have a Legislature that mocks its constituents by gavelling in and out of session without even trying to act on overdue budget legislation. We have a Governor who talks tough but fails to do anything concrete to force fiscally responsible action.
The D&C and others can try to keep the focus on the "big problem" of too many local government units but the fact is that the percentage of our total NY tax bill resulting from local government is peanuts relative to that resulting from the unquenchable need for tax revenue to support our Albany behemoth.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Partisan Decision-Making
The recent decision striking down part of Arizona's new immigration law was a clear example of "result-oriented jurisprudence".
Judge Bolton simply ignored the proper basis for review of the Obama Administration's request for an injunction and reached the result desired by her liberal instincts. You can read scholarly analysis of the decision at National Review Online
My view is that the Obama administration is blind to the result of their "victory". This is yet another example of liberals in positions of power telling us "unwashed" that we don't know what's good for us. The President tells us that the Arizona law is bad and he sues the State of Arizona to stop its enforecement. This despite the fact that clear majorities around the country think the law is the right idea. A Rasmussen poll out today says that 68% of Americans believe we should complete a border fence.
I can only hope that in November the American people remind President Obama and Judge Bolton that we live in a democratic republic and that "important" people like them derive their power from the consent of the governed. And the governed can withdraw their consent!
Judge Bolton simply ignored the proper basis for review of the Obama Administration's request for an injunction and reached the result desired by her liberal instincts. You can read scholarly analysis of the decision at National Review Online
My view is that the Obama administration is blind to the result of their "victory". This is yet another example of liberals in positions of power telling us "unwashed" that we don't know what's good for us. The President tells us that the Arizona law is bad and he sues the State of Arizona to stop its enforecement. This despite the fact that clear majorities around the country think the law is the right idea. A Rasmussen poll out today says that 68% of Americans believe we should complete a border fence.
I can only hope that in November the American people remind President Obama and Judge Bolton that we live in a democratic republic and that "important" people like them derive their power from the consent of the governed. And the governed can withdraw their consent!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Quick Thoughts on Green Nomination
Monroe County DA, Mike Green, has been tapped by Senator Chuck Schumer as the replacement for retiring Federal Judge, David Larimer.
Many local observers will focus on Green's questionable and unsucessful prosecutions of Andy Moore and James Smith and the allegation that this nomination is the pay-off for those "political" prosecutions. Number me as one of those who feels that those prosecutions had a large political component. I was actually surprised that the Democrat & Chronicle story on the nomination acknowledged the controversey.
No matter what anyone thinks about the nature of those prosecutions, there is a bright side to the Green nomination for conservatives. Mike Green is not an ideological liberal Democrat. Not that long ago most Republicans expected him to be the GOP nominee for DA. Tom Cook and Steve Minarik decided otherwise, however, Green will not likely be an "activist" Federal Judge. His rulings are likely to reflect his moderate to consevative political background.
Given some of the other names under consideration, we could do worse than have Mike Green on the Federal Bench.
Many local observers will focus on Green's questionable and unsucessful prosecutions of Andy Moore and James Smith and the allegation that this nomination is the pay-off for those "political" prosecutions. Number me as one of those who feels that those prosecutions had a large political component. I was actually surprised that the Democrat & Chronicle story on the nomination acknowledged the controversey.
No matter what anyone thinks about the nature of those prosecutions, there is a bright side to the Green nomination for conservatives. Mike Green is not an ideological liberal Democrat. Not that long ago most Republicans expected him to be the GOP nominee for DA. Tom Cook and Steve Minarik decided otherwise, however, Green will not likely be an "activist" Federal Judge. His rulings are likely to reflect his moderate to consevative political background.
Given some of the other names under consideration, we could do worse than have Mike Green on the Federal Bench.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
To Err Is Human
Umpire Jim Joyce proved that last night when his bad call cost Detroit pitcher Armando Garralaga a perfect game.
But the real story is the fact that Garralaga had the grace and class to forgive Joyce despite what had to be a huge disappointment. Meanwhile, Joyce showed class by accepting the blame for his mistake.
As one person said "it gave the world a chance to see how adults are supposed to act".
But the real story is the fact that Garralaga had the grace and class to forgive Joyce despite what had to be a huge disappointment. Meanwhile, Joyce showed class by accepting the blame for his mistake.
As one person said "it gave the world a chance to see how adults are supposed to act".
Monday, May 31, 2010
Duffy: Unfinished Business
I have been discussing Bob Duffy's run for Lt. Governor with friends and family. I have been fairly surprised by how many of them see this as a cynical, political move by Duffy.
Actually, it is not the run for Lt. Governor that they see as cynical, it is his former protestations that he was not a "politician" which has been exposed as bull and some of his policy initiatives, which now look like political ploys. Even the Democrat & Chronicle went from lauding his "ascension" to questioning his motives and asking what his departure will mean for the City of Rochester.
I'm not sure how to read this. I have nothing against the Mayor. I did not understand his sinking of Ren. Square or his plan to take over City Schools. I also don't think he's done anything notable to improve the City. He's been a pleasant guy, but he's done very little of substance and certainly nothing to have earned the incredibly fawning press coverage he got from the D&C.
Frankly, his legacy to Rochester may ultimately be that he sucessfully unloaded the Fast Ferry. Other than that, it hasn't been a memorable run. Maybe his term as Lt. Governor will lead to something more. Only time will tell.
Actually, it is not the run for Lt. Governor that they see as cynical, it is his former protestations that he was not a "politician" which has been exposed as bull and some of his policy initiatives, which now look like political ploys. Even the Democrat & Chronicle went from lauding his "ascension" to questioning his motives and asking what his departure will mean for the City of Rochester.
I'm not sure how to read this. I have nothing against the Mayor. I did not understand his sinking of Ren. Square or his plan to take over City Schools. I also don't think he's done anything notable to improve the City. He's been a pleasant guy, but he's done very little of substance and certainly nothing to have earned the incredibly fawning press coverage he got from the D&C.
Frankly, his legacy to Rochester may ultimately be that he sucessfully unloaded the Fast Ferry. Other than that, it hasn't been a memorable run. Maybe his term as Lt. Governor will lead to something more. Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
