Limousine liberalism rides again

Gov. Paterson's budget proposal has drawn fire from regional representatives, with upstaters bemoaning prison closings and New York City pols like Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger finding plenty to complain about. "New York City shoulders a disproportionate amount of pain,” says Krueger, citing an aid cut and:

"Restructuring the STAR program by limiting the NYC Personal Income Tax STAR Benefit. This will cost New York City residents an estimated $200 million in new taxes. STAR has always disproportionately benefitted land-owners outside of New York City, and that fact will only be exacerbated by the limiting of the NYC Personal Income Tax STAR Benefit."

That's one way to put it. The New York Post -- no proponent of higher taxes -- said this about Paterson's proposal: "It called for ending the STAR property-tax benefit on homes worth more than $1.5 million and limiting the program's tax credit to the first $250,000 of income." So the only people paying more would be living in homes worth more than $1.5 million and/or earning more than $250,000 a year.

Krueger is generally considered one of the most liberal members of the New York State Legislature, although -- or because -- her Manhattan district runs north from Gramecy Park through midtown and the Upper East Side. These days, for New York Democrats from Chuck Schumer on down, liberalism means never having to say you're sorry to the people who work at places like Goldman Sachs.

Krueger also portrays herself as a champion of reform, and like that other ethics poseur Sen. Daniel Squadron was all too ready to settle for a weaker bill than Paterson had proposed. Well, she explained, "We must now continue our progress and pass legislation that will limit lobbyist contributions, reform campaign finance rules, revoke the pensions of elected officials convicted of a crime while in office, and restrict how campaign funds can be spent.” That, however, is not a comprehensive list of what last week's ethics bill left out. She didn't mention Paterson's proposal to require legislators to publicly reveal the amount and sources of their private-sector incomes. The bill that was passed last week (which Paterson calls inadequate and plans to veto) improves disclosure some, but among other weaknesses it lets lawyers like Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate leader John Sampson continue to conceal their private clients.

So not only have conservatives given up conserving, but the new liberal mantra is protect the powerful and pay tribute to the rich.

Comments

[Brian]

You're right the legislature's bill is grossly inadequate. Sen. Squadron was probably just taking what he could get and hoping to improve it in the future. When someone like Ralph Nader rejects such a position, you deride him making the perfect the enemy of the good. But it's ok for you to do it?

Is Blair Horner a "poseur" on ethics?

[Bob Conner]

I've never derided Ralph Nader, although I obviously disagree with him some. I also disagree with Blair Horner's tactics in this instance. As for Squadron, my main objection is with him going along like a sheep, not, for example, offering an amendment to add Paterson's disclosure proposals which would force legislators to disclose their private income and clients. If the amendment had failed, he could still have voted for the bill. But doing that would have meant crossing the leadership, which, like the vast majority of legislators, he wasn't willing to do. I doubt you could get a straight answer from him about whether he supports Paterson's disclosure proposals (I've made a couple of efforts).

[NenaShylon]

For Sure!!
Signs of change are already there!