An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
New York State of Mind
Siena Research recently concluded their sweeping August poll of New Yorkers’ political leanings and the results contain some shocks and some yawns, as usual. Two things are obvious, though. First, having given total control executive and legislative power to the party of the Donkey, Empire State denizens are absolutely sick of the Democrats they elected. Second, they are still in no mood to replace most of those Democrats with Republicans. I have a breakdown of some of the more surprising results and a few bits of prognostication on 2010 in my weekend column at Pajamas Media, New York State of Mind Still Not Republican.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “New York State of Mind”
This is just a view of the future of the U.S. as a one party state. People may not like their current elected leaders but the only people who have any history or experience is running the government as associated with those currently in power. Does anyone really believe that Andrew Cuomo would be any better? Most of Cuomo's staff will come from the same population as the those currently running the state.
Again the same basic question.
Considering the state of the economy, what would you expect Republicans to do if elected?
DQ,
What would you expect Cuomo to do differently than the current governor? If Democrats took over in Texas, what would you expect them to do differently? Isn't the problem is that the Republicans have made themselves, under Karl Rove's push, to be the Democratic-lite, big spending, big government, me-too nanny state party. What have two parties when there is so little difference between the two of them on the major issues.
DQ- in NY specifically, there is a LOT that the GOP can do regarding tax policy. NY is one of the states with the highest tax burden, and the Dem establishment wants to keep raising taxes (Paterson's millionare tax, for instance, which will drive a lot of the wealthiest citizens out of the state.)
Lowering taxes isn't the solution on the national level- cutting spending has to be a big part of the equation there, and enacting progrowth policies to help entrepreneurs survive (they're the biggest source of job creation.) I don't have much hope that the GOP would actually cut spending, but getting back to divided govt would at least stop the freight train of the current Dem majority working with an overly ambitious liberal president. I understand the rationales for investment in the future, but when you're going bankrupt it's time to get the financial house in order first and pay down debt before you start investing for future needs.
They aren't going anywhere, NY is where the infrastructure needed for them to make money is… And where all the small businesses needed to pamper them are. And it's not like they are going to invest in the New York State, so why do them any favors?
Plunge in Tax Revenue Widens State Deficit
Like I said which taxes are you going to cut or raise and which services are you going to reduce?
ROTFLMAO…
The country is going broke because the Republicans/Conservatives gave their supporters tax cuts like they were going out of style, forgot why regulations were put in place (Stop businesses from committing suicide through short sighted greed and stupidity) and basically ran the country into the ditch. Republican's definition of the future is the next quarter and the only thing they believe in investing in is Weapons Systems.
DQ — are there any services that you think should be cut?
Here is one: NYC baseball stadium subsidies: Do I hear $1.8B?.
If they can't afford to build their own Stadium on their own dime, then they should move someplace else…
They aren't going anywhere,
Well, in another tax hike example (I'm not sure if it was ultimately enacted or just proposed), Paterson wanted to remove the tax break that TV and film production companies get when they film in NY. Alec Baldwin spoke out against this idea, saying that it would result in far fewer companies being willing to work in NY- and when you have Alec Baldwin speaking out against your tax policy , you might have a problem.
Some conservatives certainly argue in black and white terms that all tax cuts are good, but it really depends on what end of the spectrum you're starting from (raising rates that are already high is often counterproductive to revenue, while raising them when you start at a low rate will bring in more revenue.) The flip side of the true believers in tax cuts are liberals who insist that individuals and corporations never change their behavior when rates get too high (ie, that 'they're not going anywhere.') That they do in fact often 'go elsewhere' is even more true on the state level, but we also see that with corporations that move overseas.
Jazz and C. Stanley,
“Paterson wanted to remove the tax break that TV and film production companies get when they film in NY.”
The equivalent is being sought by Governor Granholm currently, here in Michigan (film tax break).
Jazz and everyone else, I spent time in Upstate for a couple of years and won't go into the details about what I saw there that's as bad when not worse than the self-crippling Cyanide Nation stuff happening in Michigan government as well. (New York has a worse reputation; in my experience it has been worse, too.)
There has never been a dearth of valid criticism about what the state (not to mention the site of the worst excesses and misdeeds of all, New York City) has wrongly been done and the poor nature of the environment insofar as taxes are concerned. The following, from the following source, is a good example of describing what is currently wrong, and it applies to much of the rest of the older Blue Nation Rust Belt zone.
The best single thing to read is about the way New York is losing to other places, though it shows the effects or results of poor policy throughout the Rust Belt, more or less as most people interpret it.
Look at Figure 5 here (“Rust Belt” diagram), and then review the entire document when you have time.
http://www.ppinys.org/reports/2003/censusbook.pdf
There's a wealth of criticism of the New York [Albany = destructive as well as dysfunctional), State of Mind at that site.
http://www.ppinys.org/
“They aren't going anywhere, NY is where the infrastructure needed for them to make money is”
California has driven out hordes of people and businesses and jobs. It's not just the Rust Belt that has this mistaken attitude. (Though I will say that the Rust Belt Dem-lib climate is known to be worse, those states have faltered particularly since 1980 when not before then, and it's the eastern states that are notorious for still-overgrown cities and governments, and (crazy!) city income taxes.
“That they do in fact often 'go elsewhere' is even more true on the state level”
We've seen that for decades. Push factors and pull factors are at work. What are the growth rates, which (normally alien to those in vital areas of the nation post-1960s) aren't merely only single digits percentage-wise, but can be actually negative? (Note that 2003 report from NYS PPI I linked to.)
The trend from 1950 onward is illustrative (more so after 1980).
(In 2001 I estimated that current trends would put the mean center near Oklahoma City in 2100. If the federal government ever were relocated, this would be the logical site for it though there are other candidates, like Kansas City or Omaha, or the “Brasilia”-style choice, geographic center of the 48.)
http://www.polidata.org/maps/apmaps.htm
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentat…
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_popl.html
http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/pasdc/PA_Stats/profile…
Now some might want to “solve” that by making as much as possible subject to federal law and to federal regulation and government control, and uniform nation-wide, to prevent what they who get a No vote decry as “race to the bottom” or “unfair competition” among the states. (This is separate from what many may seek to unify simply to centralize and grow power in Washington. But related to this is the potential for Obama and other Dems to seek harmonization or “compatibility” or “consistency,” etc., of the USA with Europe when it comes to tax and other policy issues, not limited to attacks on foreign tax havens.)
http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_106_fr.pdf
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2002/2002-015…
Please don't insult my intelligence or that of our readers…
Businesses did not leave because of government, they left because of labor arbitrage. Why pay an American $15 an hour plus benefits, when you could get someone in East-Asia to do the same job for $15 a day and no benefits.
In U.S. South, Textile Mills Gone but Not Forgotten
And those jobs did not leave because liberals, leftists or Unions were screwing up the works, they left because cheaper labor was available, and sadly once they were gone there was nothing left behind.
“California has driven out hordes of people and businesses and jobs.”
True, but still California's population continues to grow. The rich will live where they want. The wealthy consider higher taxes the price to pay where they want, and the rich have the money to do it. The middle-class will follow the jobs or leave for less expensive areas where their money buys more.
I guess San Francisco is a good example. Families with children are leaving (which is a national trend among large cities) yet San Francisco, despite the second highest cost of living in the US, has had a population increase of 11.7% since 1990.
New York City, the most expensive city has had about a 13.3% increase in population from 1990.
Alaska, which actually pays people to live there also has a population gain. But that's from a high birth rate. There have been more people to actually pick up and LEAVE Alaska than move into Alaska.
Texas and FL have both had huge increases in population.
The point is… taxes aren't everything. The places with the highest taxes and costs of living continue to grow.
The only two states with population declines from 2000 to 2008 are Louisiana and North Dakota. No surprise about Louisiana after Katrina.
From 2000 to 2008 Texas has had the largest population gain of 3.4 million, followed by California with 2.3 million.
So if we interpret Jazz's post about the Republican v. Democratic policies, and use taxes as an example, we can. But the matter of Republican support (or lack of) isn't based on tax policy, though lower taxes is about the only thing Republicans can offer these days.
California is not growing any faster than the U.S. as a whole. In 2010, California is not expected to gain any additional U.S. House seats. In addition, all of the population gain in California is due to growth from Hispanic growth. Those worried about taxes now live in other states. Also, there ultra-rich in NYC shelter income in states like Florida. However, New York is losing middle class whites to the south just like most of New England.
“True, but still California's population continues to grow.”
Much of it is due to immigrants (foreigners), as is (in case you didn't know)
“New York City, the most expensive city has had about a 13.3% increase in population from 1990.”
“The point is… taxes aren't everything.”
Or growth and jobs (future business prospects, future land value prospects, etc.). Agreed (see below). But it certainly matters. All the people leaving Michigan, etc., for jobs elsewhere show it.
Climate, especially milder winters, is a pull factor (a large part of post-WW2 California migration!).
And don't forget natural amenities as a relative pull or push factor. The following maps are from material I've read before but don't know how long ago I may have posted links to before.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/NaturalAmenities/M…
http://www.missourieconomy.org/researchandplann…
…
(The biggie — note contemporary versus older-year flows involving California.)
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/ce…
http://pewsocialtrends.org/maps/migration/
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00653-new-g…
(Migration from Califrornia)
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/flow_map_la…
(Migration to California and New York)
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/flow_map_la…
Granholm is not trying to get ride of the Michigan film Tax incentives, Novi Senator Nancy Cassis and a few other GOP leaders are trying to. They are strong-arming her in budget negotiations to drop them .Write Cassis and tell her to leave the incentives alone.
Continuing to speak of Michigan for a moment… anyone who has lived here for the past couple decades, has followed state politics, and who hasn't been ruined by ideological subservience knows that John Engler left Michigan in a sorry state (after his 12 years at the helm). It's a wonder anyone would have desired the governorship after that joke of leadership. Does the scenario remind anyone of someone else?
For those “Anti-Union” ( are they Pro-Confederate then?) need I remind you that every great building was built by tradesmen, every bridge you cross in this country- pretty much the same, and the Hoover Dam? Build by FDR's Socialist WPA. So, if yo are so antipathetic then stay in your home, don't get in your car ( steel milled, and constructed by unions) and don't go to the movies ( unionized) because you are only supporting those unions. As for millionaire taxation in our Empire state, well the more you tax the rich the more they are going to find loopholes and hire better accountants to pay less tax.
Republicans want _more_ than Granholm is seeking. [sigh]
e.g.,
“Granholm is expected to offer up a bevy of budget-balancing proposals.
They include extending Michigan's 6 percent sales tax to entertainment tickets, a 1-cent tax on bottled water, a 25-cent increase to the $2 cigarette tax, and cuts to tax credits for the state's burgeoning film industry and the Michigan International Speedway. “
[Crain's]