Monday, March 31, 2008

Mr. Bloomberg Places Children First

Before we get to that, let's applaud our new governor, who's planning to tax internet sales, regardless of substantial hurdles.
Critics and even some supporters expect legal challenges, citing a 1992 US Supreme Court ruling they say prohibits a state from forcing a company with no physical presence in a state from collecting the state's sales tax.

Thankfully, the governor does not wish to raise taxes on the wealthy. It's a well-established fact that rich people need money more than the rest of us (Otherwise, how would they be rich?), and naturally we're all grateful for a governor who's sensitive to their needs. Instead, he'll tax our Amazon purchases and find new ways to save on unnecessary expenditures:
Meanwhile, Paterson, to help fill a $4.7 billion deficit, is looking to cut the money the state pays toward accidental death benefits for fallen police and firefighters. Families would collect the same amount of money, but the city would be forced to bear more of the burden.

That's not a big problem, as Mayor Bloomberg can simply cut school budgets even further. After all, it's a well-established fact that rampant overcrowding and the highest class sizes in the state are key elements to successful education. This will give the mayor even more opportunities to place his innovative program into effect.

Now there are a few pesky troublemakers in the State Assembly who fail to see the virtues of more overcrowding and fewer decent facilities. Clearly, they don't understand the concept of "Children First." In keeping with this concept, Mayor Bloomberg cut school budgets instead of tax rebate checks to NYC homeowners. Rather than deprive homeowners of that all-important 400 bucks, here's what Mayor Mike's study proposes if he's forced to pay for education:

The analysis insists sparing the Education Department any cuts, while other agencies shouldered the burden, would force the elimination of 609 sanitation workers and reduce the frequency of trash collections.

That comes on top of the elimination of nearly 4,000 of New York's Finest and more the 500 of its Bravest.

It's a testament to the mayor's foresight that he gave away a billion dollars in tax rebates before getting to this point. After all, if he'd wanted to do this now, people would ask why he's cutting much-needed funds to city agencies Fortunately, the proposed cuts in police and sanitation will have no effect on truly vital projects. Still, some naysayers have the audacity to criticize the mayor, even after he conclusively proved he was willing to cut the funds of "Children First:"

Assemblyman Michael Gianaris (D-Queens) defended the push to spare schools from Bloomberg's ax.

"The state Legislature has gone to the wall to increase education aid for the city. If the city is just going to take the state aid and decrease its own aid, that's not what was intended."

That's an interesting comment. As I recall, Saint Rudy regularly used to use increases in state aid to decrease city aid by an equivalent amount. And I could have sworn that Mayor Mike renounced that practice as a condition of mayoral control. But the issue here, of course, is one of "Children First." Did the mayor place children first? He most certainly did.

What more, really, does anyone need to know?

Thanks to Schoolgal
blog comments powered by Disqus