Those who read this blog or know me personally know that a relatively small share of my contemporaries, and a those in generation or two older, think like I do. There are, however, some people who have some ideas in common, and below I’ve excerpted from books by two of them.
Amy Dacyczyn lives in a rural area and set out to prove that by using resources efficiently she could eventually have a home with plenty of space and nice stuff, and stay home to care for her children rather than work elsewhere. An urban dweller, I value ease and experiences, sought a minimum of space that needs to be cleaned and maintained, and see things that have to put away the say way Jacob Marley saw links in his chain in A Christmas Carol. I have never even been in a fistfight, or at least not one where I threw any punches back. Andrew Bacevich is a former Army colonel. As for the perspective we have in common, the excerpts follow.
Rather than repeating a detailed analysis of American Community Survey data, after doing one last year, I’m just making some quick observations on data for New York City and the U.S. for 2006 and 2016, two economically similar years. The prior post was on data from table DP02, “selected social characteristics.”
This one is on DP03, “selected economic characteristics.” (DP04 is “selected housing characteristics”). I’ll just quickly run through the tables in the spreadsheet and tell you what I see. You can a download the DP03 spreadsheet for NYC and the U.S. in 2006 and 2016, once again, here…
The Republican tax plan includes a repeal of the federal income tax deduction for state and local income taxes, and a partial repeal of the deduction for local property taxes. The Economist magazine likes the idea.
“Republicans have since come to view the state and local deduction as something that encourages big government, rather than deterring it. It subsidizes Democratic-leaning states that set their taxes high…States are surely capable of balancing their budgets without receiving a federal subsidy for doing so. There is no real justification for distorting their fiscal decisions one way or the other.”
There is one justification, though no politicians on either side have an incentive to point it out. Thus making the policies that really shift money, and the identify of the beneficiaries, once again the “unsaid.” One reason that high tax states are in fact high tax states is that the federal government drains money out of them. This deduction of state and local taxes from federal personal income taxes is sort of a partial make-good.
I compared the 2015 data with 2005, a similar economic year. I don’t want to repeat myself and am under some time pressure this fall, so I’m not going to do that again this year. Charts and pretty tables set up to print are a lot of work.
But I did download some of the data for New York City and the U.S. for 2006 and 2016, also economically similar years, to see what it looks like, and I might as well provide it to those interested. What follows is links to two spreadsheets, one from table DP02, “selected social characteristics,” and one from file DP03, “selected economic characteristics.” (DP04 is selected housing characteristics). I’ll just quickly run through the tables in the two spreadsheets and tell you what I see.
Navel-gazing is something I try to avoid. With a narcissist in the White House, that is true in the present even more than in the past. But there is something about this blog that is so strange that I just have to ask. WordPress tells me that people from Sweden read it, almost every day. This is a blog that is mostly about public policy in New York City and New York State, with occasional discussions of federal policy and the broader U.S. economy and land use issues. Almost all of those who read it are from the United States, WordPress tells me. Mostly other policy work types, as far as I can tell. Which makes sense. And then you have the Swedes. The question is – who, and why?
If anyone doubts that Puerto Ricans are Americans, just look at the state of island’s economy before Hurricane Maria. You had a bunch of rich people holding bonds exempt from income taxes, and a bunch of public employee pensioners who got their pensions retroactively enriched while traditional pensions were eliminated for those hired after 2000, all expecting to get paid by the poorer generations to follow them. You had an economy based on imports, debts and consumption that would collapse without bailouts from the federal government – at the expense of someone else, someday. You had the executive/financial class, the political/union class, and other members of a better off Generation Greed all seeking to suck money out of younger, poorer generations of serfs. (And those serfs fleeing the island in large numbers.) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its government-owned utility finally went bankrupt. Puerto Rico is like the United States, only more so. I wrote a post titled “The Puerto Rico Disaster” three years ago.
Puerto Rico has no money, no economic base, and very few assets of any that have value in the short run. If the public employee pensioners and debt holders expect all they have promised themselves, where do they expect it to come from? Confiscating people’s FEMA rations and Social Security checks? How can people expect to suck out more from those who are so much poorer, or others who never benefitted in the past? But the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is going to end up with a whole lot of abandoned land, urban, rural, seaside, etc, because people will be forced to leave and there will be no income to pay property taxes. That, and a tropical climate in a part of the United States with links to New York, could have value someday. Value someday, perhaps, if they cooperate for the mutual benefit of themselves and the island as a whole, is all that Puerto Rico’s creditors deserve. I propose a debt for equity swap, with that land turned over to three of four new publicly traded Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) that would compete to earn money by redeveloping the island. Those who wanted to invest in Puerto Rico for the long-term could buy in. Those who did not could sell, and take what they get.
During my Don Quixote protest campaign against the state legislature back in 2004, the only member of the media who paid attention to what I was trying to say was Erik Engquist, then of the Courier Life papers, now with Crain’s New York Business. But he didn’t quite get it right. In one column, he said I was someone who cared deeply about the process of government. I e-mailed him and said that to be honest, like most people I never really cared about or paid attention to the process, I only cared about the results. He wrote back and said while that may be so, unless New York gets a better process, it isn’t going to get any better results.
This is the third and last post in a series on New York City’s double-blind experiment with democracy – a City Council that has term limits, and a state legislature that does not. In the first, I noted that thanks to term limits and public campaign financing there are actual elections for the City Council every eight years, with the would-be members forced to pay attention to the general public, whereas in the state legislature competitive contest elections almost never happen.
In the second I examined the personal and professional background of the City Council and state legislature members, and found less difference than I would have supposed, due in part to a surprisingly large amount of recent turnover in the State Assembly, and due in part to the fact that ordinary citizens cannot, or do not, run for office.
This is post is not about who the members are or how they get there, but what they do when they arrive. With regard to corruption, transparency, and the value they place on the common future, the one interest all of us (other than the most selfish seniors) share.