"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Coup of 1

This editorial in the New York Times is worth a read. The Dairy Quandary

Yet in the face of a crisis; the New York farmers are facing the most agriculture unfriendly New York legislature possibly ever. This disdain toward agriculture occurs even though our Senator is the Ag Chair in the New York State Senate.

Senator Pedro Espada has promised to push the Farm Labor bill through the New York State Senate on September 10, without negotiation. This legislation will have a severe negative impact on our local agricultural community and should be stopped.

The New York Senate Democrats hold a tenuous 32 member majority, where in many cases every person is needed for important votes.

Senator Darrel Aubertine should become a coup of 1 and promise that if this legislation is passed without negotiation with Farm Bureau and other interested groups that he will not be counted on for any future important vote.

Darrel, be one of us, turn the tables on Espada and become your own coup of 1 for the North Country!

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

if you are any kind of a North Country representative, you would be talking with experts like Floyd Hall and Fred Matthews about this destruction of the dairy industry, instead of whatever you do do. A dairy cow is worth about $14,000 per year to the community, which is the equivalent of a laborer making $7 per hour. You want jobs? Then protect those farms by getting the money back into farmers' pockets, instead of leaving it with the processors. You'll raise more county taxes that way too. Darrel works tirelessly on farm legislation, and has for 20 years that I know of. Why don't you stop grousing about the party in control now, and do something productive yourself? Tour a farm, milk a cow or two. The cows (the ones that are left) will love you for it.

Anonymous said...

Is Floyd Hall Darrel Aubertine's agricultural adviser now?


BaaaaaaaWHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

I don't think floyd hall is even a farmer anymore? Or ever was a expert.

Anonymous said...

You are a desperate man. You resort to comparing an apple to an orange just so you can write another anti-Darrel post.

Anonymous said...

The problem with you IV is that if this bill does not come to the floor, or dies on the floor because Senator Aubertine fought it, you will not give him credit.

If he fights tooth and nail, votes against it, but Republicans--who gave Pedro Espada the power he has now by saying he should be Pro Tem--vote to pass it, you'll blame him and only him.

This is partisan hackery by you at its best and I'm not even a Democrat

Anonymous said...

Anonomi -- You ignore the fact that Darrel himself says he's powerless in the face of the NYC juggernaut to stop this bill from becoming law.

Farmers are screwed -- and the state's only elected farmer won't use any political capital as a member of the part in control of Albany to do anything about it.

But somehow this is all PIV's fault?

Dan Francis said...

Maybe he and Russell could work on this too - from the WDT today:

Local small businesses are bemoaning a state action to charge businesses a fee to collect sales tax.

As part of an effort to clean up its records, the state Department of Taxation and Finance is asking all registered sales tax vendors to apply to renew their certificates of authority.

As part of the application, the department is charging each business that files quarterly or monthly $50.

My Q: why renew if their certificate is still up-to-date and in force? I don't get that part. And, a new fee to renew? Pretty pathetic and backdoor way to get more money in the kitty in Albany.

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

I understand what you are saying, Dan. I don't disagree with most of it. The problem is, just raising a tax doesn't necessarily raise revenue. That's something I wish some of your party would learn. They will just drive a few more farmers out of business, which will lessen the funds received through the additional taxation. And around and around we go. That is my main disagreement with you on your continuing rant about the "Bush tax cuts". Cutting taxes can sometimes raise revenues. It's a balance.

I don't think we're interested in any balances here in the Empire State. If we can get more city votes than farmer votes by doing something stupid, we do it. Therefor, the farmers are screwed on this one.

Dan Francis said...

Anonymous 6:51...

You posted in part as you whacked me:

"That is my main disagreement with you on your continuing rant about the "Bush tax cuts." Cutting taxes can sometimes raise revenues. It's a balance."

The only problem with your "logic there" is this: Bush cut taxes twice for the higher bracket folks and he DID NOT cut spending... That trillion dollar deficit Obama faced on Jan 20, 2009: Left there by Bush and wild-ass GOP spending and yes, many DEM votes."

It's always the spending... We all like and want our taxes cut... and I'd lead the pack on that, but not w/o reduced spending, too.

woodchucksage said...

Other than the Dem bosses in the Legislature who are completely clueless about agriculture, the only group that wants this is big labor so they can extort more money out of their employers and eventually put them out of business.

Who actually benefits from this? Not farm workers, as number of these will be out of work because of the crazy laws. Of course, the state will get more income tax to piss away.

And where is June O'Neill in all of this? She is given credit when any big Democrat passes gas in the North Country. Why can't she do something to help us out and put her supposed huge influenece to work on our behalf for a change????????

hermit thrush said...

That is my main disagreement with you on your continuing rant about the "Bush tax cuts". Cutting taxes can sometimes raise revenues.

i agree that in theory it's possible for tax cuts to raise revenues -- for example, if you start with a 100% tax rate, then any cut whatsoever (except for cutting completely down to 0%) will do the trick.

but when has that ever worked in practice? do you know any examples? i don't know a single one -- but i don't claim to be an expert either. maybe you or someone else can educate us.

and as for bush's tax cuts in particular, that's just not a legitimate disagreement at this point. the evidence as to whether the cuts raised or lost revenue is already in! it so happens that revenue went down. it's not even close.

Anonymous said...

I thought Jay Matteson was the Ag expert, well at least we pay him to be one, what does the office really do?? What's the budget for the office?.

Anonymous said...

Great news AJR has secured almost 2 million in funding for the poor of the area, wonder does this include farmers??

Anonymous said...

2:26 PM
No! unless of course they are on welfare.

Anonymous said...

The only problem with your "logic there" is this: Bush cut taxes twice for the higher bracket folks and he DID NOT cut spending... That trillion dollar deficit Obama faced on Jan 20, 2009: Left there by Bush and wild-ass GOP spending and yes, many DEM votes."

That's not true dan I got the tax cut from Bush both times.And I am far from the higher bracket. And if his trillion $ deficit is so bad why is the jokers 9 trillion deficit a good thing? This is the most recent number but we still have many months to go till we get rid of him.

Anonymous said...

12:16 AMthe evidence as to whether the cuts raised or lost revenue is already in! it so happens that revenue went down. it's not even close.

Where do you hear this crap you spew.Went down compared to what? Clinton?

Anonymous said...

Bush vs Clinton's Economy)
Old news but still the record.

Politics: Bill Clinton was in rare form at the Democratic Convention Tuesday, comparing his economic record to George W. Bush's. Not fair. The president's is better.

"Our way works better," the former president boasted in his Monday night address, touting a '90s economy that "produced 22 million good jobs, rising incomes and 100 times as many people moving out of poverty into the middle class." He also lauded his record on the budget, touting "three surpluses in a row."

How could Bush hope to match such accomplishments? Well, remember: Bush is still in his first term. He inherited a recession and slumping job market from Clinton.

Clinton, on the other hand, took over when both the economy and jobs were growing and picking up pace. Inflation was still in a decadelong decline.


So let's measure first term against first term — apples to apples. If we do, Bush comes out on top — even after 9-11.

Don't believe it? Look at the key gauges of our well-being — growth, inflation, unemployment, disposable income (what's left after taxes), productivity, household assets and consumer confidence.

On most of these, Bush wins. Yes, GDP growth on a year-over-year basis is a bit slower. But, as we noted, Bush took office with a recession under way. It wasn't Bush's recession; it was Clinton's.

As for the other data, here's how Bush's first-term stacks up: Inflation? Lower. Disposable income? Higher. Household assets? Richer. Consumer confidence? Slightly lower, but comparable. Unemployment? A bit higher, but again about the same. Productivity? Way better under Bush.

Clinton deserves credit for a strong second term. But even that record needs an asterisk. After stumbling badly in 1993 and early 1994, and with his popularity and the economy weakening, he got lucky: The GOP won control of Congress.

Republicans pushed Clinton to sign on to welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts and spending curbs that produced a booming economy and balanced budget. They kept him from raising taxes, as he did in 1993, when his record tax hike nearly sank the economy. They also kept him from signing the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.

Bush's record, we suspect, will look even better four years hence. All the key elements for a sweet decade of economic growth are in place. But you won't hear that in Boston.

hermit thrush said...

dear anon 10:09,
by "went down," i meant that that the tax cuts resulted in lower revenues than there would have been without the cuts. sorry if that wasn't clear.

that aside, it's too bad you chose to use such crude language like "crap you spew," especially since this "crap" appears to be quite well supported. for example, have a look at what the center on budget and policy priorities has had to say. for those who don't want to click, here are some highlights (the article is from 2006):

Even the [bush] Administration does not project that... the tax cuts will pay for themselves.

Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term.

CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less.

for another take, here's what bruce bartlett recently had to say:

Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend.

and bartlett is hardly some left-wing shill -- he's a leading conservative economist (for whatever that's worth!) and one of the original supply-siders.

Anonymous said...

Klemit, just so you know, I wasn't a part of any of this. Except that first rebuttal of my boy Dan, and you. Otherwise I've been out burning gas in the boat.

As far as the original idea of this thread, that things in NY are just fine, I agree with you. Now all the Donkeys need to do this year is what they did last year. Raise taxes and fees dramatically, blame the resulting destruction on Bush, and decline to face reality when it comes to cutting spending. No spending cuts, ever.

I believe government can get to a point with taxation where raising tax rates will result in even less in revenues. That's what I was trying to say with Dan. The money goes underground. People avoid that sector of the economy. It happens, and I think we are, or soon will be, at that point. So raise them taxes all you want Shelly Silver, you're going to come up empty. It is happening this year. The money isn't coming in that govment thought was going to come in. That's what I meant when I said raising tax rates doesn't necessarily bring in revenues. I think I said that already. It's late.

Goodnight.

Anonymous said...

12:46 AM
I read the article what I took from it was the governments revenue went down the peoples went up. Was'nt that the point? All I am sure of from personal exp is in 2006 when the dems took over it has gone downhill from there.Governments broke state and fed.And most of the people are really having a hard time.It scares the bejesus out of me cause I know where the gov is going to look for the cure they already are.

hermit thrush said...

dear 12:46,
you wrote:

I read the article what I took from it was the governments revenue went down the peoples went up. Was'nt that the point?

i'm not sure what you mean by "the point," but to reiterate, my point was just that the bush tax cuts resulted in less revenue for the federal government than there would have been had the clinton tax policies been left in place. i'm glad to hear you agree.

Anonymous said...

Frog, I think you're arguing with yourself. And I think you won. The guy you're fighting with is a complete idiot. But I agree with you all the way. Give 'em hell.

Live Blogging