The NY Post has an Editorial supporting Curtis Sliwa who has been talking about running for Public Advocate as an Independent on a platform of eliminating the do nothing office which will cost $1.8 million this year (which is down from the $2.9 million the office has cost last year).
I like this quote from Sliwa "If elected I would close and padlock the office, fire all the employees and, most importantly, fire myself."
It's about time someone made the case for getting rid of this useless post that's costing NYC taxpayers millions of dollars every year!
I hate to say it but this might be the one job that Sliwa is actually qualified for! As long as he really intends to follow through on his promise to eliminate the office he's got my vote!
Here's the link to The Post Editorial:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07012009/postopinion/editorials/curtis_for_advocate__176982.htm
I believe Sliwa is a registered Republican. Is it too late to get him on the ballot as a Republican as well as an Independent?
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 745
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (12)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Jay Golub , July 02, 2009
http://www.facebook.com/note.p...427&ref=nf
Zablocki responds...
"Good government requires a checks and balance system - my campaign alone has suggested ways for the city to save millions of dollars and if this position was used to help save taxpayers money, cut the red tape for small businesses and make life better for New Yorker's, it pays for itself. I say keep my 21 cents and keep this office going."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by insider , July 02, 2009
Even if Curtis ran and won, the establishment would never allow him to fulfill the campaign promise upon which he was elected.
They would find a way to circumvent the will of the people, because closing a government office, any government office runs counter to the liberal establishment's philosophy.
I'm curious. Does anyone know of any candidate running for office who promised to cut his own salary, if elected?
I think this could be THE best plank any Republican could possibly run on in the next election. Voters would love the idea.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 03, 2009
"I'm curious. Does anyone know of any candidate running for office who promised to cut his own salary, if elected?...I think this could be THE best plank any Republican could possibly run on in the next election. Voters would love the idea."
There is one candidate running who has ALREADY cut his own salary to $1. I guess you think Bloomberg resembles the "best plank any Republican could run on".....
I believe that the "best plank" would be to reduce the tax burden on the voters of NYC. I care less about the elimination of one small position in NYC that only spends $2 million out of an engorged $64 billion budget. Sliwa's argument is a petty prank at best - one used by many others before.
Why not take on a bigger target for elimination if you really believe in this stuff?
How about eliminating the Campaign Finance Board and the public matching program? That would save about $100 million this year, which would enable NYC to re-open a number of closed firehouses and/or hire hundreds of additional police officers.
Or what about reducing the subsidized portion of the HHC's expenses by just 2%, which would save NYC taxpayers about $20 million dollars this coming year?
Or how about NOT giving a raise to city employees this year, which would save billions both in present expenses as well as future pension liabilities?
The fact that Sliwa uses a gimmick to get attention for a potential run for the office of Public Advocate hides the fact that there is much more to "cut" than this insignificant position. It's an petty distraction from some real work that could be done to bring the waste of taxpayer funds under-control.
Curtis is a friend and has been a great supporter of Republicans for many years. But if he really wants to run for the office to save the taxpayers money, take the opportunity to tell Mr. Bloomberg to start to "do more with less" in every aspect of city operations - not just with this tiny $2 million a year position....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by insider , July 03, 2009
"There is one candidate running who has ALREADY cut his own salary to $1. I guess you think Bloomberg resembles the "best plank any Republican could run on".....
"Why not take on a bigger target for elimination if you really believe in this stuff?"
Bloomberg is the exception that proves the rule. For him, taking no salary is easy. For most other pols it would be a sacrifice and worthy of comment as a meaningful symbol.
If Bloomberg wanted to make hay with his $1 a year, he should have followed up by cutting the budget in the areas that you've cited.
As for Curtis, his abolition of the office would be a meaningful and symbolic act, worthy of respect. It might even lead to his winning a different office and having the authority to make other, deeper budget cuts.
You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Jay. Take one step at a time. After all, most of NYC's voters want government to be bigger and more capable of delivering the goods for more people, without regard to the wider economic impacts.
To start with getting a small, but singularly visible City office eliminated would be heady stuff.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 03, 2009
"You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Jay. Take one step at a time."
No offense intended, Insider, but cutting .003% of the City's budget is NOT a "step." This has nothing to do with being imperfect either. The concept of eliminating the office is a gimmick, nothing more.
and you are giving way too much credit to Gotbaum in calling the office of Public Advocate "singularly visible." In fact, it's been invisible.
But as I said in 2005, the office's invisibility has more to do with who is occupying the office than what the office is or can do for the people of NYC...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Reaganite , July 03, 2009
You are exactly right Jay. This is a purely symbolic gesture that would save an insignificant amount of money. To say it is a baby step in the right direction is an overstatement. It's not even a limp.
Besides, an occupant of the office does not have the legal authority to abolish the office. Only the voters can do that in a referendum. The office is established by the NYC Charter and any occupant of the office who refuses to show up for work or fulfill his responsibilities would be immediately impeached and replaced. Symbolic gesture no more.
If we are looking for savings we should discuss eliminating the borough presidents. there we have a few hundred million dollars, not less than two million.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by GOPNYC , July 03, 2009
Several years ago at Robert's birthday party at the place on 14th and Ninth Avenue...remember? I wanted you to do the same thing.
This is the PERFECT Republican platform: Run4Reform.
Take a look at the City Council website and see what a FAT, BLOATED, SELF-SUSTAINING, FESTERING bureaucracy it is. Councilmembers have "District Offices" as well as "Legislatlive Offices" --- give me a friggin' break. What do they think this is...CONGRESS???
The Assembly and the State Senate are just as bad. I had a NYS Assemblymember tell me that there was "no way", even in the height of New York's financial crisis, he could redue his Assembly office operating budget by reducing staff when a staffer left his bloated payrolll. He simply had to forego hiring a replacement. You would think I had asked him to go to Mars.
Pure Ego, unhinged.
The time is NOW for radical change and a radical challenge to New York's existing egocentric kleptocracy: EVERY Republlcan candidate for the NYC council should promise to ELIMINATE at least one of their two city-paid offices; to reduce bloated staff to, at MOST two staff, to surrender rights to any city-paid vehicles and to reduce the city payroll by 15% by the end of their terms. They should promise to answer their OWN damn phone and set up their "District Office" at the nearest friendly hospital cafeteria, or coffee shop, or school office. ("I'm at PS 11, every Wednesday and Friday, from 4:00PM to 8
M", the hours people can do business. "And my staffer will sit with your kids/parents/dog while you and I talk.") GET THIS GOVERNMENT DOWN TO SIZE. AND DO IT WITH AUDACITY. ALWAYS AUDACITY!!!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by insider , July 03, 2009
You are right; it's the perfect Republican platform idea. It gives real reformers the moral authority to cut government's budgets.
And, it will resonate with voters. Especially in a declining economy. To argue that an idea is merely symbolic is to misunderstand politics completely.
You have to start with "symbolic" ideas in order to win the support required to move into positions of power and on to meaningful reforms.
Of course, it's a lot easier to rant and rave on a blog about the deep cuts you'd make if you were King, but what's that going to get you?
Republicans used to stand for fiscal responsibility and were disparaged for it. Nowadays, with chronic deficits and debt as far as the eye can see, boring ideas like fiscal responsibility are finally being understood.
If Republicans want to win, and get government spending under control, they should run for office promising to cut their own salaries. Then they'd have the moral high ground and standing to enter office and cut government budgets down to size.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by izengabe , July 05, 2009
I think what people here are writing is all good. We should work to eliminate the Borough Presidents, the Campaign Finace Board, trim the staff of our elected officials, reduce the subsidized portion of the HHC's expenses by 2%, eliminate the pork barrel member items and shrink the waste in NYC government.
I know $1.8 million out of a $60 billion budget is small potatoes but it's a start. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan "a million here a million there and pretty soon you are talking about serious money."
Over the last 4 years NYC spent close to $11 million on the PA's office. Over the next 4 years we will probably spend over $8 million.
If we had a candidate running for Boro Prez who promised to work to eliminate that post, or Council or Mayor who promised to fight to shrink the size of NYC government they would get my vote too.
But I will need to vote for someone to Public Advocate a useless post with no power that should be eliminated. If there is a candidate who promises to return the $1.8 million budget back to the City than to me that candidate would be the best person for the job.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 05, 2009
"I wanted you to do the same thing."
Although I have no direct recollection of that conversation, I don't doubt it occurred. You are certainly someone I would count on to remember things accurately.
And in true form for us both, I still don't support your point and you continue to espouse it...
"Take a look at the City Council website and see what a FAT, BLOATED, SELF-SUSTAINING, FESTERING bureaucracy it is. Councilmembers have "District Offices" as well as "Legislatlive Offices" --- give me a friggin' break. What do they think this is...CONGRESS???"
And even "Congress" should curtail wasteful spending. Yet I don't see what eliminating this particular office has to do with the long quote above - that I COMPLETELY agree with...
"GET THIS GOVERNMENT DOWN TO SIZE. AND DO IT WITH AUDACITY. ALWAYS AUDACITY!!!"
Eliminating a $2 million a year post that would take a, more than likely, expensive reform of the city Charter is not "audacious." In reality it's quite meager.
I envisioned the Public Advocate's office as a post to be the ultimate guardian of the taxpayer - fighting against the type of wasteful and egotisitical spending you decry, GOPNYC. I think, in the right hands, this office could be a very positive influence on the city's government.
Gotbaum has been useless - that is no secret. He performance certainly has tarnished the office over the last 8 years.
I understand yours and Curtis' overall point, but it's more "point" than substance...
"If Republicans want to win, and get government spending under control, they should run for office promising to cut their own salaries."
I agree with that, Insider, but "cutting one's salary" is very different than running for a job you'd eliminate. Besides, once the intrigue ends with such a "platform," the novelty of eliminating the position will be a very BIG liability in winning the election...
"If there is a candidate who promises to return the $1.8 million budget back to the City than to me that candidate would be the best person for the job."
The Public advocate could do just that if the next one fought against the biggest problem facing NYC: The Balance of Payments Deficit.
Eliminating that deficit would bring more than $25 billion back to NYC taxpayers - enabling us to INCREASE services and, at the same time, REDUCE city taxes...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , July 06, 2009
Today's NY Post states that the role of the Public Advocate plays is a redundant role at best.
One could argue it does what the City Comptroller, Ind't Budget Office, City Council & Borough Presidet and District Attorney, as well as state Attorney General and the 2 US attorneys.
I'd almost say, now with the Board of Ed power of appt with the Beeps, maybe they can add a new job of advocacy for their borough if someone's councilor isn't doing what he or she should be doing.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 06, 2009
"redundant roles?"
Danny, please. Almost EVERY role in city government is "redundant." Honestly, what do we need the city council for? No one knows who they are and no one thinks a majority of them do anything.
Why not get rid of the Council, too?
Maybe we should just have one enlightened leader in the Mayor and let him or her decide everything. Is that a good idea?
The point about eliminating the position is only relevant because the person in the office now is useless. Once someone of stature or once someone actually gets off their A** and does something with the position, these arguments will remain...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
