Archive for the ‘The Island 360’ category

Never-ending Incompetence at MTA – By George J. Marlin

September 17, 2024

The following appeared on Monday, September 16, 2024, in the Blank Slate Media newspaper chain and on its website, theisland360.com:

On Sept. 12, state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli released a report assessing the MTA’s “capital needs and funding scenarios.”

Its findings should surprise no one. To enact the overwhelming list of capital improvement needs, the report concludes “The MTA must find billions in new funds even as the state tries to resolve the $15 billion gap in revenues created by the pause on congestion pricing.”

Essential capital projects include:

  • $1.78 billion for repairs of line structures, depots and yards.
  • $2.75 billion for normal replacement of railcars and buses.
  • $5.65 billion for accessibility and signal modernization.
  • $5.23 billion for the expansion of the Second Avenue subway.
  • $5.67 billion for administrative, communication and power modernization.

The MTA’s total capital needs during the next five years range “from $57.8 billion to $93.2 billion, with a midpoint of about $75 billion. But whether the MTA’s capital program comes in at the low end or the high end of that estimate, it will need significant amounts of new funding….”

So how is the MTA going to fund the much-needed capital projects?

First of all, taxpayers should not rule out the resurrection of congestion pricing.

Gov, Kathy Hochul’s surprise announcement in June to suspend the congestion pricing that was slated to commence on July 1 was a political decision — not a financial one.

Hochul’s June 5 statement that “I cannot add another burden to working, middle-class New Yorkers or create another obstacle to our continued economic recovery” was empty political rhetoric. She did not want to be blamed for voter backlash against Democratic congressional candidates at the polls in November.

However, it appears she has been scheming to bring back congestion pricing post-election day.

The New York Post reported Aug. 18 that “Governor Hochul is considering proposing a lower congestion toll for Manhattan and nixing it all together for municipal workers such as cops and teachers.”

In other words, Hochul has bought off the municipal unions that had been suing the MTA—cops, firemen, teachers, ambulance crews—who commute to their workplaces in the zone south of 50th Street in Manhattan.

And I won’t be surprised if there are additional exemptions, for example, medical professionals.

But tax revenues from the modified congestion pricing will not be enough to fund MTA capital projects.

The DiNapoli report suggests that fare and toll increases over the next five years could be between 13% and 18%. It also points out that more state and city tax dollars will have to be turned over to the MTA. The state’s contribution for the 2025-2029 Capital Plan is estimated in the range of $8.8 billion to $29 billion. The city’s contribution could range from $2 billion to $4 billion.

But before raising fares and tolls, maybe the MTA should address the direct causes of its soaring costs: overly generous union contracts that cost $7.8 billion annually, huge cost overruns, prevailing wage laws that force MTA contractors to pay above market rates to the tune of $95 per hour, and fare beaters.

The MTA recently admitted that last year it lost $600 million to fare evasion. (The comptroller puts it at $700 million.) More than 48% of bus passengers do not pay their fares—up from 18% in 2018. Nearly 1 million commuters a day get a free ride.

This is even too much for The New York Times. Pamela Paul wrote in her Sept. 6 Times column, “Taking the City for a Ride:” “The truth is passengers don’t pay because they can get away with it. The hottest truth is that the city lets them.” Pamela concluded: “The best resolution is more policing.” (For The Times to call for more policing is an incredible acknowledgement.)

If the MTA cracked down on fare beaters, the increased revenue would contribute significantly to salvaging the MTA Capital funding problem.

But will that happen? I doubt it. It is easier to stick fare-paying working class commuters with the tab for the MTA’s incompetence.

Can Harris Beat Trump? – By George J. Marlin

September 2, 2024

The following appeared on Monday, September 2, 2024, in the Blank Slate Media newspaper chain and on its website, theisland360.com:

The Democratic National Convention, which was more hype than substance, attempted to portray its nominee, Kamala Harris, as a joyful challenger rather than an incumbent. Harris was scripted to come across as the candidate of change and the working class.

As for Harris’s incumbent colleague, President Joe Biden, he was permitted to speak outside of the primetime period. Immediately afterwards, his party banished him to the dust bowl of history.

In her acceptance speech, Harris presented herself to the nation as a nonideological centrist who would be tough on crime, tackle the inflation problem, and control the border by—get this—building a wall.

Apparently, the Democrats are hoping voters do not hold Harris accountable for the Biden-Harris agenda. They hope to shove the past three and a half years down the Orwellian “memory hole.”

Democrats hope the election will not be a referendum on the Biden-Harris record, but a choice election based on personalities.

Yet, despite all the convention’s hocus-pocus, I don’t believe the voters will give Harris a pass and excuse the last three and a half years.

Let’s face it: the vice president stood next to Biden at every public policy announcement. The president constantly referred to the Biden-Harris Administration.

Harris boasted she was the last person in the room when Biden made important decisions—including the one that led to the botched Afghanistan withdrawal.

Harris has been the leading cheerleader for the Biden Administration and the defender of its economic and spending policies, which led to rapid inflation.

She has often proclaimed that “Bidenomics” has been working and has also stated, time and again, that the president was mentally in top form.

Let’s not forget her claim that the southern border is secure. Considering there have been 8.3 million border encounters since Biden and Harris took office, versus 2.4 million under Trump, that’s a tough one to swallow.

As for being a moderate, Harris’s public record contradicts that claim. As a US Senator and candidate for president in 2020:

  • Harris supported the elimination of private health insurance.
  • Harris sponsored the radical multi-trillion-dollar Green New Deal legislation.
  • Harris opposed the building of the border wall, calling it Trump’s “medieval vanity project.”
  • Harris supported a ban on fracking.
  • Harris supported the California referendum that reduced penalties for shoplifting. (Stealing under $900 is okay in California.)
  • Harris called for the defunding of police departments.
  • Harris stated it should not be a crime to enter the US illegally.
  • Harris supports the Biden plan to destroy the Supreme Court’s independence.
  • Harris supports the elimination of the US Senate filibuster.

Harris is trying to backtrack on some of those policy positions and trying to hide the fact that she is a San Francisco radical who was rated the most left-wing member of the Senate in 2020. (Yes, she was more extreme than Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.)

But will voters buy the new and improved Harris?

Here’s why I don’t think so.

Four years ago, Joe Biden, who had a 50-year record as a liberal moderate, promised the American people he would govern as a centrist.

However, after assuming office, he immediately moved to the far left to appease the AOC wing of the Democratic Party. Unlike Biden, Harris has been a lifelong leftist. And I don’t believe the American public is naive enough to buy her sudden road to Damascus conversion to moderation. They will see it for what it is—a smoke screen to get her through the election.

As for Donald Trump—he can beat Harris if he holds her accountable for the failed domestic and global policies of the Biden-Harris Administration and articulates his vision for another term in office.

If Trump hopes to win, he must—in Michelle Obama’s words—“go high when they go low.”

But, if he snaps at the Democratic Party’s bait and focuses on personalities and name-calling, he will surely lose in November.

New York’s Mismanaged Government – By George J. Marlin

August 21, 2024

The following appeared on Monday, August 19, 2024, in the Blank Slate Media newspaper chain and on its website, theisland360.com:

In recent months, reports released to the public have highlighted the incompetence and mismanagement of bureaucrats in the state government and its agencies. Here’s a sampling of the findings:

In June, an audit report released by State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli revealed that Medicaid payments went to providers not enrolled in the program to the tune of $1.5 billion. That’s a lot of misappropriated taxpayer money.

“The deadline for managed care organizations and their providers to comply with enrollment requirements was over five years ago, yet our audit shows payments to the providers that are still not enrolled in Medicaid or have been denied,” DiNapoli said.

It appears that state Department of Health workers have been asleep at their desks since the federal government’s 21st Century Cures Act mandated that in-network managed care providers were required to be enrolled in Medicare by Jan. 1, 2018.

“DOH’s inability to determine the extent of unenrolled or excluded providers who are still doing business with the state,” the DiNapoli report concluded, “puts Medicaid patients and taxpayers at risk.”

What’s the DOH’s excuse for this massive five-year failure? The department “has not developed the infrastructure to accurately review MCO’s compliance with the act.”

That lame excuse is unacceptable. It’s inconceivable that it has taken more than five years to design a check list.

What were the ramifications of this multibillion-dollar snafu? Apparently, none. No one has been fired or called on the carpet for the DOH’s malfeasance.

In late July, Comptroller DiNapoli informed the public that a $4.3 million independent study that Gov. Hochul commissioned to examine the state’s COVID-19 response is “riddled with errors and does not help the state prepare for the next pandemic.”

The 262-page report by the Olsen group, a Virginia-based consulting firm, DiNapoli notes, “relied on flawed or unvalidated data and at times was interpreted incorrectly, resulting in erroneous conclusions.”

The most glaring error concerns data related to nursing home deaths.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services statistics, utilized by the Olsen group, undercounted the COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes. Hence, the Olsen report’s conclusion that there were 70.9 deaths per thousand nursing home recipients was wrong.

DiNapoli pointed out that the state’s DOH data, which is more accurate, indicates “New York’s nursing home death rate was nearly double at 135 per thousand residents ranking us among the very worst states.”

Bill Hammond, senior fellow for health policy at the Empire Center think tank in Albany, agrees with DiNapoli’s analysis. He said the Olsen group’s after-action review “has proven to be thinly researched, poorly written, sloppily presented and riddled with factual errors large and small. It falls embarrassingly short of the deep, authoritative analysis that Gov. Hochul promised—and which the state desperately needs to arm itself against future viruses….”

The New York Post called it right when it declared “the Swiss-cheese-like Hochul report was a slap in the face to all New Yorkers, especially the families of the 83,000 New Yorkers who died during the COVID-19 pandemic.  It was also a monumental waste of money.”

As you might have guessed, the Hochul administration has failed to publicly address the flawed report.

Another audit report by DiNapoli indicated that “poor oversight and bureaucratic delays in New York State’s gold-standard program for treating mentally ill people at risk of becoming violent have led in recent years to preventable injuries and even deaths.”

Which department failed to make sure the court-ordered treatment to individuals be delivered in a timely manner: the state’s Office of Mental Health.

Can the Hochul administration get anything right?

Here’s one more example of censurable government behavior:  The top scofflaw in owing New York City water bills is—New York State.

“The top three non-paying customers,” the mayor’s office told The New York Times, “are the state-controlled Metropolitan Transit Authority, Riverbank State Park on Manhattan’s West Side, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.”

The total due is $76.5 million.

As the French say, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”—the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

My Take on the National Democrats – By George J. Marlin

August 6, 2024

The following appeared on Monday, August 5, 2024, in the Blank Slate Media newspaper chain and on its website, theisland360.com:

When President Joe Biden was beating Donald Trump in public opinion polls, leading Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, House Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, were saying ad nauseam that Biden was in top form, alert, engaged, on the ball and clear-sighted.

Biden’s press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, when asked about the president’s mental acuity, said, “He is as sharp as ever as I have known him to be in any engagement, in my experience with him. And I know when I walk into the Oval Office or see him on Air Force One, I have to be on top of my game.”

The “party line” throughout the 2024 primary season: Biden’s in tip-top shape. And any public figure who dared to disagree was demonized as a purveyor of disinformation.

Even though most Americans suspected that Biden’s mental acuity was declining, Democrats did not mind denying it was true so long as they thought Biden could win.

However, when battle ground state polls started trending towards Trump after Biden’s awful debate performance on June 28, the Democratic establishment turned on the president.

Throughout July, the pressure began to build on Biden to withdraw even though 14 million Democrats voted for him in the primaries and 99% of the delegates to the Democratic Convention were pledged to him.

When Biden wouldn’t budge and said only the “Almighty” could get him out of the race, the Democrats’ secular “Almighty,” Barack Obama, decided to save the nation from Joe Biden.

Obama’s behind-the-scenes coup succeeded. In an Oval Office speech on Sunday, July 24, Biden told the American people he was withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race.

While not giving a reason for dropping out, Biden said he was passing the torch to a new generation to save democracy and reminded listeners we were a republic not a monarchy.

Afterwards, Biden stuck it to Obama and his coup collaborators by endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris to succeed him.

Harris was not the first choice of Democratic Party power brokers. They considered her a lightweight whose low 30s approval ratings were worse than Biden’s.

Throughout her term in office, Harris struggled in news interviews. Unable to talk substantively about major issues, she tangled up words, spoke in non sequiturs and tautologies, and in awkward moments, would burst out laughing no matter what the topic.

Thanks to Biden, however, there was a sudden rush of support for Harris and the skeptical Democratic Establishment had no choice but to jump on her bandwagon.

Harris is the nominee although she never received one vote from the party’s rank-and-file. (So much for the democratic process Biden lauded.)

Harris has been crowned—just like unelected potentates in despotic regimes. (Maybe Biden was wrong about the U.S.A. not having monarchs.)

Choosing Harris without a competitive process, New York Times columnist Bret Stevens has pointed out, “is a recipe for disaster.”

“The whole point of a competitive process,” Stevens noted, “is to discover unsuspected strengths and to test for hidden weaknesses, which is how Harris flamed out as a candidate the last time before ever reaching the Iowa caucus. If there’s evidence that she’s a better candidate now than she was then, she should be given the chance to prove it.”

Despite media adulation and well-scripted campaign appearances, there remains a laundry list of Harris’s weaknesses. Stevens sums them up thusly: she’s unpopular; she’s been a bad campaigner; she’s been a bad manager; she has a penchant for excruciating banality; she’s a blue-state Democrat who needs to win purple states; she’s anchored to Joe Biden’s record; and her career smacks of connections and favoritism.

I couldn’t say it better myself.

All of this is good news for Republicans. But Trump being Trump can blow it if he bases his campaign on name-calling and not on the issues that matter most to Americans: inflation, high cost of living, crime, border safety, and federal budget deficits.

My Take On The GOP Convention – By George J. Marlin

July 23, 2024

The following appeared on Monday, July 22, 2024, in the Blank Slate Media newspaper chain and on its website, theisland360.com:

Seconds after Donald Trump named J.D. Vance his vice-presidential running mate, the media’s left-wing Talking Heads pronounced the 39-year-old senator from Ohio “unqualified.”

Unqualified?

Let’s compare J.D. Vance’s curriculum vitae with Barack Obama’s. Both Vance and Obama served 18 months in the Senate at the time of their nominations to a national ticket. Both went to Ivy League law schools. Both authored best-selling books about their upbringing.

Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Obama worked as a community organizer, an instructor at the University of Chicago Law School and as Illinois state senator.

Prior to Vance’s election to the U.S. Senate, he was a U.S. Marine who served in Iraq, and worked at a venture capital firm where he specialized in financing technology startups and creating jobs.

Do you get my point?

If Obama was qualified to be president, Vance is certainly qualified to be vice president and, if necessary, to assume the office of chief executive.

Nevertheless, there are significant differences between the two. Unlike Obama, Vance is a low-key, modest guy.

Vance would not make the following crass statement Obama made about people in the Rust Belt: “So it’s not surprising then that [people there] get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

No, Vance understands that the people in flyover America are good people, decent people, who may believe that the elitists in Washington and cosmopolitan America have deserted them—and they are not “deplorables.”

Nor would Vance articulate a view of himself as Obama did when he became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008: “This is the moment the world has been waiting for…. This is the moment when the rise of the ocean began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

And if elected, I do not expect Vance to say anything close to what Obama said after his 2008 election: “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about politics on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Unlike Obama, Vance is not a super egoist. He lifted himself by his bootstraps and worked hard to achieve the American dream.

As for the Republican convention—it was well choreographed.

The words spoken by family members who lost their loved ones in Afghanistan were moving. The words spoken by the victims of New York’s defund the police policies and lax bail laws sent a strong law and order message.

To hear Sean O’Brien, the head of the 1.3 million Teamsters Union, castigating “big business” at a GOP convention, was extraordinary. “Massive companies like Amazon, Uber, Lyft, and Walmart,” he bellowed, “take zero responsibility for the workers they employ. These companies offer no real health insurance, no retirement benefits, no paid leave, relying on undefined public assistance. And who foots the bill?  The individual taxpayer.”

O’Brien’s pro-union speech could have been delivered at the 1948 Democratic convention that nominated Harry Truman or at JFK’s 1960 convention.

As for Donald Trump: dodging an assassin’s bullet by a quarter of an inch was remarkable.

Trump’s brush with death was his “come to Jesus” moment. One can only hope that there is a “New” Trump who campaigns as a unifier and who appeals to the better nature of all Americans.

Trump began his acceptance speech at the convention by taking the high road describing the assassination attempt, and paying tribute to the retired fireman who died and to those who were seriously injured.

But later in his 90-minute speech, when he was ad-libbing, he lapsed into the same old accusations and name-calling. That was unfortunate.

At this point in time, the November election is Donald Trump’s to lose. If he forgets the grudges, describes his governing vision for America and curbs his outlandish comments about the heir apparent, Kamala Harris, he may well be the first ex-president since Grover Cleveland in 1893 to regain the office of chief executive.