NY Young Republican Club, Inc.

Posted by Ron Lewenberg at 07:25 PM | Comments (0)

May 16, 2006

Has Anyone Suggested Limited Government?

According to AM New York, Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., has introduced a bill calling for the secession of New York City from the rest of the state. For "Gotham" to become a state, the City Council, New York State Legislature, Governor Pataki, and Congress would have to approve. The purpose of this publicity stunt, evidently is to try to force Albany to address the $3.5 Billion discrepancy between the taxes New York City residents pay and the benefits and programs we receive.

However, if Councilman Vallone really wants to be consistent, then he should propose that we secede from the United States; but that would be absurd. If Gothamites truly cared about donating less tax funds to other counties, wouldn't it make more sense to elect legislators, who wish to tax and spend less?

Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg has restarted his campaign to force out-of-state gun dealers to abide by his standards. Having previously failed to sue the small arms industry into submission, thanks to the intervention by the Federal government , Bloomberg has now decided to target small business owners selling guns for purported transgressions.

Perhaps the mayor could make time to read the Constitution. Last time I checked under Article 1, Section 8, the Federal government, through Congress, had sole authority over interstate commerce. I don't recall any amendment allowing municipalities to use civil courts to pursue policy changes in other states.

The only good news is that New York City government is pre-occupied with grandstanding on issues for which it has no authority, rather than pursuing enforceable liberal policies to restrict our liberties and pocketbooks.

Posted by Ron Lewenberg at 06:32 AM | Comments (0)

May 12, 2006

10th Anniversary Celebration for the MPSC

You are cordially invited to join in celebrating ten years of the MIDTOWN PREGNANCY SUPPORT CENTER!

On Saturday, May 13, 2006,
Enjoy an evening of dinner and dancing with
The Alex Donner Orchestra at
The Colony Club, 564 Park Avenue, New York City (map)

Reserve seats for $250 each, or sponsor a table of 10 for $2500. A portion of your admission costs will be tax deductible:
Reserve Online or contact MPSC at 212.588.9148

Posted by Ron Lewenberg at 05:16 AM | Comments (0)

May 10, 2006

Housing Uproar directed at wrong Party

The annual meeting held by the Rent Guidelines Board at Cooper Union over renewal increases for regulated housing brought the expected split between landlords and tenants. With fuel costs going through the roof this year and the city doing nothing in providing tax relief, landlords argued that operating costs have skyrocketed.

A recent report stated that costs rose 7.8% last year due to a 22.8% rise in fuel, as well as out of control real estate taxes. With no relief projected to building owners in the city's budget, landlords want to remove a 2-year renewal option and make a 1-year renewal at least an 8% increase.

This led to a bru-ha-ha where tenants argued they are being forced out of their homes risking homelessness. Tenants want a rent freeze (no increase) for their renewal option.

What is a renter to do?

First, we have to get an understanding on what regulated housing is and what it does to the housing market in New York. Other states don't have regulated housing and a person can comfortably get a comfortable 900 square feet of space for say... $850 (Jersey City). Unfortunately, in New York City, government tries to do more than it should for its residents and the interference drives the market up to levels that are not affordable to the middle class.

Right now, with rent stabilization and the few remaining rent control apartments, market value apartments range anywhere from $500 to $1500 higher than what New York City market should be if rent regulation was removed all together. The longer we keep rent regulation in place, the worse it's going to get between the stabilized rent average and the market rate average.

The Rent Guidelines Board also reported the average income for residents living in rent stabilized units remains at about $32,000 annually. An income like that would make anyone argue that the cost of rent is out of control and something needs to be done to provide relief both to the tenants and the landlords in New York City, especially Manhattan.

The Republican view on housing is the way to solve the problem. Unfortunately, Republicans do not do a good job getting a clear message across. Elected officials in New York City government is predominantly Democrat, so it would take a serious revolution to elect Republicans to at least 33% representation.

To fight the Democrats indifference to the housing crisis:

If you believe greed is involved when it comes to housing, look no further than your local government. The greed is with your elected officials in City Government, not necessarily the landlords. The overwhelming majority of landlords run their property to make a respectable profit, something that you or I would do if we ran a business. Unfortunately, government makes it harder and harder for anyone to live comfortably in New York City.

Posted by Daniel Peterson at 01:32 PM | Comments (2)

Did Eliot Spitzer Use His Office to Commit or Facilitate a Crime?

On April 28th, in an unprecedented move, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer released a statement threatening employers, who were considering firing illegal aliens participating in the May Day Rally for "Immigrant Rights."

This Office has received inquiries about the legal obligations of employers to accommodate employees' requests to take time off to participate in activities scheduled for May1 recognizing the contributions of working immigrants to the national economy and local communities. Some businesses will be closing for the demonstrations, while others will remain open....


Federal labor law protects every employee's right to engage in concerted activities for "mutual aid and protection," including calling for change in existing laws to improve working conditions. The courts have held that participation by employees in demonstrations and rallies like those planned for May 1 are protected activities under that provision.


Employers may impose reasonable requirements needed to keep their businesses functioning, and employees must comply with those requirements. However, if adverse action, including discharge, is taken against employees solely because of their participation in these activities, the employer may be found to have violated the rights of those employees and could be subject to legal action.

This seems like a straight forward statement, except that it is based on a misstatement of federal law and court rulings.

As Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted:

Spitzer's claim is very misleading. First of all, in the Hoffman Plastics case, the Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act does not allow illegal aliens to sue employers for backpay, since they have no legal entitlement to work in the United States.

Second, and more importantly, even if federal labor law defines attending a rally for illegal immigrants as a protected activity for "mutual aid and protection," that only means that employees have license to attend such rallies on their own time. They cannot unilaterally take off work en masse and shut their employer down, since employers have a right to keep their businesses functioning.

Since knowingly employing or continuing to employ illegal aliens is a crime Immigration and Naturalization Act Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a]), then wasn't the attorney general using his office to coerce employers into committing or continuing a crime?

Moreover, is this not an inducement for illegal aliens "to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law" (Sec. 274. a1A iv. [8 U.S.C. 1324])

While this may or may not live up to the standards of conspiracy to commit a crime, it certainly looks like the facilitation of illegal acts to this non-lawyer.

Posted by Ron Lewenberg at 04:38 AM | Comments (0)

May 05, 2006

Are We Being Funny

I posted this piece on Urban Elephants, but I think it's very important for our candidates to see so I'm cross-posting it here:

With the endorsement of John Spencer by the Nassau and Suffolk republican committees yesterday, it looks like Spencer is on a roll to the nomination. And, there was a report on Newscopy the other day that if KT doesn't get the nomination (meaning 51% at the convention) she will drop out of the race. However, this is not what I find most interesting about these events.

The real interesting thing here is that Spencer was endorsed by the Suffolk committee, where the infamous "black helicopters" joke was uttered. Does this indicate they thought KT was either not joking, as she has repeatedly claimed, or just has such a bad sense of humor that she is unqualified to be our candidate?

You think this is silly? Well, I would contend that in serious or competitive races, the candidate perceived to have the better sense of humor wins. It is so clear at the Presidential level: Reagan-Carter, Reagan-Mondale (the classic!!), Bush-Dukakis, Bush-Clinton, Clinton-Dole, Bush-Gore and Bush Kerry.

In every one of these races, the candidate seen as more jovial was the winner. Bush 41, not known for a tremendous sense of humor, looked like Rodney Dangerfield compared to Mike Dukakis.

Now let's apply this to our races this year, especially the republican primaries. Spencer-KT? KT always seems so serious, even when trying to laugh things off. Maybe it's because she's laughing things off, instead of at them that it doesn't really work. Spencer, while a little dry, does show signs of genuine humor at times.

Weld-Faso? Well, Weld seems to have a pretty raucous sense of humor, like his not quite so famous "pub" joke on St. Patricks day. Faso appears to be devoid of humor, and instead always seems way too intense and uptight.

Pirro? In spite of the inability to riff when page 10 disappeared, she seems to have an ok sense of humor. Although it gets lost in her absorption with her past record and what positions she was the first woman to hold in NY. If she was more forward thinking and let more of her humor out, she'd do much better.

I can't speak to the two possible comptroller candidates. I have met Callaghan, and he seems nice enough, but not signs of a real sense of humor yet. Maybe the bowtie is throwing me off. The only guy who wers one who shows a real good sense of humor is George Will.

Then, of course, we have our two potential presidential candidates - one serious, one very laughable. And, in spite of how hard the idea of pataki running for president makes most of us laugh, he has shown no sense of humor whatsoever in twelve years in office. Of course, next to Cuomo the cadaver he benefited from Bush 41 syndrome (an opponent who barely registers a pulse with the voters at that time).

Rudy, on the other hand, shows a great sense of humor. With his willingness to dress up in drag and his quick wit in dealing with reporters, he is the stuff candidates are made of. Anyone who doesn't take himself so seriously that, as mayor of the world's #1 city, he will put on a dress and perform in front of the press shows not only tremendous humor but real courage as well.

Don't count this guy out of anything right now. A sense of humor like this can woo a lot of voters who may not be in total agreement with you on the issues, but respect a real sense of leadership.

So, if you agree or disagree with any aspects of my hypothesis, or have other good examples of where humor triumphed over wonkiness, please share them with us.

Posted by Robert Hornak at 08:00 PM | Comments (1)

May 03, 2006

Why we need more Republicans in City Council

I give Mayor Bloomberg credit. When he has a position, he takes it and you will know whether you agree or disagree with the man.

My previous entry on his "black and white" abortion position was negative towards him. Today, I read the mayor is willing to work with Speaker Christine Quinn in opening up the Budget to the Council for reviewing government spending.

Today's New York Sun(subscription) reported the mayor has agreed to disclose a detailed breakdown of agency spending. Theoretically, this should allow lawmakers to review where revenue is allocated by program and determine whether our tax dollars are spent wisely.

Currently, our City Council has 48 Democrats and 3 Republicans, with roughly a dozen of those Democrats being moderate to conservative in fiscal matters. It still tilts the Council to the left when it comes to spending our tax dollars.

If we had won the five "competitive" races and sent 8 Republicans to City Hall, along with the good-government Democrats, enough votes could make a fiscally responsible mayoral veto stick.

It will take a few years for the Bloomberg-Quinn team to get a grip on city spending, but at least more lawmakers will now be aware of where the Mayor spends the $53 billion budget.

I'm beginning to understand Councilman James Oddo's (R) decision to support Councilwoman Quinn as Speaker. She is for good-government and a reformer. She may be too liberal for the average Republican, but she is showing integrity. She understands a $53 billion budget is not her money to throw around, but our money. The tax-payers.

Now, she may not be one to suggest budget cuts and tax cuts. She'll likely opt for reallocating money to agency spending that makes sense, so that's where electing Republicans comes in. Reform-minded fiscal conservatives need to be elected so we trim the budget, lower taxes so New Yorkers can save more, invest, even spend more and increase revenue, then allow for our elected officials to cut taxes even more. A cycle of an economic boom will follow and we'll see new jobs, investment, available housing and happy people.

Posted by Daniel Peterson at 06:14 PM | Comments (1)