Bloomberg to City: No Soda for You!

No soda for you! (Photoshop)

I'm not the biggest fan of Bloomberg personally—I think he's an egomaniac whose third term power grab was way out of line. That's not to mention Ray Kelly's actions under Bloomberg, Cathie Black, and his general "the rules don't apply to me" attitude. Policy-wise, however, I like some of what Bloomberg has done (or at least tried to do).

He was a backer of congestion pricing, he instituted restaurant letter grades, he banned smoking in bars and restaurants, as well as parks and other public outdoor spaces. His public health campaigns have been one consistent bright spot in Bloomberg's mayoralty.

Until this week. Bloomberg has proposed outright banning the sale of a cup or bottle of sweetened drink over 16 ounces (the size of a small drink at McDonald's). An action like this, without a doubt, would be the prototypical nanny state kind of government that Americans on both sides of the aisle should be up in arms about. Here is something perfectly legal and Bloomberg wants to ban it based on how much comes in a cup? When you take a step back and look at it, it is ludicrous.

But Bloomberg's motives for this kind of extreme action are noble. He wants to counteract obesity, which is a rising problem in America. And it is not insignificant. A whopping 35.7% of Americans are obese. Not just overweight. Obese. Medical costs in 2008 associated with obesity were $147 billion. For scale, that is $7 billion more than the GDP of Hungary.

So Bloomberg is right that people should be drinking less sweetened drinks, but it's their body so they can do what they want with it, right? Absolutely. Except for one thing: that $147 billion number cited above is paid for by everybody—not just obese individuals who contribute to it. Take this statement from a RAND essay on the topic:

Obesity also has externalities associated with it—namely, mortality and health insurance costs. Because medical costs are higher for the obese and premiums do not depend on weight, lighter people in the same pool pay for the food/exercise decisions of the obese. Furthermore, the negative health effects of obesity decrease the ability of the obese to pay for government-mandated social programs.

Obesity does not just affect those who suffer from it, but in reality affects every member of society who pays for healthcare or any kind of government benefit (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) In today's current society, it violates John Stuart Mill's harm principle.

One solution can be seen in the way government handles other societal harms, such as tobacco. Consuming cigarettes is a personal choice, one that the government has deemed the populous worthy of making. However, it is generally accepted (the tobacco industry notwithstanding) that smoking is bad for you. Not only is it bad for you, it is physically harmful to those in your immediate vicinity.

The government's response to this has not been to ban tobacco products. It has taken another approach in the form of taxation. In other words, the federal, state and some local governments have decided to tax the hell out of tobacco to disincentivize people from consuming it. But has it worked?

Overwhelmingly. Not only does a tax on tobacco decrease cigarette sales, that decrease is directly proportional to the size of the tax. So why can't we do what we've done with tobacco and just tax sweetened drinks over 16 ounces? We should then take the taxes and put them towards efforts to further curb obesity in the city, such as free workout programs or free cooking classes.

New York state tried to tax these drinks, with Bloomberg's full support, but the measure failed. The soda industry—who would be highly affected by a sweetened drink tax—is a powerful lobbying force. But it is important to note here that Bloomberg's ban would only be city-wide, not state-wide. In fact, his ban is all but passed. Take this passage from the New York Times article:

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.

So it really is not a matter of if these drinks will be banned, but when (the Times says it could be as early as next March). Bloomberg's ends are in the ballpark, but his means are not the way to go about it.

Of course, it is important to note that even if Nanny Bloomberg does ban these drinks (and the next mayor does not somehow overturn the ban), it will not stop obesity. In addition to disincentivizing harmful habits, the city needs to incentivize positive ones. It would be a lot easier to provide these incentives from a city-wide soda tax.

Rudy Giuliani Says Daughter's Arrest a "Private Matter," Patrick Dorismond Turns Over in Grave

Rudy Giuliani (L) and Patrick Dorismond

On Wednesday August 4, Caroline Giuliani was arrested for shoplifting at an Upper East Side Sephora. I saw the story, noted that Sephora did not want to press charges because of who she was, and just chalked it up to the privilege (or curse, depending on who you ask) of having a powerful father like Rudy. To be honest, I just put a snarky little thing on my Facebook page and moved on, seeing myself as above writing about such gossipy things. Then Caroline's estranged father had to open his hypocritical mouth.

Sean Bell Settlement Reached for $7 Million of Taxpayer Money

The family and friends of Sean Bell will receive more than $7 million from the city stemming from the shooting of Bell and his two friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield. The settlement is a large one, but it doesn't beat out the settlement reached last month in the case of Barry Gibbs, a man who spent 19 years behind bars after being framed by an NYPD detective for murder. Gibbs will receive $9.9 million from the city.

So who pays the $17 million for police malfeasance? You and I do, of course. Despite the fact that we know who pulled the triggers that killed Bell and injured his friends - Marc Cooper, Gescard Isnora (who fired the first shot), and Michael Oliver (who fired 31 shots, requiring a magazine change) - none of these men will be contributing to the $7 million settlement. This is also not the first time Michael Oliver has cost the city more money than he's worth: in 1995 Oliver shoved a livery cab driver's head into a car window, resulting in a $10,000 settlement to the victim. Somehow Oliver kept his job so he could later cost the city even more money in the Bell case.

A Lesson in Incompetence: The Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Harking back on Nate's post from last week about transit cuts and their long-term unsustainability, I want to quickly point out the MTA here in New York and its woefully pathetic state. The drama of heightened subway fares and decreased service continues, as even more cuts are expected this year. What is frustrating is that the additional cuts are a result of state auditors miscalculating how much revenue the new payroll tax would bring in for the mismanaged agency.

To add insult to injury, Mayor Bloomberg had a message for subway riders. He said, "So save your anger for the next round [of cuts]. Just say thank you that it isn't any worse with this one." Translation: Despite your government and public agencies failing you, you should be thankful for us. Here's what Bloomberg is missing: when something costs extra, you expect to get something more from it. When you put the money up to buy a Mercedes, you expect to get certain perks that you would not find in a cheaper Honda. But what the MTA has done has taken that Honda, stripped it down (no A/C, no radio, etc.) and are making the people pay the Mercedes price. It is now more expensive to ride a service cut-laden subway system. And Bloomberg wants us to be thankful?

But it doesn't end with service cuts. A recent stabbing on the 2 train this past weekend has highlighted the gaping security holes in New York's subway system. CCTV cameras, a simple and effective safety measure employed by everyone from the highest federal offices to your local bodega, either are non-existent (as in the case of Christopher Street, where the assailants from this weekend's stabbing fled) or simply don't work (as is the case with almost half of the system's 4,313 security cameras). Why? Depends on who you ask, but there's plenty of blame being thrown around as the MTA is using its time and resources to sue Lockheed Martin, the winner of the $212 million contract to outfit the system with cameras, after the military contractor sued the authority. It's unclear if ongoing security work is continuing through the litigation (an email to the MTA has not been answered yet).

I don't expect the subway to run perfectly, nor do I expect it to be free of crime. I do expect that a raise in fares will correspond to one of two things: better service or, at the very least, the same service. To have fares raised, massive service cuts implemented, and then be told to be thankful it's not worse is insulting. Security-wise, subway systems are vulnerable in general, but to learn of New York's subway system's vulnerabilities specifically is worrisome. It just highlights the misguided priorities of the MTA, which is plagued with incompetence and mismanagement at nearly every level. They can't stand up to the unions, they can't run the system without massive problems, and they can't even get CCTV cameras installed properly. That's not a lot to be thankful for.

Photo - An overpriced piece of plastic (The Village Voice Blog)

Transit Cuts Are Bad Public Policy

Recently, Washington, DC increased its Metro and bus fares by 10 cents per ride, and more drastic fare hikes (or cuts in service) are expected in July. The New York MTA board just voted on a package of severe cuts, eliminating entire subway lines and substantially slashing bus service. I understand that these cities are dealing with budget shortfalls to the tune of $189 million and $400 million, respectively, but these issues should be dealt with on the city level, not on the Metropolitan Authority level, since all the authorities can do are increase fares and decrease service.

Instead, these cities, and all other cities facing similar budget woes, should look at transportation not as a luxury but as a priority. Here are the problems with attacking public transportation when fiscal times are tough:

1. Poor people will be disproportionately affected. Public transportation is usually an inelastic good for the poor, and increasing fares will only create greater economic burdens for them. Many cities have good subsidization programs for the poorest riders, but many people who cannot easily afford increased fares will have no choice but to absorb the increased costs.
2. Ridership will decrease. People who are on the fence between using public transport because it's cheap and good for the planet but aren't enthralled with its crowdedness, slowness, and sometimes inconvenience will likely err on the side of personal vehicles to avoid increased prices and worse service. This will only further decrease revenue for the transit authorities, exacerbating budgetary problems. Similarly, those who may have been on the fence about switching to public transportation will now have less incentive to do so.
   
3. Traffic congestion will increase. As more people eschew public transportation, more cars will be used, increasing traffic problems in cities.
4. Pollution will increase. As personal vehicle ridership increases, so will greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and other emissions. In an era where cities and states have begun to understand the desperate need to address environmental problems, this would be a huge setback to good environmental policy. And this is to say nothing of the increased dependence on foreign oil.
   

So what should cities do?

I've already made the case for a gas tax. Assuming these transit cuts in service and hikes in price are temporary, why not instead increase the gasoline tax, also ostensibly temporarily? This would put more of the burden on wealthy people who can afford to drive to work, increase public transportation usage, increase transit authority revenue, decrease congestion, and decrease pollution. This seems like a win-win-win-win to me. The only disadvantage is pissing people off who drive cars. But when they are contributing to so many social, economic, and environmental problems by doing so, isn't it a sacrifice worth making? Raise gas prices the same amount you would raise transit rides.

Alternatively, increase tolls. This will have many of the same benefits as a gas tax, though in cities other than DC it will more specifically affect those entering the cities in question, as opposed to everyone in the state (gas taxes are implemented on a state level; however, DC has the authority to instate its own gas taxes).

I realize none of these measures is politically popular, and no one wants to make anyone pay more for something so vital as transportation. But when push comes to shove, it shouldn't be public transit users who suffer increased burdens. People should be incentivized to use more public transportation so that transit systems can grow stronger, gain people's trust, and become the widespread, efficient, fast, clean, dominant means of human movement that they should be.

Images: DC Metro (American Architecture)

Election Day Hangover 2009

It's amazing what $90 million can get you these days. One of those things is the mayoralty of New York, though you'd have to fork over a little more (or a little less, perhaps) for a mandate and/or the respect of your constituency. As predicted, Michael Bloomberg defeated Democratic challenger Bill Thompson, but what was surprising was the slim margin separating the two men (51%-46%). So what does that mean for third term Bloomberg?

Some may have you believe that Bloomberg has lost some political capital because of the slim victory, but let's look at the guy for a second. He's not going to pussyfoot around just because he didn't dominate the election. This is a man who abolished term limits, which had been affirmed twice in the 1990s, just so he could stay on for an egotistical third year. Bloomberg is not exactly tactful; it may be harder to get things done because liberals can point to this election, but in reality Bloomberg tends to get what he wants (exhibit A: a third term in a two-term limit city).

Another good question being floated around: what if Anthony Weiner had run? Well we may have a Democratic mayor right now instead of an independent(ly wealthy) one. We can sit here and play the what if game all night, but suffice it to say how appropriate it would be for someone named Weiner to step up and show that the Democratic party actually has some balls.

And just a quick aside to the state of Maine: WTF? New England states have been the leaders in the fight against sexual orientation inequality and you go and pull this? I love how conservatives espouse minimal government intrusion (watch how quickly they'll cry about gun laws) but then approve the state-backed prohibition of marriage for an entire group of people. Marriage equality will happen one day, it may not be tomorrow, it may not be next year, but it will happen, and when it does history will not treat those who fought so hard against equal treatment for all that kindly. Peace.

Photo - Bloomberg wins third term (Times Online)

Who's to Blame for the MTA Mess? Everyone

While the Doomsday budget was avoided thanks to yet another bailout (this one coming from New York in the form of, among other things, a payroll tax), that doesn't mean that service cuts and fare hikes were not going to happen. Today the single-ride fare for buses and subways went from $2.00 to $2.25 and the monthly went from $81 to $89. It's OK, though, because this is an economic boom time and people have money to burn. Oh, wait...

So who is to blame? Some will blame Albany for not stepping in to completely alleviate the MTA's budgetary issues, others will blame the MTA for allowing things like pensions and other costs get out of control. I, however, will take the middle road and say it is both parties' faults.

First up: Albany. Let's go back to early last year when the buzz phrase was "congestion pricing." Charge a fee to take your car into the most congested areas of Manhattan (below 60th Street) between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. It made sense; if you want the luxury of driving in Manhattan you pay for it. Let's not forget that driving is not a right, it's a privilege. The money generated from said congestion pricing (around $491 million a year) would go to mass transit improvements which are desperately needed, despite it being a great system already). But those in the city and in Albany could not muster the political stones to put it to a vote in the capital, and *POOF* it disappeared like the governor of South Carolina.

Then Albany could not pass a measure as simple and common sense-laden as tolls on East River and Harlem River bridges. Every other bridge and tunnel in the city is tolled, why should these be any different? They could not even pass a measure making it a $2 toll (the same as a MetroCard single ride). Who was one of the "gang of three" (as the Daily News dubbed them)? Pedro freakin' Espada. You can't make this stuff up.

Now onto the MTA. One thing that we hear a lot about now is pensions. Work in a public outfit (police, fire, mass transit) retire in 20 years with a fat pension. The only problem with that is that the contributions workers put into those pension programs do not equal what they receive in the end (with the latter being much more than the former). So who pays for that money? States and municipalities via (you guessed it) your taxes. Pension payments have the ability to bankrupt state and local governments - and that nightmare could become reality if something is not done about it (see California). Massachusetts recognizes the danger that an out-of-control pension system can create and has taken the beginning steps to reign it in.

So what happens when the MTA tries to reel in pension costs by (gasp) asking the future recipients of said pensions to contribute more to their future pensions (akin to a 401k)? The workers strike. Here is the one time that the MTA stood up to the unions, the unions reacted negatively, and the MTA ended up putting its tail between its legs and wetting itself. Then-chairman of the troubled authority, Peter Kalikow, later publicly admitted that it was a mistake to ask workers to put more of their money into a system that gives them money later, saving the general public millions of dollars. Again, you cannot make this up.

So here we are, paying $2.25 a ride while getting service cut during the worst recession in recent memory. We had chances to forestall or maybe even avoid something like this (pension reform, congestion pricing, tolls on untolled bridges), but thanks to a smorgasbord of incompetence from everyone involved, the citizen is left holding the bag (in this case, a bag filled with ineptitude and others' debt). Some people are optimistic, though. Take Debbie Peiser, a hair and makeup artist from the Lower East Side: "It's not like it's an extra dollar each ride. If things are going to improve, then I don't mind it." Her biggest complaint? "I swiped it, and I was expecting a round number." Oh, to be young and naive.

MTA subway (junkyardparadise's flickr), Albany, where seemingly little gets done (Tyler McCall's flickr),

Bloomie Touts Self Responsibility (Except for Bankers)

Reading about a certain MTA lawsuit recently really grinded my gears (to borrow a Peter Griffin phrase). It seems that some guy named Dustin Dibble thought that getting blitzed, falling onto the subway tracks, and getting hit by a train was not only someone else's fault, but worthy of a hefty lawsuit against the cash-strapped MTA. Now, don't get me wrong, the MTA is a highly mismanaged, dysfunctional, frustrating organization, but some things are out of their control, and drunk passengers is one of them. Dibble and his lawyer Andrew Smiley won big in court, as a jury awarded them over $2.3 million - money which will be paid ultimately by taxpayers and those who use public transportation in New York. As the MTA has all but cemented their plan to raise fares, this major setback will not help. And as our society becomes more litigous and people look to blame others for (mostly) their own shortcomings (like getting drunk and falling on the subway tracks), the MTA has paid more and more.

But this is not all. Bloomberg - looking at a chance to capitilize on some populism as anyone with a brain sees how this lawsuit is bull - came out saying that people need to be responsible for themselves. Read that sentence again, because self-responsibility is becoming a foreign concept. In any event, Bloomberg took the common-sense route in saying that Dibble's actions were stupid and the MTA (and, through the transitive property, the people of New York) should not have to pay for his mistakes. Dibble's argument in court was that the driver of the subway could have stopped in time (the driver of the car said that he thought Dibble was a large piece of trash on the tracks - take that as you wish). If the subway car had enough time to stop, wouldn't Dibble, a former college basketball player, have time to jump back up onto the platform?

So back to Bloomie: he looks like a populist, sticking up for subway riders who may have to shoulder the burden of one drunk guy's mistake (the case is on appeal now). But in reality, Bloomberg just a day before proposed something equally wasteful and stupid that cost more than 20 times Dibble's lawsuit. Bloomberg wants to use $45 million of taxpayer money to "to retrain investment bankers, traders and others who have lost jobs on Wall Street, as well as provide seed capital and office space for new businesses those laid-off bankers might create." That's right, you and me are going to help pay for college-educated former bankers to be retrained to join another employer in New York somewhere. I can think of a multitude of people to help before the well-off bankers with college degrees who helped run our economy into the ground, but apparently Bloomeberg can't. I guess that 30 Rock was not too far off in their portrayal of bankers?

But seriously, how much sympathy is there out there for these folks? They decide to go into a business that is inherently risky because with great risk comes great reward. They get paid almost 6 figures straight out of college to play with other people's money. Unfortunately for those who recently got onto the banking bandwagon, the risk came back to bite the firm in the ass and they had to be let go. It's bad enough that the federal government is bailing out every company facing hard times, but now the city of New York has to use more taxpayer dollars to target these bankers because they're so "special" and "talented". If they're so talented, why do their need to be retrained to do something? These people have college degrees, some have MBAs, so what about the poor people of the city? What about those who could not afford to go to college but want training to get a better job? I could be cynical and say that Bloomberg feels a special affinity for these people because he was one of them and it's their business that his Bloomberg L.P. has relied on (and will continue to rely on) through the years, but why speculate? Maybe he really thinks that those making 6 figures with advanced degrees who go into a job knowing they could be laid off at any moment but the money's too good to care about job security are the worst off in New York.

So while Bloomberg seems to support self responsibility and facing the consequences for one's actions in the Dustin Dibble case, when it comes to bankers being laid off from an inherently risky private sector job the government will be there to make sure they don't - GASP - leave New York. Because then we might have to divsersify the way the state makes money and not rely on Wall Street for it. But seriously, if you want the government to help these people out, let them go on the welfare rolls, let them get food stamps and live in public housing, because if you're poor in New York and have trouble finding work - and happen not to be recently laid off from a troubled bank - that's what you have to do because there is no special program for you. Peace.

Photos - Bloomberg (Time Magazine), NBC interns on 30 Rock after being laid off from the financial sector (Gothamist)