This Week In New York Politics

1.) The New York City Council voted to extend term limits from two to three consecutive terms.  On the one hand, this effectively means Mike Bloomberg will serve another term.  Given his popularity, significant wealth, and financial background - his re-election next November seems like a forgone conclusion.  I think Mayor Bloomberg is one of the most qualified and able politicians in the country today.  I also think a Bloomberg third term will be great for the city, especially given the ongoing financial crisis.  On the other hand, the city council vote overturned a voter referendum from 1996.  This is a blatant power grab by the Bloomberg team and is a bit sketchy to say the least.  What do you do when you fully support the mayor but don't like the way he remains in power?  This is something I'll be thinking about over the next year or so.

2.) Governor Paterson's top aide resigned over a backlash because he hasn't paid his taxes.  This is a truly bizarre story.  Charles O'Byrne hasn't paid personal federal and state income tax since 2001.  By all reports, over this same time period, he has been an extremely productive aide to Governor Paterson. Claims are that he did this due to severe depression.  I know depression is a serious illness, but something still doesn't add up here to me. 

And the stock market dropped another ~8% this week.  It's never boring here, that's for sure. 
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 10/26/2008 12:54 PM boomer wrote:
    It's a classic "ends don't justify the means" situation. Sounds like he took a page from the "How to Run the Country" book by Bush. Subitle: "If you have the power to get away with it, it must be right". Whaa? Boomer
    Reply to this
  • 10/30/2008 5:10 PM Reasonable Ranter wrote:
    But that's my question - don't the ends sometimes justify the means?  Or maybe said differently for this case - so what if he did this? I don't like it, but does this one negative action invalidate and/or trump all the good things he can do for the city?  If I believe he is the best person for the job (by far) - shouldn't I still vote for him?

    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.