Courtesy of the NYS Senate
Sheepshead Bay State Senator Carl Kruger is once again getting panned by the city press for his money magic.
Back in November he invited a storm of criticism for holding up the budget process and nearly putting the state in bankruptcy. The Penguin – err, the senator came up with a number of ludicrous schemes to fill state coffers, and more than once insisted that the deficit just didn’t exist.
Well, now the NY Post has caught him spending taxpayer money with one hand while using the other to give the finger to Governor Paterson for not, uh, stopping senators from spending taxpayer money.
Kruger was caught pissing away $31 million in an unfunded entitlement that would cap rent costs for New York City HIV/AIDS victims at 30 percent of their income. A good purpose, for sure, but still a $31 million sinkhole wrought with hypocrisy by our good senator:
But what makes this bit of frivolity especially rich is that only last month, Kruger insisted that Paterson wasn’t going far enough in combating such [unfunded] mandates, saying: “It seems illogical [that] the governor is so unwilling to end unfunded mandates once and for all, and is instead content with a temporary moratorium.”
So how does Kruger square that stance with his support of, well, a new unfunded mandate?
Easy: The bill, he says, won’t cost a dime.
…
[Advocates of the bill say] the entire cost will be offset by money the city and state no longer need to spend relocating HIV/AIDS patients who can’t pay their rent into emergency housing.
Yet, according to OTDA, that sum runs to barely $4 million a year.
Even if that’s a lowball figure, it’s a great deal less than $31 million.
While the aim of the new mandate is inarguably good, our lawmakers are required to figure out fundraising schemes to cover costs. Kruger – one of the most powerful senators as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee – is way too lazy for that. In fact, we can’t figure out how a guy who fails at every turn to think about the economic consequences of his actions and seems to lack any basic math skills became the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Kruger’s continued electability (and he’s sure to be reelected) is an ongoing reminder of how truly F’d New York State politics are.
Related posts
Print This
- View Comments
- Opinion
Ned,
Thanks for profiling this. I am sure if voting ballots were not printed in 100 langauges, characters like Krueger would never be elected.
This is why I have a personal policy of not voting for any incumbents. It started with mayor mike and will continue down to the city council, state senate and assembly…..they choose not to get it. I am totally disgusted with politicians.
he looks like a pig so i'm guessing that he is acting like one
The question is, who figured that the cost would be $31 million?
I don't see the correlation.
Even better question is, why believe anything that is printed in Fox News of New York newspapers (aka NY Post)?
Well, Fox News the cable channel fills its time with scandalous BS and irrelevant “gotcha” crap to rile people up. FOX 5, the local news affiliate does a much better job of local news. NY Post is sort of a mix between the two. Its headlines and major stories are total crud, but wedged in between that are actually a couple of decent local stories a day. That being said, if it weren't free online, I wouldn't read it.
If you do not see the correlation then try to analyze who historically votes for Republicans vs Democrats. In your analysis do not break it down by race, instead analyze based on issues. (ex. If you want a bigger government hand out, you will not vote Republican.)
I don't want a bigger government handout, but I certainly almost never vote Republican.
Arthur,
I used bigger government as just one of the examples. I myself am an independent but 90% of the time I will not vote Democrat because they stand for large government and tnanny state, rights of the criminal but not the victim, weak national defense, and etc. Generally speaking I vote for independent candidate.
In an “ideal” society I do strongly feel that the government should establish a “standard of living” that no citizen would fall under. But with all the double dealing and corruption in our government it's just not possible. The money simply isint there for something like that.
Redefine it as desiring that those voting Democratic desire a more proactive government and you might be closer to that reality. The reality of the Democratic Party, however, is that, like the Republicans, they will more readily take care of the needs of those whose wallets are opened wider for them.
Arthur,
You just described what your and mine parents ran from. Read a book called 1989, it talks about how well this “ideal” society worked in other countries in the eastern bloc.
No, I'm not describing Commie Russia. I'm describing Rodenberrys Federation.
Take a look at Sweden and then tell me that big government doesn't work.
Its amazing how dumb people sound when they post their opinions. I wonder if they realize it? Fox news channel gets more ratings at 3am then CNN in primetime. The next person who comments on someone else's looks should also post a picture of him/herself just to show us all what a person “should” look like. Are you people serious? Politicians are politicians, most of them are corrupt liars. Thats it. Some of them get caught, some don't. The smart ones are able to get out of the situations, the dumb ones don't.
Just took a look at Sweden. Their unemployment rate was hovering around 17% and their income tax is progressive and goes up to 57%. Annual GDP growth is around 1.5%. “In 1992 there was a run on the currency, the central bank briefly jacking up interest to 500% in an unsuccessful effort to defend the currency's fixed exchange rate” “In 1994 the government budget deficit exceeded 15% of GDP. “
Funny that you mentioned Sweden though since they fixed their problems and got out of their financial crisis by moving from Socialism and becoming more and more free market.
The situation there is complicated, as the boom of the seventies created an inflationary trajectory in the 80s. Many of the reforms were implemented to correct conditions which led to a currency crisis.
They still have many of the same supports in place. Their ongoing economic problems are not unique to Sweden. Traditional industries were receiving diminishing returns, and a real estate bust in the early 90s created problems.
Sweden is not a socialist country in the pure sense of the word. And never has been. Most importantly, Swedes like the mix.
Privatization of government owned business is mainly being undertaken to relieve current debt.