Ten

« Budgets of Mass Destruction | Main | Raise Taxes on Wealthy »

April 15, 2003

Fox News Hit Piece on NYC City Council

Well Fox hates it, so it must be good.

Namely, the New York City Council:

It passed a resolution against the war in Iraq, has called for a living wage $3 above the federal minimum wage and has sought tax hikes higher than what Mayor Michael Bloomberg has requested.

"Basically, it's what I would call a turn-back-the-clock City Council. They're trying to turn the clock back to the pre-Giuliani era in New York City," said Manhattan Institute scholar Steve Malanga...

Malanga said racial demagoguery aside, the new council has it in for the business community without realizing the impact on the average resident. For instance, the living wage increase was justified by council members who said that low-wage workers needed the extra money to pay for a property-tax increase the council had recently approved.

Among efforts to roll back Giuliani's work, the council is considering a law to reform welfare-to-work to allow education or job training to substitute for work. That reverses Giuliani's approach, which led to the decline from more than 1 million to under 500,000 welfare rolls.

The board is also considering strengthening the citizen complaint board against the police, accused of being racially insensitive, and giving itself veto power over mayoral appointments.

All sounds good to me.

The objection by Fox to substituting education for work on welfare requirements is particularly pernicious. As unemployment in the city skyrockets and it becomes almost impossible to find a job of any kind, especially for less skilled folks, mandated work requirements would just be a requirement to starve.

But take this hit on the New York City City Council as the highest endorsement possible. We Love New York More Than Ever!

Posted by Nathan at April 15, 2003 07:48 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nathannewman.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/688

Comments

You said "...mandated work requirements would just be a requirement to starve."

Yes, not to mention an incentive to crime. Looks like the "tough on crime" party is supporting policies likely to increase violent crime. Just like the "abortion is murder" party pursues policies (abstinence-only) which result in a higher incidence of abortion.

Posted by: Terminus at April 16, 2003 10:27 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)