Thank you, Mr. Golisano, for bringing the most transparency we’ve seen in a long time to New York State government. Until now there have still been a handful of people that believed that politicians were elected by the people to do the people’s bidding. What this coup has done is expose once and for all that New York government is really about money, power, and revenge. If there was any doubt, it’s all been erased.

If you want to affect real change in New York, convince the people of the state that now is the time for a Constitutional Convention that will move towards a unicameral legislature. Less government is the first step in fixing New York.

Frankly, Golisano’s statement is full of a lot of bullshit. You don’t create a coalition by swiping two people from the other party. There’s nothing bipartisan about it. Republicans were pissed off about losing their plush offices, staffers, and pork. Golisano was pissed off that even his money couldn’t buy him love. A couple guys who labeled themselves as Democrats were pissed off about their mommies not loving them enough. This was all about revenge and had nothing to do with reform.

So, I stand by my statement. There is no fixing the current government of New York State. Our best option is to cut the number of politicians, and then enact rules that actually favor the people of the state – an end to gerrymandering and enacting the rest of the Brennan Center reforms for a start. The Senate is Humpty Dumpty and had a great fall. Don’t bother putting it back together.

Don’t let “Big Box Greed” endanger your friends and family.

• Wine in 16,000 more outlets means more traffic fatalities
• Five times more stores will be selling a product three to four times stronger than beer
• New York wineries overwhelmingly oppose wine in supermarkets
• Help us keep our communities safe and prosperous

Come on, Premier, give me a break! Let’s break down these arguments:

• Saying that more wine sales results in more fatalities means you admit that the product you’re selling causes deaths. So, when are you closing all your stores?
• Who cares how many stores sell what percentage of alcohol? I’m willing to bet that far more people get drunk on beer than wine.
• Wineries oppose the idea? According to Wine Spectator state Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker “believes it will increase wine sales and specifically New York wine sales,” Jim Trezise, president of the New York Wine and Grape Foundation said, “If you put more wine in front of consumers, consumers will buy it,” and one vineyard owner quoted in the article was “cautiously optimistic.”
• How does grocery stores selling wine have any impact on a community being “safe and prosperous”? Again, the implication is that selling the product negatively impacts those things, so again I ask when Premier is closing it’s doors?

The really stupid thing about this email is that it tries to Premier Wines/Prime Wines/Prestige Wines is trying to play into the anti-big-box sentiment that some people have. Really? Premier IS the big box of alcohol stores! How disingenuous is that argument?

Shameful, Premier. Just shameful.

You see, in actuality, most things can be boiled down to simple concepts. Economics, I believe, is one of these. Sure, there are nuances and the pursuit of turning theories into mathematical concepts, but let’s not forget that Adam Smith’s master work, The Wealth Of Nations, was based on extensive observations of actual people doing actual things.

So that leads me back to the current economic situation of the United States. While President Obama stated in the Q&A tonight that he didn’t “think it’s accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess” in fact, it did. Consumers bought things they couldn’t afford – houses they assumed would keep appreciating, stocks they thought would get more valuable, or just plain stuff they didn’t really need. Of course, more spending means less saving. So when the economy started heading south and people started losing their jobs, too many people didn’t have an emergency fund to tide them over and help them meet their payments. This isn’t to say that there wouldn’t be an economic downturn or that nobody would be affected by a recession, but if more people in this country were savers rather than spenders, we wouldn’t have the crisis we do.

President Obama was heading in the right direction when he said, “putting zero down and buying a house that is probably not affordable for you in case something goes wrong, that’s something that has to be reconsidered. So we’re going to have to change our — our bad habits.” But our bad habits exceed beyond just stupid mortgage terms, they come from an entire economy that’s survival the government is betting comes from increasing credit and getting people spending.

It doesn’t take a genius (or an economist) to see you can’t spend your way out of debt.

If Obama’s recent round of appointments isn’t an argument for the FairTax, I don’t know what one is. If the person in charge of the Treasury can’t do it right, then the tax code needs to be drastically simplified. Otherwise, he’s just a lying crook.

According to the report, presented by the NYSDOT at the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council’s (GBNRTC) Policy Committee meeting today, the long term cost of maintaining the Buffalo Skyway for the next 75 years would reach nearly $125 million. Under cheaper maintenance options, the bridge could be maintained for 20 years at a cost of $42.7 million or for 50 years at an expense of almost $109.25 million. Preliminary estimates place the cost of Skyway demolition between $30 and $40 million.

“If we don’t pay the price to demolish this 52 year-old structure, this community will pay the price in terms of lost development opportunity and future maintenance expenses for years to come,” added Congressman Higgins.

Well, sure then! If it’s only going to cost $40 million to tear it down and $125 million to maintain it for the next 75 years, then of course it makes sense to nix it! Oh, except this is another case of only telling half the story. The missing half is what do we replace it with?

And while the report explicitly states it is not intended to evaluate alternatives to the Skyway, the report’s data supports the conclusion that if it were eliminated, the Skyway’s traffic could be handled by alternate facilities including the Outer Harbor Parkway which is currently under construction, the planned and permitted Ohio Street improvements and Tifft Street Connector, and the Inner Harbor Bridge which is currently under study.

To get a complete and accurate analysis of the maintenance costs of the Skyway vs. an alternative, we would need factor in construction costs for the Ohio Street improvements, Tifft Street Connector, Inner Harbor Bridge, and any additional reconfiguration of the Outer Harbor Parkway to complete the road network. That cost? Undetermined. And don’t forget that the figures reported in the DOT study are for maintenance of an existing roadway, not building a new one, so we would need to figure in 75 years worth of maintenance for these new elements as well. Then, we might have a complete picture of the financial impact of the Skyway.

So, when you know that the numbers don’t give you quite the answer you were looking for, you need some padding. Enter the completely immeasurable “untapped potential” figure.

Congressman Higgins noted that opportunity cost must also be factored into a cost/benefit analysis of Skyway removal, and by conservative measures, maintenance of the existing structure would impede an estimated $47.5 million in private sector development along the approximately 25 acre stretch currently occupied by the Skyway. “With the recent opening of the Erie Canal Harbor commercial slip we, as a community, can visualize the great untapped potential for the acres of unused land under the Skyway. Opening up this area has not only an immediate economic impact as a result of new development on this property, but has a multiplier effect in terms of the new jobs and sales tax produced at commercial sites and new property tax collected through residential development,” said Higgins.

Well there you go – we’re missing out on $47.5 million dollars if we DON’T do this project – an estimate that conveniently is just a wee bit more than the stated demolition cost. And of course there is the “immediate economic impact” of opening this wee bit of land up. Question – what was the measurable immediate economic impact of releasing the existing outer harbor land from the grasp of the NFTA? Answer? $0 Because as with any project in Buffalo, the land wasn’t sold off to developers that might actually do something with it, it was turned over to a politician-selected group of people to begin studies, make renderings, and begin the required 20 years debate and despair period before everyone gives up and we end up with McDonald’s-on-the-Lake.

So, what else does the actual report say that Mr. Higgins might have left off?

• The Skyway is currently in good condition.
• The Skyway is protected by a moisture-curing, urethane paint system and, with a typical life expectancy, would not require “spot and zone” repairs and a maintenance overcoat before 2020.
• With the completion of the Ohio Street reconstruction and the Fuhrmann Boulevard reconstruction, the average number of vehicles daily using the bridge is forecast to increase only marginally. (Emphasis mine – I’m assuming this does not take into account any new development along the outer harbor)

There’s a ton of great information in this report, such as how often is the Skyway is closed due to weather?

• Over a three-year reporting period, from October 2003 to December 2006, weather closed the Skyway in both directions four times.

Read that again – over three years there were only 4 weather related closings. The full report does not indicate if there were general travel bans during these times.

And what about accidents? We all “know” that the Skyway is like super dangerous!

• Over a three-year reporting period, from October 2003 to December 2006, accidents closed the Skyway in one direction 12 times and shut down a single lane 15 times.
• Over a four-year reporting period, from December 2002 to January 2007, the Buffalo Police documented 94 accidents on the Skyway.

Wow. Sounds like a lot! How does that compare with other roads in New York State?

The first segment (Segment 1) extends from the west (south) end of the Skyway (MP 302.7) to I-190 and had an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 40,931 in year 2006. A total of 49 accidents including those with sufficient information to locate them and those with insufficient information to locate but assumed to occur on this segment, took place over this segment during the four year and one month period. This reflects a rate of 1.00 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel (acc/mvmt). This rate is approximately 32 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt for a fully access controlled, 4 lane divided urban highway.

That’s the data for the bridge itself. People are not freaking out being on the top of a tall bridge and suddenly careening into the concrete side walls. Where might there be actual problems? Where people have to enter and exit and merge!

The second segment (Segment 2) is located between the I-190 interchange (MP 303.6) and the east (north) end of the Skyway at MP 303.9. It extends 0.3 miles. A total of 8 reported accidents occurred during the study period. This total includes both those located specifically on this section of the bridge and those assumed to occur here. Using a 2006 two-way AADT of 13,338 over this section yields an average accident rate of 1.34 acc/mvmt. This is approximately 9 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt for a fully access controlled, 4 lane divided urban highway.

An exit ramp diverges from inbound Skyway to southbound I-190 at MP 303.55. A cluster of accidents occurred at this location. It is identified as cluster 1 on Figure 4-3. During the study period, a total of 13 accidents were reported at this location. This total includes both those located specifically at this location and those assumed to occur here. An average accident rate of 0.40 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev) occurred at this juncture. This is approximately 2.5 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.16 acc/mev for diverging 1 lane urban off ramp.

The second cluster of accidents (cluster 2) is shown on Figure 4-3 and occurred where the southbound I-190 exit ramp joins the outbound Skyway. During the study period, a total of 24 accidents were reported. These included both those located specifically at this location and those assumed to occur here. An average accident rate of 0.75 acc/mev occurred at this juncture. This is approximately 6.8 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.11 acc/mev for a merging 2 lane urban on ramp.

The big problem is not with the Skyway at all, but with the fact that the I-190 South does not provide adequate room for traffic merging onto the I-190 S from the Niagara St. ramp and merging off onto the Skyway to coexist. While the illustration in the full report only circles the ramp to the southbound Skyway (cluster 2), anyone that travels that section on a regular basis knows that all the accidents occur in far right merge lane between the two ramps, not on the Skyway itself.

The full report also has a key bit of information in it that is counter to the main argument of most anti-Skyway orators, but it doesn’t come flat out and say it – you need to read between the future traffic projection colored lines (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). While the Skyway itself is underutilized, the I-190 is currently near capacity and is projected to be over capacity by 2030. The tear-it-down advocates postulate that since the Skyway is under utilized, it’s not needed and people can just use the I-90 and I-190 instead. However, the reverse is actually true – an overcrowded I-190 might actually drive traffic TO the Skyway. Isn’t this was planners are supposed to take into consideration? You know, planning for the future? Should we eliminate an under capacity roadway to cause an at capacity roadway reach over capacity quicker? That doesn’t make a hellovalotta sense.

If you just read the Higgins press release, you might think that the Skyway really isn’t needed. That’s what happens when you’re given half the facts.

Courtesy of Mr. P

Here are my picks for the races that apply to me.

President of the United States: Bob Barr. I’m a registered Republican so I can have a say in the primaries, and my candidate of choice, Ron Paul, was left at the starting line without a chance. I can’t help but wonder how things might have been different had the Wall Street meltdown happened a few months earlier, and have a real fiscal conservative providing a different viewpoint on bailout being the “only” option. So what’s a conservative in New York to do? Obama’s out of the question. He reminds me of another “rock star” Democrat that everyone fawned over for months – Eliot Spitzer. Since McCain has no chance of winning New York, my vote will go to attempting to let the Republican party know just how out of touch they are. I want Republicans to go back to being the party of small government and lower taxes (for all).

United States Representative; District 27: Daniel Humiston. Let’s face it, Higgins has no chance of losing. So why make him feel too comfortable? I’m hoping to help Humiston crack the 10% barrier.

State Senator; District 59: Kathy Konst. Volker has to go. Career politicians are destroying New York State. I, along with the majority of people in Erie County, voted for DiPietro in the Republican primary, but Volker has his district so gerrymandered that it’s nearly impossible for a newcomer to convince all the people Volker has handed out pork to that they need a change. Volker has run a campaign of old timer thuggery that has no place in the future of this area. We all have a second shot at ousting him now.

State Assembly; District 146: ? There’s a race for Jack Quinn’s seat? Really? If it wasn’t for SmartVoter.org I wouldn’t have ever known.

For a man of Biden’s experience, this is a surprising series of misstatements. First of all, he gets wrong one of the most basic facts about the Constitution: Article 1 establishes the legislative branch, not, as Biden said, the executive branch. This is not exactly an obscure fact; my 17-year-old daughter pointed it out at the time.

Second, it simply isn’t true that the Constitution treats the Vice President only as a member of the executive branch. The Vice President is mentioned in Article II as part of the executive branch, but he is also given legislative powers by Section 3 of Article 1, which establishes the Senate:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Vice President Cheney’s “bizarre notion” is in keeping with the plain text of the Constitution.

Finally, Biden misstated the Vice President’s role in the Senate. It isn’t true that he “preside[s] over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote.” The Constitution contemplates that the Vice President will be the full-time President of the Senate, replaced by a President pro tempore “in the absence of the Vice President.” It’s true that the Vice President only gets to vote in case of a tie; but, of course, that’s the only time it matters.

If Joe Biden were a high school student taking a test on the Constitution in a government course, he would get a C or a D. Some would say his mistakes were minor, and, as I said, they certainly won’t swing any votes. But it is distinctly odd that a man who has been in the Senate for more than three decades doesn’t understand the Constitutional role of the Vice President with respect to that body.

Interestingly, most economists are Democrats, and feel their party is the one with the right economic ideas.

When asked which candidate for President would be best for the economy in the long run, not surprisingly, 88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of Republican economists pick McCain. Independent economists, who in this sample are largely from the academic world, lean toward Obama by 46% compared to 39% for McCain.

What we can interpret from this is that economists do not have an unbiased opinion. What about the independent economists?

Among Independents, things are less clear, with 54% thinking that in the long run there would either be no difference between the candidates or McCain would do better.

Scott Adams provided additional commentary on the survey today.

Everything we know about human nature tells us that people are usually rational when the choices are relatively simple and the data is known. For example, your choice of a grocery store is probably a rational decision based on things you easily understand, such as distance, price, and selection. But tribe loyalty tends to take over when the data is less clear, such as choosing a religion.

The way this applies to the survey of economists is that you should expect them to cross party lines when the data is clear and understood, and to lean toward party loyalties when things get fuzzy. That’s how humans are wired. We like our team.

Adams came to the same conclusion I did:

Personally, I think it is useful to know that economists didn’t cross party lines on the question of who would be the best president. I’ll keep that in mind the next time an economist expresses an opinion on this election.

Sorry, America. No easy answers. You still have to think for yourself. Or follow your tribe.

via BuffaloPundit

The main problem I see with politics is that people don’t take the time to really think through their beliefs, challenge themselves, and then understand the political standpoint of each candidate to really determine where it makes sense to place their vote. They take the easy way out and pick whatever candidate they “like” the most. This is why politics has turned into pandering for the support of various groups and idealists.

Some of our local bloggers are laying their views out on the line. BuffaloGeek tells us that he believes America is separated into people that believe in God and, um, logical people. I really can understand Chris’s viewpoint on this, as I held it myself very strongly in the not very distant past. My religious life has gone from being an altar boy, to writing a college paper on being an agnostic, to singing in the church choir. I’m still not a very religious person, but the one thing I’ve learned through my own personal exploration of this topic is that if there was a single right answer out there, there would be no debate. Most of the world believes in a higher power of some sort and whether it’s based on millenia of history or of fables remains to be seen, but saying that non-believers are “educated” and religious people aren’t is patently false, and dare I say… awfully elitist sounding. Not to mention, not all the religious folk are Republicans. At a get together of our choir guys over the holiday weekend the discussion turned to politics. Of the six people there, three were staunchly liberal, two very conservative, and then there’s me.

BuffaloPundit also shares his views on why he fell off the McCain bandwagon between 2000 and 2008. Alan goes on to run down his stance on a lot of issues. Many are similar to my own.

I care about taxes being lowered, I care about public money being spent wisely and conservatively. I care that government be competent when spending that money and administering services.

Amen. When we look at how government affects our daily lives, it really all comes down to taxes and services. I believe that government isn’t the best manager of our money or the best judge of what services we really need, and that government that’s too big is too unaccountable. Therefore taxes should be as low as possible to allow for personal growth and innovation, and government should only run bare essential programs.

I am aghast that the United States has sanctioned torture, appalled at the failures and poor planning and execution of the Iraq war, disgusted that it was premised on falsehoods, and shocked that we’ve dropped the ball in Afghanistan. I am worried that future action against Iran or Pakistan or North Korea or some other rogue state might be undertaken in a catastrophic, hasty way.

I couldn’t agree more. I remember the day George W. Bush declared war on Iraq and saying out loud, “This isn’t going to be good.” War is never a good option. Preemptive war is even worse. Unfortunately, now we’re stuck in it and helping to stabilize and rebuild a region we helped destroy is the right thing to do. Then we get the hell out and start focusing on our own country’s problems.

But on the other hand, I don’t like politicians who sermonize and try to impose their values on me. I am pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, want there to be universal health care coverage for all people, want there to be a minimum wage that keeps pace with inflation, want schools to train kids to be able to compete in a global 21st century economy, and think that there are some things that are well worth a massive investment of public money for the greater good and big future payoff. I think people should be treated fairly and properly by government and by other people.

Well, we need to veer off onto our own paths somewhere. While I also don’t like the sermonizing, I am anti-abortion, undecided on gay marriage, believe that government sponsored health care should only be a safety net for those with no other option, and that there are few things that are worth a massive public investment. I don’t think anyone would argue that everyone should be treated fairly.

Unlike my left leaning compatriots, I won’t be voting for Obama because I don’t see that as change in the right direction. It has nothing to do with his inexperience or what church he goes to, it has to do with his philosophy that bigger government will fix our problems and redistribution of wealth is the key to making that happen. It won’t and it never is.

Where else do I stand? I believe that smaller government is more responsive and the money you make is put to best use when it’s in the hands of the person that earned it. I believe the Republican party stop pandering to people based on family values they show no more of than anyone else, and should get back to understanding what it means to be politically conservative.

I believe the Democrats should stop pandering to labor unions and pretending they understand economics. Overpriced unionized labor has been paving the way for job losses for decades, and the minimum wage is a failure that they want to fix by allowing illegal immigrants to fill in the gaps. Focus on the promotion of protecting our environment, furthering scientific exploration, providing good core services, and giving people who are in hard times the opportunity to make life better for themselves.

I believe the founding fathers understood how to escape a tyrannical government and we shouldn’t be too quick to “reinterpret” what they wrote into the Constitution.

I believe we need less laws and judges with more common sense, because a sue happy society is a net loser.

I believe it’s important to protect our planet, but not get caught up in hype and extremism. The planet is good at regulating itself and people only seem to get concerned when it’s going to affect them.

I believe that a society that doesn’t allow you to end your own life, but allows you to end one you’ve created has it backwards.

I believe that all people are created equal, but where you go from there is up to you.

I believe that when a government gives you everything you need to live, you have no incentive to try to make it on your own.

I believe people have the right to continually reevaluate their views and that changing them is not a weakness, rather it shows you’re thinking about them.

I don’t know who I’m going to vote for yet, I’m at a crossroads between McCain and Bob Barr. But I certainly am thinking about it.

From his deck, Mr. Schönherr can see the town’s famous hilltop Gothic castle as well as two of its three power-generating windmills. On his roof, a solar panel glints in the sunlight. He already uses the solar energy to heat his water, which has allowed him to turn off his boiler for roughly six months a year, a boon for his pocketbook but a decision he said he made for the sake of the environment.

And yet Mr. Schönherr opposes the new ordinance.

Mr. Schönherr had hoped to reinsulate his home, but to do so, and to satisfy the solar regulation, he would have to install a larger solar panel. It would cost him close to $8,000.

They’re calling the government the “green dictatorship”.

Think something like this couldn’t happen in the U.S.? I’m sure that’s what some people said about a government that would ban certain light bulbs, regulate cooking ingredients, or prohibit certain restaurants altogether.

I like to make my own decisions, thank you.

Pay particular attention to 1997 onward.

via Consumerism Commentary

Hehe… “Perfect for Dr. Ron Paul“

“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It’s as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

No competition and inefficient government bureaucracy does not a better system make.

HT North Coast Online

As oil prices have hit record highs along with oil company profits (and thereby the returns to shareholders), many in Congress are calling for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. They argue that those profits are somehow unjustified.

But what about another industry where producers are currently reaping windfalls from previous investments due to skyrocketing commodity prices: agriculture? Should we impose a windfall profits tax on farmers? According to some in Congress, a windfall profits tax on oil companies would lower the price of gasoline (which is ludicrous). Then by that logic, wouldn’t a windfall profits tax on farmers also lower the price of food?

But of course there is no way Congress would impose a special tax on agriculture. In fact, it constantly does the exact opposite. It gives what is in effect a negative tax to farmers (subsidies), or in laymen’s terms, billions of dollars in welfare to farmers.

Some of the politicians on Capitol Hill are so simple-minded that they just have to hear keywords, and they use that as a signal as to whether to attack that group or industry or reap it special favors. Do you really think they would think through an issue?

Housing: Good
Oil: Bad
Small business: Good
Corporations: Bad
Farmers: Good
Foreign: Bad
Jobs: Good
Middle Class: Good (because everyone is in it)
Rich: Bad

Ahh, New York. State government continues it’s quest to unearth every non-taxed dollar. Once again facing a looming deficit by their own mismanagement, the latest budget cycle included a new law to tax successful internet businesses that don’t have any physical stores or employees in New York. Our beloved state would never let something like a Supreme Court decision get in it’s way of finding new tax revenue, and not only do you have the privilege of paying the tax, you’ll also get to pay the state’s legal bill as they defend themselves against Amazon’s lawsuit.

The law, not even in effect yet, has already caused one casualty – Overstock will no longer accept New York-based advertising business.

“We have worked to assure that Overstock.com has as small a tax footprint as possible because of the benefits it provides to our customers,” added Overstock’s senior VP of finance, David Chidester. “We have no taxable connection to New York that is recognizable under constitutional principals laid down by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and we will keep that status, even if it means having to say goodbye to some long time New York business connections.”

The Vampire State continues to suck.