PATH fare increase
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Agent_C
>http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2011/08/port_authority_proposes_fare_h.html
They should just integrate PATH and NJT into the MTA.
Certain economies of scale could be realized and fare collection
would be standardized. Both of which have direct benefits to the
ridership.
A_C
Ed(NY)
"Agent_C" <agent-c-h...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:dicq371o91celnt21...@4ax.com...
(1) NJ would never turn over control to a NY agency. You'd need a bi-state agency.
(2) I can't possibly imagine the two states agreeing to coordinate their subsidies so that each state was contributing a comparable amount relative to ridership or whatever measure was agreed on. And if the states weren't contributing comparable amounts, you'd have to have different fare structures to reflect that; otherwise one state would be subsidizing the other state's riders unfairly.
Bolwerk
>
> "Agent_C"<agent-c-h...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:dicq371o91celnt21...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:43:45 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2011/08/port_authority_proposes_fare_h.html
>>
>>
>> They should just integrate PATH and NJT into the MTA.
>>
>> Certain economies of scale could be realized and fare collection
>> would be standardized. Both of which have direct benefits to the
>> ridership.
>>
>> A_C
>>
>
> (1) NJ would never turn over control to a NY agency. You'd need a bi-state agency.
That is infantile provincialism. There is precedent for transit
services that work across international borders. NJ-NY should be easy.
> (2) I can't possibly imagine the two states agreeing to coordinate their subsidies so that each state was contributing a comparable amount relative to ridership or whatever measure was agreed on. And if the states weren't contributing comparable amounts, you'd have to have different fare structures to reflect that; otherwise one state would be subsidizing the other state's riders unfairly.
Subsidies probably don't need to change. PANJNY doesn't even take state
subsidies. Each agency would presumably lose some revenue on some
rides, but each could gain a higher net ridership to make it up.
(Presumably most trips that go in one direction have a similarly-priced
reverse trip, so equitable revenue sharing shouldn't be too hard. Even
then, accounting for how many swipes per metrocard went through a PATH
turnstile and how many through an NYCTA turnstile shouldn't be hard.)
John Levine
>their subsidies so that each state was contributing a comparable amount
>relative to ridership or whatever measure was agreed on.
So, just out of curiosity, when someone gets on a Metro-North train
in Port Jervis or Spring Valley, how do you think they get to NYC?
R's,
John
Ed(NY)
"John Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> wrote in message news:j1kp21$2fm$1...@gal.iecc.com...
I think that's a relatively small piece of it. My point is that you have each state contributing millions of dollars annually for its own rail operations, and that amount, as we know, changes based on political winds. The magnitude of fare increases reflects this - one year NJ cuts its subsidies and the fare increase is greater. If one agency is going to control fares, is all the subsidy money going to be pooled so that riders in both states can benefit equally from the total subsidy dollars? What happens if one state cuts its contribution the next year while the other state doesn't? Or, worse, the second state decides to cut its as well.
Stephen Sprunk
> "Agent_C" <agent-c-h...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:dicq371o91celnt21...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Certain economies of scale could be realized and fare collection
>> would be standardized. Both of which have direct benefits to the
>> ridership.
>
> bi-state agency.
> (2) I can't possibly imagine the two states agreeing to coordinate
> their subsidies so that each state was contributing a comparable
> amount relative to ridership or whatever measure was agreed on. And
> if the states weren't contributing comparable amounts, you'd have to
> have different fare structures to reflect that; otherwise one state
> would be subsidizing the other state's riders unfairly.
The most sensible way to do this is to have two fare zones, one
controlled by a NJ agency and the other by a NY agency. A single
third-party operator would run trains, charging each agency for the
costs of running trains in its respective zone. Fares in each zone
would be set by the respective agency. A ticket for both zones would be
the sum of the fares, and the two agencies would periodically set off
the revenues they had collected on each others' behalf.
This model has been proven to work elsewhere, including in the US, so
it's not novel--and it doesn't require a bi-state agency.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Analysis&Solutions
>What happens if one state cuts its contribution the next year =
>while the other state doesn't?
The fares for operations in that state would increase. These issues are
already dealt with now in the region by Metro North in Connecticut and NJ
Transit runs into Rockland and Orange counties in NY.
--Dan
PS: Thanks for getting the quoting working in your news reader. Now it's
putting in " ="'s at the end of each line. :/
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409
Analysis&Solutions
...[The proposal] would hike E-ZPass holders' tolls up to $12 from $8 and
cash tolls to $15 from $8. PATH commuters would pay an extra $1 a trip...
http://gothamist.com/2011/08/07/cuomo_christie_pissed_about_port_au.php
...The cash-strapped Port Authority says it needs the funds for a variety of
projects, including a $1.5 billion replacement of the Lincoln Tunnel helix, a
$1 billion plan to replace all 592 suspender ropes on the George Washington
Bridge and the construction of an $800 million garage adjacent to the Port
Authority Bus Terminal...
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/08/07/2011-08-07_pa_toll_plan_is_absurd_sez_senator.html
--Dan
Bootstrap Bill
"Agent_C" wrote in message
news:dicq371o91celnt21...@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:43:45 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2011/08/port_authority_proposes_fare_h.html
They should just integrate PATH and NJT into the MTA.
------
Better yet, why not let NYC annex part New Jersey? This has come up at least
once in the past. Why can't NYC grow beyond the state line?
Stephen Sprunk
> "Agent_C" wrote in message
> news:dicq371o91celnt21...@4ax.com...
>
> least once in the past. Why can't NYC grow beyond the state line?
A municipality is a political subdivision of a particular state*. Its
power (and indeed its very existence) is derived from the state's. By
definition, no state's power can exceed its jurisdiction, so neither can
its municipalities.
You could have a "City of New York" incorporated in New Jersey's
jurisdiction and under New Jersey's laws, but it would be legally
distinct from the one in New York. There's even a perfect example of
this: Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
S
* Ignoring municipalities not in any state, which aren't relevant here.
danny burstein
>http://gothamist.com/2011/08/07/cuomo_christie_pissed_about_port_au.php
>...The cash-strapped Port Authority says it needs the funds for a variety of
>projects, including a $1.5 billion replacement of the Lincoln Tunnel helix, a
>$1 billion plan to replace all 592 suspender ropes on the George Washington
>Bridge and the construction of an $800 million garage adjacent to the Port
>Authority Bus Terminal...
>http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/08/07/2011-08-07_pa_toll_plan_is_absurd_sez_senator.html
Why is the helix coming from the PA budget? And the parking
garage would (they'd want everyone to believe) a money maker,
so why the need for toll revenue?
danny "and don't get me started on the SI bridge elevation" burstein
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bootstrap Bill
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message news:j1shfs$t4o$1...@dont-email.me...
On 09-Aug-11 11:55, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
> "Agent_C" wrote in message
> news:dicq371o91celnt21...@4ax.com...
>> They should just integrate PATH and NJT into the MTA.
>
> Better yet, why not let NYC annex part New Jersey? This has come up at
> least once in the past. Why can't NYC grow beyond the state line?
A municipality is a political subdivision of a particular state*. Its
power (and indeed its very existence) is derived from the state's. By
definition, no state's power can exceed its jurisdiction, so neither can
its municipalities.
You could have a "City of New York" incorporated in New Jersey's
jurisdiction and under New Jersey's laws, but it would be legally
distinct from the one in New York. There's even a perfect example of
this: Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
----------
Could an act of congress allow for the creation of multi-state cities? Would
it require a constitutional amendment?
Stephen Sprunk
> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message news:j1shfs$t4o$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 09-Aug-11 11:55, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
>>> Better yet, why not let NYC annex part New Jersey? This has come up at
>>> least once in the past. Why can't NYC grow beyond the state line?
>>
>> A municipality is a political subdivision of a particular state*. Its
>> power (and indeed its very existence) is derived from the state's. By
>> definition, no state's power can exceed its jurisdiction, so neither can
>> its municipalities.
>>
>> You could have a "City of New York" incorporated in New Jersey's
>> jurisdiction and under New Jersey's laws, but it would be legally
>> distinct from the one in New York. There's even a perfect example of
>> this: Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
>
No. It's a fundamental limitation of the way cities are created and
perhaps even the very definition of what a city _is_.
The closest you could get is a city that isn't part of _any_ state, like
Washington, DC, or a city that _is_ a state, similar to some
micro-nations in Europe. Neither could happen in NYC's case, since the
city is already part of NYS and the part you propose annexing is already
part of NJ.
> Would it require a constitutional amendment?
To move states' boundaries requires the affected states' approval, per
the Constitution, and that is impossible to get in even mundane
cases--and NYC would not be mundane. Changing that would require an
amendment, and that requires the approval of other states, which would
all have the same objections. It won't happen.
S
Chris Thompson
news:j1pvjr$dm9$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> In <ONm%p.23455$kI4....@newsfe02.iad> "Ed\(NY\)"
> <eb...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>What happens if one state cuts its contribution the next year =
>>while the other state doesn't?
>
> The fares for operations in that state would increase. These issues
> are already dealt with now in the region by Metro North in Connecticut
> and NJ Transit runs into Rockland and Orange counties in NY.
>
> --Dan
>
> PS: Thanks for getting the quoting working in your news reader. Now
> it's putting in " ="'s at the end of each line. :/
That's a carriage return.
Ed needs to set his reader to an 80-character-wide setting. His posts are
running off the right side of the screen.
Chris
Stephen Sprunk
> PS: Thanks for getting the quoting working in your news reader. Now it's
> putting in " ="'s at the end of each line. :/
Looks like you need a more modern newsreader. The "=" at the end of a
line is a "soft line break" in standard quoted-printable encoding, which
is specified in the MIME headers of his messages. They will be
automatically removed (and the text reflowed) in modern newsreaders.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> They should just integrate PATH and NJT into the MTA.
> Certain economies of scale could be realized and fare collection
> would be standardized. Both of which have direct benefits to the
> ridership.
All three agencies are large enough as is to have economies of scale.
Making them bigger would be bloating, the economic principle of "the
law of diminishing returns".
There is more news on this issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/opinion/timely-help-for-the-port-authority.html?ref=opinion
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/chris_christie_port_authority.html
Peter T. Daniels
> On 09-Aug-11 23:22, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On 09-Aug-11 11:55, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
> >>> Better yet, why not let NYC annex part New Jersey? This has come up at
> >>> least once in the past. Why can't NYC grow beyond the state line?
>
> >> A municipality is a political subdivision of a particular state*. Its
> >> power (and indeed its very existence) is derived from the state's. By
> >> definition, no state's power can exceed its jurisdiction, so neither can
> >> its municipalities.
>
> >> You could have a "City of New York" incorporated in New Jersey's
> >> jurisdiction and under New Jersey's laws, but it would be legally
> >> distinct from the one in New York. There's even a perfect example of
> >> this: Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
>
> > Could an act of congress allow for the creation of multi-state cities?
>
> No. It's a fundamental limitation of the way cities are created and
> perhaps even the very definition of what a city _is_.
>
> The closest you could get is a city that isn't part of _any_ state, like
> Washington, DC, or a city that _is_ a state, similar to some
> micro-nations in Europe. Neither could happen in NYC's case, since the
> city is already part of NYS and the part you propose annexing is already
> part of NJ.
Are there two Texarkanas, as there are two Kansas Citys?
Elgin, Illinois, is in two counties; it straddles the county boundary
and presumably gets its sheriff and some court services from two
different authorities.
> > Would it require a constitutional amendment?
>
> To move states' boundaries requires the affected states' approval, per
> the Constitution, and that is impossible to get in even mundane
> cases--and NYC would not be mundane. Changing that would require an
> amendment, and that requires the approval of other states, which would
> all have the same objections. It won't happen.
If NYC (presumably + Nassau and Suffolk and perhaps Westchester, and
ceding SI to NJ) wanted to secede from NYS (as Vermont did, as Maine
did from Massachusetts, and as West Virginia did from Virginia), the
only way Albany would object would be if Upstate were willing to admit
they are dependent on the city for their livelihood. Moreover, the
Legislature has agreed that in the new redistricting, prison inmates
will be counted as residents of their home towns and not of the town
the prison happens to be in. This could even shift one Representative
from Upstate (R) to the city (D). Meaning Weiner's district might not
automatically be the one to be axed!
Bolwerk
> On 09-Aug-11 23:22, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message news:j1shfs$t4o$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 09-Aug-11 11:55, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
>>>> Better yet, why not let NYC annex part New Jersey? This has come up at
>>>> least once in the past. Why can't NYC grow beyond the state line?
>>>
>>> A municipality is a political subdivision of a particular state*. Its
>>> power (and indeed its very existence) is derived from the state's. By
>>> definition, no state's power can exceed its jurisdiction, so neither can
>>> its municipalities.
>>>
>>> You could have a "City of New York" incorporated in New Jersey's
>>> jurisdiction and under New Jersey's laws, but it would be legally
>>> distinct from the one in New York. There's even a perfect example of
>>> this: Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
>>
>> Could an act of congress allow for the creation of multi-state cities?
>
> No. It's a fundamental limitation of the way cities are created and
> perhaps even the very definition of what a city _is_.
>
> The closest you could get is a city that isn't part of _any_ state, like
> Washington, DC, or a city that _is_ a state, similar to some
> micro-nations in Europe. Neither could happen in NYC's case, since the
> city is already part of NYS and the part you propose annexing is already
> part of NJ.
Legally, I don't see why a bi-state municipality would be a problem if
both states agreed on a charter and Congress approves. Of course, we're
talking about NYS and NJ here, so fat chance of that.
Bolwerk
I think that had an effect on the NYS assembly and senate districts, but
I didn't hear anything about it affecting Congressional districts (which
are much larger).
Stephen Sprunk
> On Aug 10, 1:14 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 09-Aug-11 23:22, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote in messagenews:j1shfs$t4o$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 09-Aug-11 11:55, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
>>>>> Better yet, why not let NYC annex part New Jersey? This has come up at
>>>>> least once in the past. Why can't NYC grow beyond the state line?
>>>>
>>>> A municipality is a political subdivision of a particular state*. Its
>>>> power (and indeed its very existence) is derived from the state's. By
>>>> definition, no state's power can exceed its jurisdiction, so neither can
>>>> its municipalities.
>>>>
>>>> You could have a "City of New York" incorporated in New Jersey's
>>>> jurisdiction and under New Jersey's laws, but it would be legally
>>>> distinct from the one in New York. There's even a perfect example of
>>>> this: Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
>>>
>>> Could an act of congress allow for the creation of multi-state cities?
>>
>> No. It's a fundamental limitation of the way cities are created and
>> perhaps even the very definition of what a city _is_.
>>
>> The closest you could get is a city that isn't part of _any_ state, like
>> Washington, DC, or a city that _is_ a state, similar to some
>> micro-nations in Europe. Neither could happen in NYC's case, since the
>> city is already part of NYS and the part you propose annexing is already
>> part of NJ.
>
> Are there two Texarkanas, as there are two Kansas Citys?
Yes. There are probably other examples as well, but none come to mind.
> Elgin, Illinois, is in two counties; it straddles the county boundary
> and presumably gets its sheriff and some court services from two
> different authorities.
Many municipalities cross county lines; they are political subdivisions
of the same state, so there's no reason they couldn't, absent a specific
state law preventing it.
Some cities are coterminus with their county, resulting in a merger of
functions, eg. the City and County of San Francisco, the City and County
of Denver, the City of Indianapolis and County of Marion, and the City
of Miami and County of Dade.
At least one state considers cities and counties to be mutually
exclusive: no city is in _any_ county. In comparisons of counties
across states, though, their cities are often listed as if a coterminus
county of the same name existed.
>>> Would it require a constitutional amendment?
>>
>> To move states' boundaries requires the affected states' approval, per
>> the Constitution, and that is impossible to get in even mundane
>> cases--and NYC would not be mundane. Changing that would require an
>> amendment, and that requires the approval of other states, which would
>> all have the same objections. It won't happen.
>
> If NYC (presumably + Nassau and Suffolk and perhaps Westchester, and
> ceding SI to NJ) wanted to secede from NYS (as Vermont did, as Maine
> did from Massachusetts, and as West Virginia did from Virginia),
Vermont and Maine predate our current constitution, so they're not
relevant. West Virginia didn't follow the constitutional process
either; most of Virginia seceded from the Union, but part of it remained
and was renamed to avoid confusion about which Virginia was being
discussed. When the bulk of Virginia was readmitted after the war, the
two were not rejoined, probably so that West Virginia would not be
subjected to Reconstruction.
AFAIK, no state legislature has ever (er, since 1789) consented to a
boundary adjustment, even in numerous mundane cases where there was no
logical--or even illogical--reason to oppose it. When the boundaries
"moved", it is because a petty dispute between states went to SCOTUS,
which declared one of them correct as to where the boundary was and
always had been. Even SCOTUS can't _move_ a state boundary.
> the only way Albany would object would be if Upstate were willing to
> admit they are dependent on the city for their livelihood.
I'm sure they could explain away their votes to reject the boundary
change by appealing to tradition, unity or various other platitudes
rather than resorting to the truth. That's what politicians do.
danny burstein
>AFAIK, no state legislature has ever (er, since 1789) consented to a
>boundary adjustment, even in numerous mundane cases where there was no
>logical--or even illogical--reason to oppose it. When the boundaries
>"moved", it is because a petty dispute between states went to SCOTUS,
>which declared one of them correct as to where the boundary was and
>always had been. Even SCOTUS can't _move_ a state boundary.
obtransit: The "Marble Hill" elevated subway station, which
looks like it's in da Bronecks, is really in both Manhattan
and New York County...
John Levine
Yes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texarkana_metropolitan_area
>Elgin, Illinois, is in two counties
Counties are creatures of the state, nothing odd about that. The village
of Saranac Lake NY is in three towns in three counties. New York City
consists of five counties. But states are different, they aren't creatures
of anything, they are soverign except for the (rather lengthy) list of
areas in which the Federal government supersedes them.
>If NYC (presumably + Nassau and Suffolk and perhaps Westchester, and
>ceding SI to NJ) wanted to secede from NYS (as Vermont did, as Maine
>did from Massachusetts, and as West Virginia did from Virginia), the
>only way Albany would object would be if Upstate were willing to admit
>they are dependent on the city for their livelihood.
We know where the money is. We'd never let NYC go. Vermont was never
really a part of another state and was just admitted as a new state.
Maine and WV really were split off from MA and VA, although WV was
a bit dodgy due to VA having seceded at the time.
R's,
John
Stephen Sprunk
> On 8/10/2011 1:14 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 09-Aug-11 23:22, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message news:j1shfs$t4o$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> jurisdiction and under New Jersey's laws, but it would be legally
>>>> distinct from the one in New York. There's even a perfect example of
>>>> this: Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
>>>
>>> Could an act of congress allow for the creation of multi-state cities?
>>
>> No. It's a fundamental limitation of the way cities are created and
>> perhaps even the very definition of what a city _is_.
>>
>> The closest you could get is a city that isn't part of _any_ state, like
>> Washington, DC, or a city that _is_ a state, similar to some
>> micro-nations in Europe. Neither could happen in NYC's case, since the
>> city is already part of NYS and the part you propose annexing is already
>> part of NJ.
>
> Legally, I don't see why a bi-state municipality would be a problem if
> both states agreed on a charter and Congress approves. Of course, we're
> talking about NYS and NJ here, so fat chance of that.
It would have to be a joint authority created by an interstate compact,
rather than a city per se, and that just creates the potential for
endless wrangling over which state laws it would obey when the two
conflict--unless it was exempted from both, which has its own problems.
Also, significant amounts of money flow in both directions between
cities and states, and you'd never get past claims that the joint city
was spending NJ's money on people in NY or vice versa, that people were
being taxed in the wrong state, etc.
It's an interesting mental exercise, though; seeing all the various
problems it would cause and thinking about how to solve them would teach
one a lot about our legal and political system.
Stephen Sprunk
> On 10-Aug-11 14:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> If NYC (presumably + Nassau and Suffolk and perhaps Westchester, and
>> ceding SI to NJ) wanted to secede from NYS (as Vermont did, as Maine
>> did from Massachusetts, and as West Virginia did from Virginia),
>
> Vermont and Maine predate our current constitution, so they're not
> relevant.
Correction: Maine was split from Massachusetts in 1820 as part of the
Missouri Compromise. I'm still not sure how that is relevant to a
modern-day NYC breaking away from NYS, though.
Peter T. Daniels
Have they made any decisions yet? Are any proposals published?
I heard this not long ago on Brian Lehrer, I think, and they only
mentioned Congressional districts.
I wonder if the Rs will try to be so foolish as to cut out the Upstate
district the Democrat won in the recent special election -- which had
been a safe R district forever. (NY loses two, one of each. NJ loses
one, and the one most likely to be dropped is an R.)
Peter T. Daniels
So _that's_ the kind of American history they teach in Texas???
Vermont: 1791. Maine: 1820. Or maybe you just don't know when the
Constitution was ratified.
> West Virginia didn't follow the constitutional process
> either; most of Virginia seceded from the Union, but part of it remained
> and was renamed to avoid confusion about which Virginia was being
> discussed. When the bulk of Virginia was readmitted after the war, the
> two were not rejoined, probably so that West Virginia would not be
> subjected to Reconstruction.
The Constitution is very, very explicit about how new states are
admitted.
> AFAIK, no state legislature has ever (er, since 1789) consented to a
> boundary adjustment, even in numerous mundane cases where there was no
> logical--or even illogical--reason to oppose it. When the boundaries
> "moved", it is because a petty dispute between states went to SCOTUS,
> which declared one of them correct as to where the boundary was and
> always had been. Even SCOTUS can't _move_ a state boundary.
Oh, puh-leez. Boundaries get adjusted all the time when rivers change
their courses. And sometimes they don't, meaning odd bits of state are
attached to other states.
The latest one I know of (which was quite a while ago) was when NY let
NJ have all of Bedloe's (later Liberty) Island.
> > the only way Albany would object would be if Upstate were willing to
> > admit they are dependent on the city for their livelihood.
>
> I'm sure they could explain away their votes to reject the boundary
> change by appealing to tradition, unity or various other platitudes
> rather than resorting to the truth. That's what politicians do.
In Texas, perhaps. Where there is obsessive devotion to the "Six
Flags."
Peter T. Daniels
> On 10-Aug-11 16:54, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> > On 10-Aug-11 14:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> If NYC (presumably + Nassau and Suffolk and perhaps Westchester, and
> >> ceding SI to NJ) wanted to secede from NYS (as Vermont did, as Maine
> >> did from Massachusetts, and as West Virginia did from Virginia),
>
> > Vermont and Maine predate our current constitution, so they're not
> > relevant.
>
> Correction: Maine was split from Massachusetts in 1820 as part of the
> Missouri Compromise. I'm still not sure how that is relevant to a
> modern-day NYC breaking away from NYS, though.
You don't think the Constitution is relevant today?
Peter T. Daniels
> We know where the money is. We'd never let NYC go. Vermont was never
> really a part of another state and was just admitted as a new state.
> Maine and WV really were split off from MA and VA, although WV was
> a bit dodgy due to VA having seceded at the time.
Have you never looked at a map of the 13 colonies? Vermont most
certainly was part of New York.
John Levine
>their courses. And sometimes they don't, meaning odd bits of state are
>attached to other states.
>
>The latest one I know of (which was quite a while ago) was when NY let
>NJ have all of Bedloe's (later Liberty) Island.
Hmmn, perhaps this you're referring to some alternate universe. In
this one, Liberty Island has always been part of New York, even though
the waters around it are part of New Jersey.
A Supreme Court case in 1998 established that the same situation
applies to Ellis Island, except that the parts of the island which
were landfilled are still part of New Jersey. Since both islands
belong to the Federal government, this has little practical effect
other than who collects the sales tax from some souvenir and snack
stands.
Despite the triviality of the claim, neither state was willing to cede
land to the other, so the Court had to decide it.
R's,
John
Peter T. Daniels
> >Oh, puh-leez. Boundaries get adjusted all the time when rivers change
> >their courses. And sometimes they don't, meaning odd bits of state are
> >attached to other states.
>
> >The latest one I know of (which was quite a while ago) was when NY let
> >NJ have all of Bedloe's (later Liberty) Island.
>
> Hmmn, perhaps this you're referring to some alternate universe. In
> this one, Liberty Island has always been part of New York, even though
> the waters around it are part of New Jersey.
See the discussion "Jurisdictional Disputes" in the wikipedia article
"Liberty Island." SCOTUS chose not to hear the case.
> A Supreme Court case in 1998 established that the same situation
> applies to Ellis Island, except that the parts of the island which
> were landfilled are still part of New Jersey. Since both islands
> belong to the Federal government, this has little practical effect
> other than who collects the sales tax from some souvenir and snack
> stands.
The article says they declined to comment on how the Ellis Island
decision would apply to Liberty Island, if the question ever came up
again.
> Despite the triviality of the claim, neither state was willing to cede
> land to the other, so the Court had to decide it.
Except it didn't.
It would _not_ be trivial if the gift shop and restaurants were
privately operated, because they would then generate sales tax.
spsffan
Well, considering the violations of it that have been enacted into law
over the past say, 100 years, I'm afraid that the answer would be no.
But, I both wish it weren't so and will continue to fight for a
government that operates under the Constitution, should we ever have one
again....
Regards,
DAve
Bolwerk
I don't think anything is going to happen until the redistricting
process begins and that will come up in the next year.
> I heard this not long ago on Brian Lehrer, I think, and they only
> mentioned Congressional districts.
With Assembly/Senate districts at the state level, shifts of several
thousand people obviously make a bigger difference. 718,000 people per
Congressional district is harder to fudge than ~130k/Assembly district
or 313k/Senate district. 10,000 prisoners is close to 10% of an
Assembly district, but only 1.3% or so of a Congressional district.
I could see it making a difference, but only in really competitive
districts (which we have few of...).
> I wonder if the Rs will try to be so foolish as to cut out the Upstate
> district the Democrat won in the recent special election -- which had
> been a safe R district forever. (NY loses two, one of each. NJ loses
> one, and the one most likely to be dropped is an R.)
They may not have too much of a choice, given that they have to
sacrifice someone.
Still, when they say they're eliminating an upstate district, it really
means they're going to have to geographically enlarge them and expand
one or more further into the metropolitan area. They do have to keep
the districts roughly equal in size, so it's not like they can just take
one away from populated areas to keep the rural status quo.
John Levine
>> >NJ have all of Bedloe's (later Liberty) Island.
>>
>> Hmmn, perhaps this you're referring to some alternate universe. In
>> this one, Liberty Island has always been part of New York, even though
>> the waters around it are part of New Jersey.
>
>See the discussion "Jurisdictional Disputes" in the wikipedia article
>"Liberty Island." SCOTUS chose not to hear the case.
Indeed. Just out of curiosity, in the Wikipedia in your universe,
what does the last sentence in that paragraph say? In this universe
it says, referring to Liberty Island:
Portions of the island that are above water are part of New York,
while riparian rights to all of the submerged land surrounding the
statue belong to New Jersey.
>It would _not_ be trivial if the gift shop and restaurants were
>privately operated, because they would then generate sales tax.
In this universe, the gift shop is operated by The Statue of
Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, which is not the government, and
collects sales tax. Who operates it in your universe?
R's,
John
Peter T. Daniels
> On 8/10/2011 10:14 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 5:00 pm, Bolwerk<bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2011 3:50 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Aug 10, 1:14 am, Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >>>> To move states' boundaries requires the affected states' approval, per
> one away from populated areas to keep the rural status quo.-
Except that the city grew faster than Upstate in the past 10 years,
and Bloomberg just filed the papers to challenge thye count, saying
that they undercounted Brooklyn and Queens by 50,000.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It would _not_ be trivial if the gift shop and restaurants were
> privately operated, because they would then generate sales tax.
Govt owned or operated retail businesses most certainly do collect
sales tax, just like the equivalent private business. For instance,
purchases made at transit agency gift/museum shops.
Bolwerk
Definitely enough to change a competitive district, if there is one.
I don't really know what to say about the 2010 Census. It doesn't seem
to make a lot of sense that we're 100k-200k shorter than estimates
suggested over the past decade.
Peter T. Daniels
US govt shops don't collect state or municipal sales taxes -- e.g. the
Smithsonian bookshop in the Museum of the American Indian in the Old
Customs House ([ObTrans, sort of: where has the Customs Service been
housed since 9/11?), and the Governors Island gift shop back in 2007
(I haven't been to the shop since the transfer to local control was
completed; presumably it's different now). There's also a tiny one in
Federal Hall on Wall Street, but I've never actually bought anything
there. I don't recall one at Grant's Tomb, but it's a long time since
I visited.)
danny burstein
>US govt shops don't collect state or municipal sales taxes -- e.g. the
>Smithsonian bookshop in the Museum of the American Indian in the Old
>Customs House
Ditto the US GPO bookstores. In the pre-security-hysteria days
I'd peruse the one in lower Manhattan's Federal Plaza building.
They actually had some pretty interesting stuff.
Chris Thompson
news:r8ydnQ5Zpp5mct7T...@earthlink.com:
If they would ever allow sampling, rather than mandating the impossible
task of counting every single person, things would get a lot more
accurate.
Chris
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> > I don't really know what to say about the 2010 Census. It doesn't
> > seem to make a lot of sense that we're 100k-200k shorter than
> > estimates suggested over the past decade.
>
> If they would ever allow sampling, rather than mandating the impossible
> task of counting every single person, things would get a lot more
> accurate.
Without a head-to-head count, you would have no idea of what or how to
sample.
A head-to-head count is better. If there are truly problems (which
has not been proven), then fix the count process.
Chris Thompson
news:j1v17v$c62$1...@dont-email.me:
And toss into the mix the fact that the federal government regulates
interstate commerce. How would that work when the "interstate commerce"
might be moving stock into the warehouse next door to the store, or vice
versa?
Chris
Bolwerk
Nothing is "proven," but there is a high probability of problems. In
other words, it's probable that the methods used to sample are more
accurate than the headcount.
If you don't believe there are problems, you must think that NYC is
making up the 50,000 people the Census missed in some buildings around
Queens and Brooklyn. There are certainly problems.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in
> news:j1v17v$c62$1...@dont-email.me:
>> On 10-Aug-11 15:58, Bolwerk wrote:
>>> Legally, I don't see why a bi-state municipality would be a problem
>>> if both states agreed on a charter and Congress approves. Of course,
>>> we're talking about NYS and NJ here, so fat chance of that.
>>
>> It would have to be a joint authority created by an interstate
>> compact, rather than a city per se, and that just creates the
>> potential for endless wrangling over which state laws it would obey
>> when the two conflict--unless it was exempted from both, which has its
>> own problems.
>> Also, significant amounts of money flow in both directions between
>> cities and states, and you'd never get past claims that the joint city
>> was spending NJ's money on people in NY or vice versa, that people
>> were being taxed in the wrong state, etc.
>>
>> It's an interesting mental exercise, though; seeing all the various
>> problems it would cause and thinking about how to solve them would
>> teach one a lot about our legal and political system.
>
> interstate commerce. How would that work when the "interstate commerce"
> might be moving stock into the warehouse next door to the store, or vice
> versa?
For better or worse, SCOTUS has ruled that all commerce is interstate,
so whether you're moving stock from one floor to another or across the
country doesn't matter to the feds. It might matter to the states,
though; some (all?) states tax inventory, so which part of the joint
city your warehouse is in might affect your tax rates--unless that was
covered in the interstate compact.
Peter T. Daniels
> For better or worse, SCOTUS has ruled that all commerce is interstate,
The republican spin
Peter T. Daniels
It has to be finished in time for the Congressional campaign season.
NYS does have the shockingly late September primary, but that means it
has to be all done by April at the latest.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > A head-to-head count is better. If there are truly problems (which
> > has not been proven), then fix the count process.
>
> Nothing is "proven," but there is a high probability of problems. In
> other words, it's probable that the methods used to sample are more
> accurate than the headcount.
If there are problems in a head-to-head count, why wouldn't there be
problems in sampling? How do we know that the sampling is accurate?
> If you don't believe there are problems, you must think that NYC is
> making up the 50,000 people the Census missed in some buildings around
> Queens and Brooklyn. There are certainly problems.
How do they know that they missed whole buildings? Is the Census
Bureau adding the numbers to their counts?
Peter T. Daniels
> In <caf8bce2-c329-4cfd-8960-ad9341fda...@q5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >US govt shops don't collect state or municipal sales taxes -- e.g. the
> >Smithsonian bookshop in the Museum of the American Indian in the Old
> >Customs House
>
> Ditto the US GPO bookstores. In the pre-security-hysteria days
> I'd peruse the one in lower Manhattan's Federal Plaza building.
>
> They actually had some pretty interesting stuff.
The one in Chicago certainly did.
But some republican administration or other decreed that the GPO had
to make a profit, and / so they pretty much stopped publishing general-
interest materials.
The Smithsonian's Handbook of North American Indians (which will be
about 20 huge volumes when it's completed, which should be soon)
started out around $10/vol. By the time they got to the one I needed,
Lingusitics, it was $67 at the Customs House bookshop. (Still much
less than it would have been from a commercial publisher.)
ObTrans: The new subway entrances around there -- South Ferry,
Whitehall St, Bowling Green -- do not make an esthetic contribution to
the neighborhood.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Aug 11, 3:01 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> For better or worse, SCOTUS has ruled that all commerce is interstate,
>
> The republican spin
What spin would that be? I deliberately did not take a position on
whether that _fact_ was a good or bad thing.
Bolwerk
> On 11-Aug-11 14:02, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 3:01 pm, Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>>> For better or worse, SCOTUS has ruled that all commerce is interstate,
>>
>> The republican spin
>
> What spin would that be? I deliberately did not take a position on
> whether that _fact_ was a good or bad thing.
Both Republikans and that other party both seem to think it is good, or
at least take advantage of it.
Bolwerk
> On Aug 11, 2:33 pm, Bolwerk<bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> A head-to-head count is better. If there are truly problems (which
>>> has not been proven), then fix the count process.
>>
>> Nothing is "proven," but there is a high probability of problems. In
>> other words, it's probable that the methods used to sample are more
>> accurate than the headcount.
>
> If there are problems in a head-to-head count, why wouldn't there be
> problems in sampling? How do we know that the sampling is accurate?
Look, nothing is going to be 100% accurate. We don't know that sampling
is "accurate," we know that it's _probably_ more accurate.
>> If you don't believe there are problems, you must think that NYC is
>> making up the 50,000 people the Census missed in some buildings around
>> Queens and Brooklyn. There are certainly problems.
>
> How do they know that they missed whole buildings? Is the Census
> Bureau adding the numbers to their counts?
The city apparently discovered (or made it up) it after the fact. And,
no, so it's presumably going to court.
Glen Labah
<92dcd995-ccf7-4323...@w11g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:26 am, Agent_C <agent-c-hates-s...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > They should just integrate PATH and NJT into the MTA.
> > Certain economies of scale could be realized and fare collection
> > would be standardized. Both of which have direct benefits to the
> > ridership.
>
> All three agencies are large enough as is to have economies of scale.
> Making them bigger would be bloating, the economic principle of "the
> law of diminishing returns".
For that matter, is it really necessary for there to be one single
agency for there to be economies of scale?
For example, the state of Washington features an entire section on its
procurement web site that deals with procurements from the State of
Idaho. After all, both states have a number of needs that are similar.
Of course, getting New York and New Jersey to cooperate in that fashion
is probably a loosing battle....
--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.
Chris Thompson
0ec876...@ea4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 11, 1:25 pm, Chris Thompson <chris.linthomp...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > I don't really know what to say about the 2010 Census. It doesn't
>> > seem to make a lot of sense that we're 100k-200k shorter than
>> > estimates suggested over the past decade.
>>
>> If they would ever allow sampling, rather than mandating the impossible
>> task of counting every single person, things would get a lot more
>> accurate.
>
> Without a head-to-head count, you would have no idea of what or how to
> sample.
Nonsense. Ecologists have been sampling populations for decades without a
"head-to-head" count. That's one reason sampling was invented. Statistical
analysis is considerably more robust than that.
>
> A head-to-head count is better. If there are truly problems (which
> has not been proven),
"Proven"? Do you really think anything can be "proven" in a case like this?
It cannot. You simply have to pay attention to the overwhelming evidence.
> then fix the count process.
Sampling is the way to fix the count process.
Chris
Chris Thompson
306306...@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 11, 2:33 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > A head-to-head count is better. If there are truly problems (which
>> > has not been proven), then fix the count process.
>>
>> Nothing is "proven," but there is a high probability of problems. In
>> other words, it's probable that the methods used to sample are more
>> accurate than the headcount.
>
> If there are problems in a head-to-head count, why wouldn't there be
> problems in sampling? How do we know that the sampling is accurate?
We know _within limits_ (i.e., confidence intervals) how accurate it will
be. Counting every person leads people to believe that the process is 100%
accurate, which is impossible.
Chris
Cynthia Smith
And the city has great incentive (federal CASH) to increase their tally,
accurate or not.
Bolwerk
Well, can you blame it? We absolutely should try to get back as much of
our own money as we can. And it really looks like the feds were sloppy
with the Census, at least as it was conducted in NYC.
Cynthia Smith
If that is true, then the city will have no problems proving that the
count is low, why, and by how much. Otherwise, it is just grasping at
straws trying to come up with a made up number just to get cash.
Cynthia Smith
> On Aug 11, 11:57 am, danny burstein<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In<caf8bce2-c329-4cfd-8960-ad9341fda...@q5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> US govt shops don't collect state or municipal sales taxes -- e.g. the
>>> Smithsonian bookshop in the Museum of the American Indian in the Old
>>> Customs House
>>
>> Ditto the US GPO bookstores. In the pre-security-hysteria days
>> I'd peruse the one in lower Manhattan's Federal Plaza building.
>>
>> They actually had some pretty interesting stuff.
>
> The one in Chicago certainly did.
>
> But some republican administration or other decreed that the GPO had
> to make a profit, and / so they pretty much stopped publishing general-
> interest materials.
Ahh, you have no idea who made this "decree," but that bastard's a
republican for sure! Ha!
Cynthia Smith
> On Aug 11, 3:01 pm, Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> For better or worse, SCOTUS has ruled that all commerce is interstate,
>
> The republican spin
Where? You are so biased and seeping with your narrow unworldy ideology
you cannot possible see anything else....
Cynthia Smith
> Let's flesh out the issue for the record (from another source):
>
>
> ...[The proposal] would hike E-ZPass holders' tolls up to $12 from $8 and
> cash tolls to $15 from $8. PATH commuters would pay an extra $1 a trip...
>
> http://gothamist.com/2011/08/07/cuomo_christie_pissed_about_port_au.php
>
>
> ...The cash-strapped Port Authority says it needs the funds for a variety of
> projects, including a $1.5 billion replacement of the Lincoln Tunnel helix, a
> $1 billion plan to replace all 592 suspender ropes on the George Washington
> Bridge and the construction of an $800 million garage adjacent to the Port
> Authority Bus Terminal...
Yes it is so "cash-strapped" that the PANYNJ can't possibly consider
reducing their ludicrous expenses or allow non pinky ring labor unions
to compete on work. I'm sure their executive offices are quite barren
and sparse too. And if the bridges and tunnels need maintenance and
upgrades, where have they embezzled all of the toll money for years to?
Surely the original construction was paid of decades ago leaving
plenty of change around in the mx account.
Bolwerk
That it is low should be easy to demonstrate. They already identified
sources of the undercount. "Why" probably has to do with politics or
insufficient bureaucratic resources, and is besides the point. "How
much" may well be impossible to tell, because the nature of the Census
count is that you never really know how short you come up - and that
applies to anywhere, not just NYC, though this problem may be worse in NYC.
> Otherwise, it is just grasping at straws trying to come up with a
> made up number just to get cash.
From a political/judicial standpoint, sure. It probably won't gain
much, but it makes little sense not to try when possibly billions of
dollars of your own money are the line.
Stephen Sprunk
> On 8/8/2011 8:42 PM, Analysis&Solutions wrote:
>> Let's flesh out the issue for the record (from another source):
>>
>> ...[The proposal] would hike E-ZPass holders' tolls up to $12 from $8 and
>> cash tolls to $15 from $8. PATH commuters would pay an extra $1 a trip...
>>
>> http://gothamist.com/2011/08/07/cuomo_christie_pissed_about_port_au.php
>>
>> ...The cash-strapped Port Authority says it needs the funds for a
>> variety of projects, including a $1.5 billion replacement of the Lincoln
>> Tunnel helix, a $1 billion plan to replace all 592 suspender ropes on
>> the George Washington Bridge and the construction of an $800 million
>> garage adjacent to the Port Authority Bus Terminal...
>
> Yes it is so "cash-strapped" that the PANYNJ can't possibly consider
That would be illegal--the same problem Amtrak, millions of other
organizations (both private and public) and unemployed workers face.
> And if the bridges and tunnels need maintenance and upgrades, where have
> they embezzled all of the toll money for years to? Surely the original
> construction was paid of decades ago leaving plenty of change around in
> the mx account.
Obviously, they have been maintained over the years and that costs
money, but structures have a lifespan, and most US infrastructure is
approaching (or past) its end. Tolls (or taxes) will need to be raised
significantly just to replace them with equivalents due to inflation,
unions and materials prices skyrocketing due to industrialization in
China--and we need _larger_ structures to meet modern demands, which
means even higher tolls (or taxes).
Also, I know a bunch of the MTA's toll money is funneled to transit; is
the same true for PANYNJ's tolls and PATH?
Bolwerk
> Also, I know a bunch of the MTA's toll money is funneled to transit; is
> the same true for PANYNJ's tolls and PATH?
More or less. PATH is a money sink, and it logically has to be funded
by PA operations that are profitable. (PANYNJ doesn't take tax money.)
Whether tolls are earmarked, or they just make general fund transfers I
don't know.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
As the article mentions, part of the need for funds is 9/11 security.
A lot of PA infrastructure was hardened or secured as a result of
9/11. Also, of course, was the reconstruction (eg the flooded PATH
tubes) after 9/11.
But apparently all the post-911 national expenditures in
infrastructure, security, military activity, intelligence activity,
and creating an entirely new large federal bureaucracy, all doesn't
count as part of the federal deficit we've run up to date.
danny burstein
>As the article mentions, part of the need for funds is 9/11 security.
>A lot of PA infrastructure was hardened or secured as a result of
>9/11. Also, of course, was the reconstruction (eg the flooded PATH
>tubes) after 9/11.
A hefty portion of which was paid for out of general taxpayer
(i.e. DHS) grants.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Peter T. Daniels
WNYC says the Feds (DHS) are refusing to (help) pay for WTC security,
which the PA thinks needs to be far greater than at an ordinary office
building.
Bolwerk
Well, it's not like federal policies make New York less safe or something!
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Obviously, they have been maintained over the years and that costs
> money, but structures have a lifespan, and most US infrastructure is
> approaching (or past) its end. Tolls (or taxes) will need to be raised
> significantly just to replace them with equivalents due to inflation,
> unions and materials prices skyrocketing due to industrialization in
> China--and we need _larger_ structures to meet modern demands, which
> means even higher tolls (or taxes).
Most Port Authority structures have been extensively modernized since
they were built. For instance, the GWB got a second deck added to
it. Improvements to approach roads are always being made.
Peter T. Daniels
That was 50 years ago.
Sancho Panza
Ditto (in decades) for the Port Authority Bus Terminal.
Sancho Panza
If there was such a "decree," it does not seem to have had much effect:
"Printing office joins list of agencies looking to downsize
By Amelia Gruber agr...@govexec.com June 7, 2011
The Government Printing Office on Tuesday joined the fast-expanding list
of federal agencies looking at buyouts in response to budget pressures.
GPO announced it plans to ask lawmakers and the Office of Personnel
Management for permission to offer buyouts and early outs to its 2,200
employees, with the goal of decreasing its overall workforce by 15
percent and thinning its managerial ranks by 25 percent. The move was
prompted by "overall government cutbacks and projected reductions in
appropriated funds," according to the announcement.
If OPM grants the office's request, then employees could be offered
lump-sum payments of up to $25,000 to voluntarily leave their jobs. The
actual amount of the payout would be based on a formula, according to GPO.
The process would have to be completed by Dec. 31 for GPO to realize the
anticipated savings, the statement said. GPO in January revised its
fiscal 2012 budget request downward by $5 million, to $148.5 million.
That represents a major reduction from the $166.6 million requested the
previous year, Public Printer Bill Boarman pointed out in May
congressional testimony. But it still would be a significant increase
over the agency's actual fiscal 2011 budget of $135 million.
Boarman expressed confidence the staff reductions would not hamper GPO's
mission of producing and distributing government documents. "These
challenging economic times have no boundaries and are forcing federal
agencies to seek ways to survive," he said in a statement. "GPO is open
for business. We are an agency with a dedicated workforce that will
continue to reengineer itself in the 21st century to serve as the
digital information platform for the federal government."
GPO is one of several agencies turning to buyouts and early outs in the
tight fiscal environment. The Agriculture Department last month won OPM
approval to offer early outs to most employees and buyouts for 544
positions. The U.S. Postal Service and Smithsonian Institution also are
offering voluntary separation packages, and the Air Force Materiel
Command in May started gauging civilian workers' interest in potential
buyouts."
Bolwerk
They should move it to Secaucus, and extend the 7 out there. Apparently
some in the PA even think that's a good idea.
Peter T. Daniels
The Bridge Bus Terminal, yes. It's being extensively renovated now.
The 40th St. bus terminal is only a few years old.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 8/14/2011 7:42 PM, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/11/2011 3:00 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Aug 11, 11:57 am, danny burstein<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> In<caf8bce2-c329-4cfd-8960-ad9341fda...@q5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
> >>> "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >>>> US govt shops don't collect state or municipal sales taxes -- e.g. the
> >>>> Smithsonian bookshop in the Museum of the American Indian in the Old
> >>>> Customs House
>
> >>> Ditto the US GPO bookstores. In the pre-security-hysteria days
> >>> I'd peruse the one in lower Manhattan's Federal Plaza building.
>
> >>> They actually had some pretty interesting stuff.
>
> >> The one in Chicago certainly did.
>
> >> But some republican administration or other decreed that the GPO had
> >> to make a profit, and / so they pretty much stopped publishing general-
> >> interest materials.
>
> > Ahh, you have no idea who made this "decree," but that bastard's a
> > republican for sure! Ha!
>
> If there was such a "decree," it does not seem to have had much effect:
I'm talking about the one long ago that caused GPO prices to soar.
Unlikely it was Carter, and it certainly wasn't as recent as Clinton.
That leaves Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush.
(The troll posting as "Cyntia Smith" has little familiarity with
history.)
> "Printing office joins list of agencies looking to downsize
> By Amelia Gruber agru...@govexec.com June 7, 2011
> buyouts."-
danny burstein
[snip... regarding the US GPO bookstores]
>> >>> They actually had some pretty interesting stuff.
>>
>> >> The one in Chicago certainly did.
>>
>> >> But some republican administration or other decreed that the GPO had
>> >> to make a profit, and / so they pretty much stopped publishing general=
>-
>> >> interest materials.
>>
>> > Ahh, you have no idea who made this "decree," but that bastard's a
>> > republican for sure! Ha!
>>
>> If there was such a "decree," it does not seem to have had much effect:
>I'm talking about the one long ago that caused GPO prices to soar.
>Unlikely it was Carter, and it certainly wasn't as recent as Clinton.
>That leaves Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush.
There were progressive increases. Can't really give
you dates, but..
In the Good Old Daze, GPO stuff was free or dirt cheap.
(everyone remember the PSAs for their related shipping
center in Pueblo, Colorado?)
Then... they were told they had to actually charge the
more or less equivalent of the actual printing and, if
relevant, postage.
This still meant the products were pretty inexpensive.
But then... they were told to be self standing and
cover all the overhead and maybe even a profit.
Big increases...
as an example, the CDC publication "Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report" used to be a free weekly subcription.
At the first bump, it went to something like $20/year. Still
a good value.
Then they raised it to a hundred or so. At which point people
and instituions screamed.
- This led to a very unusual accomodation. Since MMWR was/is
a US gov't publication, it's not copyrighted. So... the
fine folk at the Journal of the American Medical Association
would get the original copy, and then offer up their
own reprint-and-subscription, for something like (number
for illustration) $35/year.
For a bunch of years you could opt for either the actual US GPO
printing at a Big amount of money, or get the identical copy
from JAMA at much less.
Not sure what's going on today, since there's the free
internet e-mail option.
ob transit: One article in MMWR described carbon monoxide
poisoning hitting the fuel truck drivers at the airports.
Seems that many of the trucks were designed to route the
exhuast out the front...
Stephen Sprunk
> On Aug 10, 5:54 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 10-Aug-11 14:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Aug 10, 1:14 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> On 09-Aug-11 23:22, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
>>>>> Would it require a constitutional amendment?
>>>>
>>>> To move states' boundaries requires the affected states' approval, per
>>>> the Constitution, and that is impossible to get in even mundane
>>>> cases--and NYC would not be mundane. Changing that would require an
>>>> amendment, and that requires the approval of other states, which would
>>>> all have the same objections. It won't happen.
>>>
>>> If NYC (presumably + Nassau and Suffolk and perhaps Westchester, and
>>> ceding SI to NJ) wanted to secede from NYS (as Vermont did, as Maine
>>> did from Massachusetts, and as West Virginia did from Virginia),
>>
>> Vermont and Maine predate our current constitution, so they're not
>> relevant.
>
> So _that's_ the kind of American history they teach in Texas???
Your unrelenting anti-Texas prejudice is amazing.
My errors above are a result of it being over 20 years since I've taken
early American history, not what I was taught at the time or where that
may have been.
> Vermont: 1791.
My mistake; it was the 14th state, not one of the original 13. Still,
it's not relevant to this discussion since Vermont joined using the
process for a new state rather than a dividing an existing state.
> Maine: 1820.
Already corrected.
>> West Virginia didn't follow the constitutional process either; most of
>> Virginia seceded from the Union, but part of it remained and was
>> renamed to avoid confusion about which Virginia was being discussed.
>> When the bulk of Virginia was readmitted after the war, the two were
>> not rejoined, probably so that West Virginia would not be subjected to
>> Reconstruction.
>
> The Constitution is very, very explicit about how new states are
> admitted.
That's not relevant to West Virginia, which was never admitted as a
"new" state. See above.
>>> the only way Albany would object would be if Upstate were willing to
>>> admit they are dependent on the city for their livelihood.
>>
>> I'm sure they could explain away their votes to reject the boundary
>> change by appealing to tradition, unity or various other platitudes
>> rather than resorting to the truth. That's what politicians do.
>
> In Texas, perhaps. Where there is obsessive devotion to the "Six
> Flags."
One private company operating a string of theme parks is hardly
"excessive devotion". Few Texans could even name all six of the
countries the flags represent. (Many could name five, but I bet you
could as well.)
Stephen Sprunk
> In the Good Old Daze, GPO stuff was free or dirt cheap.
>
> (everyone remember the PSAs for their related shipping
> center in Pueblo, Colorado?)
That's what those were? I remember seeing cheesy commercials on
late-night TV as a kid, and the address always seemed to be some PO Box
in Pueblo, CO. I never knew why, as they disappeared before I was old
enough to think much about it; thanks for the info.
Peter T. Daniels
The hotel the AOS stayed at in S.A. had the six flags flying over its
marquee.
I had no trouble identifying all six.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > In Texas, perhaps. Where there is obsessive devotion to the "Six
> > Flags."
>
> One private company operating a string of theme parks is hardly
> "excessive devotion". Few Texans could even name all six of the
> countries the flags represent. (Many could name five, but I bet you
> could as well.)
Six Flags was connected to the Penn Central somehow (forgot the
details, maybe the PC owned it as part of its outside investments). I
don't have the "Wreck" book handy.
The Six Flags park in NJ got some bad publicity some years back when
it had a fatal fire and the mgmt didn't handle the situation well.
Sancho Panza
Well, some of us might definitely say 61 is "only a few years old":
"The Port Authority Bus Terminal began operation on December 15, 1950
for passengers, originally occupying only the block between 40th and
41st Streets. The terminal was intended as a solution for an array of
various terminals spread throughout Midtown Manhattan. The goal was to
centralize the flow of buses and create a user-friendly building."
The annex was added 32 years ago. The George Washington Bridge Bus
Station opened 48 years ago.
Peter T. Daniels
The 40th St bus station was completely rebuilt a few years ago.
Cynthia Smith
> On Aug 14, 9:28 pm, Bolwerk<bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/14/2011 8:18 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I know a bunch of the MTA's toll money is funneled to transit; is
>>> the same true for PANYNJ's tolls and PATH?
>>
>> More or less. PATH is a money sink, and it logically has to be funded
>> by PA operations that are profitable. (PANYNJ doesn't take tax money.)
>>
>> Whether tolls are earmarked, or they just make general fund transfers I
>> don't know.
>
> As the article mentions, part of the need for funds is 9/11 security.
Lisa, Another con job, in the name of the "security" racket.
> A lot of PA infrastructure was hardened or secured as a result of
> 9/11. Also, of course, was the reconstruction (eg the flooded PATH
> tubes) after 9/11.
It's so "secured" that anyone with an explosive device could travel over
that bridge any time of the day or night. "Security" is a money grab
only.
>
> But apparently all the post-911 national expenditures in
> infrastructure, security, military activity, intelligence activity,
> and creating an entirely new large federal bureaucracy, all doesn't
> count as part of the federal deficit we've run up to date.
What budget did you read this in? Cite?
Cynthia Smith
Peter, Poor, poor PANYNJ. I'm sure they are willing to share rent
revenue in exchange for accepting federal cash paid by people breaking
their backs across the country to make ends meet and pay uncle Sam?
Remember this is the same crappy Port Authority that insisted the WTC
roof exits be LOCKED to prevent escaping to the roof due to a little
tiff with FDNY. Hundreds of people died on 9/11 from this alone, while
helicopters were ready to evacuate to roof that was, sadly, empty.
Fantastic job, Port Authority "security." You won, more people died
needlessly.
Cynthia Smith
Lisa, What decade are you stuck in?
Cynthia Smith
was asking about when the NYC subway system began a little while back.
Now you make a silly claim, can't back it up with a single fact, make
obscure references to any one of four (4!) presidents over four decades,
can't even state which one you are talking about, and THEN claim that
*I* have little familiarity with history. Thanks for the continuous
chuckles you provide! :-)
Peter Schleifer
<cynthi...@gspam.no> wrote:
>Remember this is the same crappy Port Authority that insisted the WTC
>roof exits be LOCKED to prevent escaping to the roof due to a little
>tiff with FDNY. Hundreds of people died on 9/11 from this alone, while
>helicopters were ready to evacuate to roof that was, sadly, empty.
>Fantastic job, Port Authority "security." You won, more people died
>needlessly.
Helicopters were not able to land on the roof that day.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
danny burstein
>On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:34:45 -0400, Cynthia Smith
><cynthi...@gspam.no> wrote:
>>Remember this is the same crappy Port Authority that insisted the WTC
>>roof exits be LOCKED to prevent escaping to the roof due to a little
>>tiff with FDNY. Hundreds of people died on 9/11 from this alone, while
>>helicopters were ready to evacuate to roof that was, sadly, empty.
>>Fantastic job, Port Authority "security." You won, more people died
>>needlessly.
>Helicopters were not able to land on the roof that day.
If there had been people up there to be rescued, the copter
pilots would certainly have tried.
They _were_ able to do so in 1993. The roofs were still in
the same place 8 years later.
Of course, in 2001 there was a bit of smoke and fire...
Bolwerk
> In<kenk47p1609tv1r65...@4ax.com> Peter Schleifer<psch...@speakeasy.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:34:45 -0400, Cynthia Smith
>> <cynthi...@gspam.no> wrote:
>
>>> Remember this is the same crappy Port Authority that insisted the WTC
>>> roof exits be LOCKED to prevent escaping to the roof due to a little
>>> tiff with FDNY. Hundreds of people died on 9/11 from this alone, while
>>> helicopters were ready to evacuate to roof that was, sadly, empty.
>>> Fantastic job, Port Authority "security." You won, more people died
>>> needlessly.
>
>> Helicopters were not able to land on the roof that day.
>
> If there had been people up there to be rescued, the copter
> pilots would certainly have tried.
>
> They _were_ able to do so in 1993. The roofs were still in
> the same place 8 years later.
>
> Of course, in 2001 there was a bit of smoke and fire...
And...not a lot of time.
Stephen Sprunk
*shrug* I'm sure you'll find such historical throwbacks in every state
if you know what to look for. That doesn't make them a "devotion", much
less "excessive". Most people don't even notice them.
> I had no trouble identifying all six.
The French one trips up a lot of people, particularly since at the time,
the French don't seem to have had an official flag and the one most
commonly used to represent them isn't the same as the one they use now.
However, I meant that most Texans (and you) could name the other five
countries whose flags have flown over Texas _without_ seeing the flags;
they're obvious to anyone who knows a little Texas history. France's
flag only flew over one town for a few years, which IIRC is not even
mentioned in history classes.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 15-Aug-11 15:43, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Aug 15, 3:40 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> On 10-Aug-11 21:20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> In Texas, perhaps. Where there is obsessive devotion to the "Six
> >>> Flags."
>
> >> One private company operating a string of theme parks is hardly
> >> "excessive devotion". Few Texans could even name all six of the
> >> countries the flags represent. (Many could name five, but I bet
> >> you could as well.)
>
> > The hotel the AOS stayed at in S.A. had the six flags flying over
> > its marquee.
>
> *shrug* I'm sure you'll find such historical throwbacks in every state
> if you know what to look for. That doesn't make them a "devotion", much
> less "excessive". Most people don't even notice them.
>
> > I had no trouble identifying all six.
>
> The French one trips up a lot of people, particularly since at the time,
> the French don't seem to have had an official flag and the one most
> commonly used to represent them isn't the same as the one they use now.
Of course not -- it's the Bourbon flag, with fleurs-de-lis.
> However, I meant that most Texans (and you) could name the other five
> countries whose flags have flown over Texas _without_ seeing the flags;
> they're obvious to anyone who knows a little Texas history. France's
> flag only flew over one town for a few years, which IIRC is not even
> mentioned in history classes.
That would be the same Texas educational system that places Texas 50th
out of 50 states in persons who had earned a high school diploma by
age 25.
A whole lot of ugly truths about Texas are coming out now with perry
stealing the spotlight.
Including that he "balanced" two state budgets using Stimulus funds
from that program he claims to hate so much.
Chris Thompson
news:7p6dnTxr0sHU-NXT...@earthlink.com:
> On 8/14/2011 7:41 PM, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>> On 8/13/2011 9:03 PM, Bolwerk wrote:
>>> On 8/13/2011 11:32 AM, Cynthia Smith wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2011 4:36 PM, Bolwerk wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2011 3:10 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2:33 pm, Bolwerk<bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A head-to-head count is better. If there are truly
>>>>>>>> problems (which has not been proven), then fix the count
>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing is "proven," but there is a high probability of
>>>>>>> problems. In other words, it's probable that the methods
>>>>>>> used to sample are more accurate than the headcount.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there are problems in a head-to-head count, why wouldn't
>>>>>> there be problems in sampling? How do we know that the
>>>>>> sampling is accurate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Look, nothing is going to be 100% accurate. We don't know that
>>>>> sampling is "accurate," we know that it's _probably_ more
>>>>> accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't believe there are problems, you must think
>>>>>>> that NYC is making up the 50,000 people the Census missed
>>>>>>> in some buildings around Queens and Brooklyn. There are
>>>>>>> certainly problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do they know that they missed whole buildings? Is the
>>>>>> Census Bureau adding the numbers to their counts?ral
>>>>>
>>>>> The city apparently discovered (or made it up) it after the
>>>>> fact. And, no, so it's presumably going to court.
>>>>
>>>> And the city has great incentive (federal CASH) to increase
>>>> their tally, accurate or not.
>>>
>>> Well, can you blame it? We absolutely should try to get back as
>>> much of our own money as we can. And it really looks like the feds
>>> were sloppy with the Census, at least as it was conducted in NYC.
>>
>> If that is true, then the city will have no problems proving that the
>> count is low, why, and by how much.
>
> That it is low should be easy to demonstrate. They already identified
> sources of the undercount. "Why" probably has to do with politics or
> insufficient bureaucratic resources, and is besides the point. "How
> much" may well be impossible to tell, because the nature of the Census
> count is that you never really know how short you come up - and that
> applies to anywhere, not just NYC, though this problem may be worse in
> NYC.
>
>> Otherwise, it is just grasping at straws trying to come up with a
>> made up number just to get cash.
>
> From a political/judicial standpoint, sure. It probably won't gain
> much, but it makes little sense not to try when possibly billions of
> dollars of your own money are the line.
>
There is a long-known issue with the census, namely, rural areas are
counted accurately (or over-counted) and urban areas under-counted. A
simple look at the density problem will tell you why. Add in to mix the
fact that you've got more criminals and illegal aliens in urban areas and
the problem gets worse (despite the fact that reporting to the census
will NOT land you in trouble with the law or immigration). The
Republicans try their best to keep it that way, and the Democrats try
their best to get more accurate data from cities...for, again, obvious
reasons.
Chris
Stephen Sprunk
> On Aug 16, 10:19 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 15-Aug-11 15:43, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> I had no trouble identifying all six.
>>
>> The French one trips up a lot of people, particularly since at the time,
>> the French don't seem to have had an official flag and the one most
>> commonly used to represent them isn't the same as the one they use now.
>
> Of course not -- it's the Bourbon flag, with fleurs-de-lis.
... and I suspect most folks couldn't identify it as such, since it's
not used anymore.
>> However, I meant that most Texans (and you) could name the other five
>> countries whose flags have flown over Texas _without_ seeing the flags;
>> they're obvious to anyone who knows a little Texas history. France's
>> flag only flew over one town for a few years, which IIRC is not even
>> mentioned in history classes.
>
> That would be the same Texas educational system that places Texas 50th
> out of 50 states in persons who had earned a high school diploma by
> age 25.
Where are you finding that stat?
I'm looking at HS graduation rates, where Texas came in at 73.1% for
2008 (the latest available at this source), ranked 35th--not 50th. New
York came in at 70.8%, ranked 40th--just two spots above Alabama.
Of course, since graduation requirements vary so much between states
(and, in most states, between districts), I'm not convinced that's a
meaningful metric in the first place.
> A whole lot of ugly truths about Texas are coming out now with perry
> stealing the spotlight.
>
> Including that he "balanced" two state budgets using Stimulus funds
> from that program he claims to hate so much.
Perry is claiming credit for a _lot_ of things he had little or nothing
to do with. Texas governors have almost no power; the Cabinet is
directly elected as well, and that is who the legislature delegates
power to. The relative strength of our economy during this recession is
largely due to a tax structure set up long before Perry was born.
The few things he actually did were a complete mess, such as pushing
abstinence-only sex education, which was responsible for Texas's teen
pregnancy rate rocketing to the highest in the country; Perry is on
record claiming that "success" as proof his policies work, which makes
one wonder what exactly his goal was.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 16-Aug-11 10:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 10:19 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> On 15-Aug-11 15:43, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> I had no trouble identifying all six.
>
> >> The French one trips up a lot of people, particularly since at the time,
> >> the French don't seem to have had an official flag and the one most
> >> commonly used to represent them isn't the same as the one they use now.
>
> > Of course not -- it's the Bourbon flag, with fleurs-de-lis.
>
> ... and I suspect most folks couldn't identify it as such, since it's
> not used anymore.
>
> >> However, I meant that most Texans (and you) could name the other five
> >> countries whose flags have flown over Texas _without_ seeing the flags;
> >> they're obvious to anyone who knows a little Texas history. France's
> >> flag only flew over one town for a few years, which IIRC is not even
> >> mentioned in history classes.
>
> > That would be the same Texas educational system that places Texas 50th
> > out of 50 states in persons who had earned a high school diploma by
> > age 25.
>
> Where are you finding that stat?
>
> I'm looking at HS graduation rates, where Texas came in at 73.1% for
> 2008 (the latest available at this source), ranked 35th--not 50th. New
> York came in at 70.8%, ranked 40th--just two spots above Alabama.
It doesn't say "graduation rate." It says "people over 25 with a high
school diploma."
> Of course, since graduation requirements vary so much between states
> (and, in most states, between districts), I'm not convinced that's a
> meaningful metric in the first place.
>
> > A whole lot of ugly truths about Texas are coming out now with perry
> > stealing the spotlight.
>
> > Including that he "balanced" two state budgets using Stimulus funds
> > from that program he claims to hate so much.
>
> Perry is claiming credit for a _lot_ of things he had little or nothing
> to do with. Texas governors have almost no power; the Cabinet is
> directly elected as well, and that is who the legislature delegates
> power to. The relative strength of our economy during this recession is
> largely due to a tax structure set up long before Perry was born.
A TV commercial for Ann Richards's reelection campaign in 1994
featured the job creation rate during her term -- and the focus groups
said it was not credible.
So perry claiming to be the "jobs governor" is b.s. Not to mention,
the jobs are menial or in government.
And of course we've all heard that "the lieutenant governor of Texas
is more powerful than the governor." Ok, what did he accomplish while
he was bush's ltgov?
> The few things he actually did were a complete mess, such as pushing
> abstinence-only sex education, which was responsible for Texas's teen
> pregnancy rate rocketing to the highest in the country; Perry is on
> record claiming that "success" as proof his policies work, which makes
> one wonder what exactly his goal was.
Another Texas best: highest rate of not only industrial accidents, but
workplace fatalities.
But we mustn't have regulation, oh no!
Stephen Sprunk
> On Aug 16, 2:45 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 16-Aug-11 10:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 10:19 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> However, I meant that most Texans (and you) could name the other five
>>>> countries whose flags have flown over Texas _without_ seeing the flags;
>>>> they're obvious to anyone who knows a little Texas history. France's
>>>> flag only flew over one town for a few years, which IIRC is not even
>>>> mentioned in history classes.
>>>
>>> That would be the same Texas educational system that places Texas 50th
>>> out of 50 states in persons who had earned a high school diploma by
>>> age 25.
>>
>> Where are you finding that stat?
>>
>> I'm looking at HS graduation rates, where Texas came in at 73.1% for
>> 2008 (the latest available at this source), ranked 35th--not 50th. New
>> York came in at 70.8%, ranked 40th--just two spots above Alabama.
>
> It doesn't say "graduation rate." It says "people over 25 with a high
> school diploma."
_What_ says that? I asked for your source.
Also, "people over 25 with a high school diploma" doesn't necessarily
say anything about that state's educational system, especially a state
with massive net immigration. When someone fails out of HS in New York
and moves to Texas a decade later, why should that be counted against
Texas? What matters is the percentage of the kids who start school in a
given state that actually finish it.
>>> A whole lot of ugly truths about Texas are coming out now with perry
>>> stealing the spotlight.
>>>
>>> Including that he "balanced" two state budgets using Stimulus funds
>>> from that program he claims to hate so much.
>>
>> Perry is claiming credit for a _lot_ of things he had little or nothing
>> to do with. Texas governors have almost no power; the Cabinet is
>> directly elected as well, and that is who the legislature delegates
>> power to. The relative strength of our economy during this recession is
>> largely due to a tax structure set up long before Perry was born.
>
> A TV commercial for Ann Richards's reelection campaign in 1994
> featured the job creation rate during her term -- and the focus groups
> said it was not credible.
Her entire term wasn't credible; the only reason she got elected in the
first place was that her opponent, Clayton Williams, made a remark that
was quite possibly the dumbest thing any politician in this country has
_ever_ said on the record--and even then she barely won. She was
soundly defeated in the next election. If she had lost, the Dems might
have put up a more credible candidate against Dubya.
> So perry claiming to be the "jobs governor" is b.s.
Of course. The Texas governor has zero power to create jobs.
> Not to mention, the jobs are menial or in government.
That may be true, but there are millions of people in this country that
would take _any_ job right now; that's why so many of them keep moving
to Texas. Simply put, 50% of US jobs created in the last decade and 85%
created in the last five years are in Texas.
Not that that has anything to do with Perry.
> And of course we've all heard that "the lieutenant governor of Texas
> is more powerful than the governor."
I've never heard that.
> Ok, what did he accomplish while he was bush's ltgov?
I'm not aware of anything.
> Another Texas best: highest rate of not only industrial accidents, but
> workplace fatalities.
>
> But we mustn't have regulation, oh no!
Except for state/local gov't jobs, that's a matter for OSHA--a federal
agency.
Texas is, however, the only state without an equivalent to OSHA for
public workers. They get no workplace protection at all.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 16-Aug-11 14:21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2:45 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> On 16-Aug-11 10:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Aug 16, 10:19 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >>>> However, I meant that most Texans (and you) could name the other five
> >>>> countries whose flags have flown over Texas _without_ seeing the flags;
> >>>> they're obvious to anyone who knows a little Texas history. France's
> >>>> flag only flew over one town for a few years, which IIRC is not even
> >>>> mentioned in history classes.
>
> >>> That would be the same Texas educational system that places Texas 50th
> >>> out of 50 states in persons who had earned a high school diploma by
> >>> age 25.
>
> >> Where are you finding that stat?
>
> >> I'm looking at HS graduation rates, where Texas came in at 73.1% for
> >> 2008 (the latest available at this source), ranked 35th--not 50th. New
> >> York came in at 70.8%, ranked 40th--just two spots above Alabama.
>
> > It doesn't say "graduation rate." It says "people over 25 with a high
> > school diploma."
>
> _What_ says that? I asked for your source.
Talk radio. Do you think it's false?
> Also, "people over 25 with a high school diploma" doesn't necessarily
> say anything about that state's educational system, especially a state
> with massive net immigration. When someone fails out of HS in New York
> and moves to Texas a decade later, why should that be counted against
> Texas? What matters is the percentage of the kids who start school in a
> given state that actually finish it.
>
> >>> A whole lot of ugly truths about Texas are coming out now with perry
> >>> stealing the spotlight.
>
> >>> Including that he "balanced" two state budgets using Stimulus funds
> >>> from that program he claims to hate so much.
>
> >> Perry is claiming credit for a _lot_ of things he had little or nothing
> >> to do with. Texas governors have almost no power; the Cabinet is
> >> directly elected as well, and that is who the legislature delegates
> >> power to. The relative strength of our economy during this recession is
> >> largely due to a tax structure set up long before Perry was born.
>
> > A TV commercial for Ann Richards's reelection campaign in 1994
> > featured the job creation rate during her term -- and the focus groups
> > said it was not credible.
>
> Her entire term wasn't credible;
The point is that the figures were _correct_, so perry had nothing to
do with "the Texas miracle."
> the only reason she got elected in the
> first place was that her opponent, Clayton Williams, made a remark that
> was quite possibly the dumbest thing any politician in this country has
> _ever_ said on the record--and even then she barely won. She was
> soundly defeated in the next election. If she had lost, the Dems might
> have put up a more credible candidate against Dubya.
Is perry's statement that if Bernanke and the Fed took steps to
improve the nation's economy before the 2012 election, it would nearly
be treason, any less dumb?
> > So perry claiming to be the "jobs governor" is b.s.
>
> Of course. The Texas governor has zero power to create jobs.
>
> > Not to mention, the jobs are menial or in government.
>
> That may be true, but there are millions of people in this country that
> would take _any_ job right now; that's why so many of them keep moving
> to Texas. Simply put, 50% of US jobs created in the last decade and 85%
> created in the last five years are in Texas.
>
> Not that that has anything to do with Perry.
>
> > And of course we've all heard that "the lieutenant governor of Texas
> > is more powerful than the governor."
>
> I've never heard that.
Because it's the ltgov who sets the legislature's agenda.
> > Ok, what did he accomplish while he was bush's ltgov?
>
> I'm not aware of anything.
>
> > Another Texas best: highest rate of not only industrial accidents, but
> > workplace fatalities.
>
> > But we mustn't have regulation, oh no!
>
> Except for state/local gov't jobs, that's a matter for OSHA--a federal
> agency.
>
> Texas is, however, the only state without an equivalent to OSHA for
> public workers. They get no workplace protection at all.
Yay, republicans!
You also inflicted Phil Gramm and financial deregulation on the
country. Proud of that?
Stephen Sprunk
> On Aug 16, 9:28 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 16-Aug-11 14:21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 2:45 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> On 16-Aug-11 10:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 16, 10:19 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>>> However, I meant that most Texans (and you) could name the other five
>>>>>> countries whose flags have flown over Texas _without_ seeing the flags;
>>>>>> they're obvious to anyone who knows a little Texas history. France's
>>>>>> flag only flew over one town for a few years, which IIRC is not even
>>>>>> mentioned in history classes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be the same Texas educational system that places Texas 50th
>>>>> out of 50 states in persons who had earned a high school diploma by
>>>>> age 25.
>>>>
>>>> Where are you finding that stat?
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking at HS graduation rates, where Texas came in at 73.1% for
>>>> 2008 (the latest available at this source), ranked 35th--not 50th. New
>>>> York came in at 70.8%, ranked 40th--just two spots above Alabama.
>>>
>>> It doesn't say "graduation rate." It says "people over 25 with a high
>>> school diploma."
>>
>> _What_ says that? I asked for your source.
>
> Talk radio. Do you think it's false?
"Talk radio" means either NPR or right-wing nutjobs. The latter are
obviously not credible. The former is usually credible, but the last
time you cited NPR you were wildly inaccurate. So, unless you can
provide a more exact citation (eg. who and when), I scoff at your claim.
>>>>> A whole lot of ugly truths about Texas are coming out now with perry
>>>>> stealing the spotlight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Including that he "balanced" two state budgets using Stimulus funds
>>>>> from that program he claims to hate so much.
>>>>
>>>> Perry is claiming credit for a _lot_ of things he had little or nothing
>>>> to do with. Texas governors have almost no power; the Cabinet is
>>>> directly elected as well, and that is who the legislature delegates
>>>> power to. The relative strength of our economy during this recession is
>>>> largely due to a tax structure set up long before Perry was born.
>>>
>>> A TV commercial for Ann Richards's reelection campaign in 1994
>>> featured the job creation rate during her term -- and the focus groups
>>> said it was not credible.
>>
>> Her entire term wasn't credible;
>
> The point is that the figures were _correct_, so perry had nothing to
> do with "the Texas miracle."
The Texas "miracle" has nothing to do with either of them. However, I
suspect Rep voters will find Perry's claims credible anyway, simply
because he's a Rep and they believe whatever the party tells them to
believe.
>> the only reason she got elected in the
>> first place was that her opponent, Clayton Williams, made a remark that
>> was quite possibly the dumbest thing any politician in this country has
>> _ever_ said on the record--and even then she barely won. She was
>> soundly defeated in the next election. If she had lost, the Dems might
>> have put up a more credible candidate against Dubya.
>
> Is perry's statement that if Bernanke and the Fed took steps to
> improve the nation's economy before the 2012 election, it would nearly
> be treason, any less dumb?
That pales in comparison to the sheer idiocy of what Williams said, as
does Perry's suggestion that Texas secede again.
Try this on for size:
"Well, bad weather is like rape: if it's inevitable, you might as well
relax and enjoy it."
>>> And of course we've all heard that "the lieutenant governor of Texas
>>> is more powerful than the governor."
>>
>> I've never heard that.
>
> Because it's the ltgov who sets the legislature's agenda.
Ah; that'd do it.
Doesn't the VPOTUS have the same power, just rarely exercised?
Bolwerk
I'm too lazy, but it seems easy enough to put this together. See "High
school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2005-2009" (Texas is
79.3%, USA 84.6%)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
FWIW, Alabama and West Virginia do better....
Very zen.
>>>> And of course we've all heard that "the lieutenant governor of Texas
>>>> is more powerful than the governor."
>>>
>>> I've never heard that.
>>
>> Because it's the ltgov who sets the legislature's agenda.
>
> Ah; that'd do it.
>
> Doesn't the VPOTUS have the same power, just rarely exercised?
He's President of the Senate, though I don't really see any clear
indication in the constitution of what that even requires. Seems he
historically presided over the senate, but modern partisan rules
generally minimize his importance.
His only obvious constitutional power is tie breaking.
Peter T. Daniels
so the right wing has so permeated Texas that you're not even _aware_
of "liberal" talk radio? You've never heard of Thom Hartmann, Ed
Schultz, Randy Rhodes, Jeff Santos, Mike Pappantonio, Norman Goldman,
and (now TV only) Rachel Maddow?
So he's a plagiarist, too?
> >>> And of course we've all heard that "the lieutenant governor of Texas
> >>> is more powerful than the governor."
>
> >> I've never heard that.
>
> > Because it's the ltgov who sets the legislature's agenda.
>
> Ah; that'd do it.
>
> Doesn't the VPOTUS have the same power, just rarely exercised?
No. Haven't you ever even _glanced_ at the Constitution?
Stephen Sprunk
> On 8/17/2011 12:14 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 16-Aug-11 22:14, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 9:28 pm, Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> On 16-Aug-11 14:21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 16, 2:45 pm, Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16-Aug-11 10:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> That would be the same Texas educational system that places Texas
>>>>>>> 50th out of 50 states in persons who had earned a high school
>>>>>>> diploma by age 25.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where are you finding that stat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm looking at HS graduation rates, where Texas came in at 73.1% for
>>>>>> 2008 (the latest available at this source), ranked 35th--not
>>>>>> 50th. New York came in at 70.8%, ranked 40th--just two spots above
>>>>>> Alabama.
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't say "graduation rate." It says "people over 25 with a high
>>>>> school diploma."
>>>>
>>>> _What_ says that? I asked for your source.
>
> school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2005-2009" (Texas is
> 79.3%, USA 84.6%)
>
> http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
Thanks; that's definitely credible. Still, my comment from earlier applies:
Also, "people over 25 with a high school diploma" doesn't necessarily
say anything about that state's educational system, especially a state
with massive net immigration. When someone fails out of HS in New York
and moves to Texas a decade later, why should that be counted against
Texas? What matters is the percentage of the kids who start school in a
given state that actually finish it.
> FWIW, Alabama and West Virginia do better....
At least we outrank Mississippi (78.9%), but that's not much of a challenge.