At last night's Independent Neighborhood Democrats meeting Assemblywoman Joan Millman gave us a grim outlook for next year's state budget. I hear the same issue was discussed at Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats as well. This comes the same day the MTA forcasts an equally grim picture (but in their case we always have to question the numbers of an agency that keeps two sets of books depending on whether they want to show a surplus or a deficit). And from Governor Paterson we are hearing ideas like raising CUNY and SUNY fees and cutting education and health programs (our biggest outlays).

Here. Shed a tear for the Yankees before I start ranting about them.

This from Newsday, Balking at stadium deal:

The New York City Industrial Development Agency and state Assemb. Richard Brodsky agree on little when it comes to the new Yankee Stadium deal. Here's where they differ:

Luxury suite: City officials say the luxury suite at the new stadium has been cited in public records since 2006, specifically the lease agreement between the Yankees and the development authority. Brodsky claims it was "secretly acquired" and he only discovered it this summer after a public hearing. The box seats about 12 people and was envisioned for the use of the mayor to entertain dignitaries and reward city employees for exemplary service. City officials also have the right to purchase 180 seats at face value before they go on sale.

Jobs: NYCIDA has stated that more than 900 part-time workers will be the equivalent of an additional 550 to 770 full-time workers at the stadium. Brodsky has said the NYCIDA's records show an additional 15 full-time workers.

Threat to leave: When citing its reasons for allowing public-backed financing of the stadium, the NYCIDA cited the likelihood the Yankees would "relocate outside the city" if a new stadium deal wasn't struck. Brodsky said an investigation by his oversight committee found no evidence of a Yankee threat to leave. The closest thing to a fresh threat to leave were 1993 news clippings supplied by the NYCIDA in which such threats were discussed, Brodsky said.

NYC is going to get rimmed by this Wall Street bailout. There's no other way to describe this. We not only lost something in the order of 30 to 40 billion dollars in bonuses ALONE, we've lost over 11,000 jobs since the Lehman meltdown.

For the past couple of months, I've been working on an economic essay, designed to rebut 30 years of right-wing propaganda. The idea is that after all that time most people meekly accept the right-wing line (cutting taxes raises revenue, for instance), and somebody needs to step up and challenge it.

In my essay, I endeavor to debunk the following right-wing economic postulates:

1. Entrepreneurs, and the venture capitalists who back them, create jobs.
2. Lowering tax rates results in more revenue for the government.
3. Reducing restrictions on business activities is good for business.
4. Free trade agreements increase economic activity and raise the standard of living.
5. Government cannot do anything domestically to increase economic activity.
6. A flat tax is fair.

I like to think I've done a pretty good job, but feel free to decide for yourself. It's too long to post here; the essay is available on my website. Just click on #173, "Right-Wing Economics vs. Reality" on the right-hand column, and enjoy. (Note: At the end is a link to an 11-page PDF version.)

Do you remember when Rudolph Giuliani didn’t know the price of milk? Well, it may be time to ask again. Milk prices have jumped – 15 cents a quart in the supermarkets near me. Have politicians noticed? (In the most concrete sense of course, they know since milk prices are regulated)

One way to think about the fiscal impact on families of Bush years is to imagine how our national economic (income) pie is shared, according to the Economic Policy Institute. When economists write of pie, I imagine pie charts; but in this case it’s an interesting bar graph. The EPI’s Laurence Mishel tells us that in 2001-2005 period the very richest among us (top 1%) have seen their share of the pie increase while bottom-half and middle income people are getting less. This clearly written (for an economist) squib and chart are definitely worth a click if only to confirm that it’s not your imagination: almost all of us are worse off than we were in 2001 (to unearth a Ronald Reagan slogan). See also this excellent Alternet article and this essay by James Parrott on how inequality plays out in NYC.

One reason, as it turns out, the rich are different from you and me is that they pay taxes at a much lower rate than the rest of us.