Comments on: Protesting a payroll tax, but no better solution

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:14:49 +0000

The opposition comes from both suburban Republicans and suburban Democrats. In round 1 of CP, the chief opponent was Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), who complained that CP would be unfair to his richest-in-the-state district. He was joined by a couple of city Democrats who were pissed that Bloomberg had just donated millions to the state GOP to get it to support CP.

In round 2, the opposition was more diffuse. The State Senate’s GOP just didn’t like the tax increases. Together with a couple of suburban Democratic defections, this doomed the bridge tolling bailout.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:34:03 +0000

Eventually the upstate GOPers, most of whom are appalling hacks, will be kicked out. Any help in supporting upstate Democrats is appreciated.

Beyond that, where do they get off opposing the self-interest of upstaters? Seriously, most upstaters only visit New York City via bus or train, and would never have to pay the congestion pricing or East River Bridge tolls. I guess there are Westchester and Long Island GOPers who might actually drive to NYC sometimes, but people who are actually from upstate simply don’t drive to NYC.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:31:20 +0000

In fact, at this point, the Republican Party is anti-EVERYTHING. Whatever it is, they oppose it. I don’t even think they’re pro-car, just anti-things-working.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:00:51 +0000

I should have written more about that statement in the post, Jonathan, but in a nutshell: It will get ugly because at some point the MTA will need more money than the politicians can provide through these stop-gap measures, and upstate GOPers will dig in against downstaters who want to institute congestion pricing and East River Bridge tolls. Plus, city interests will align on either side of the divide generally with small business owners failing to understand how and why they would benefit from the pricing and tolls despite the increased fees. You’ll either see some major legislative logrolling which won’t be good for the state or massive MTA cuts which also won’t be good for the state. It has the potential to get very ugly.

By: Mike Nitabach

Mike Nitabach — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:59:06 +0000

Don’t the “pro-car” people realize that they should also be “pro-transit”? The more other people use mass transit and thus the less people use their cars, the less congested the roads are for the “pro-car” people to drive on.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:45:46 +0000

Actually, they are worse idiots than Ben makes them out to be.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:39:44 +0000

Ben, can you elaborate on your statement: “At some point, the pro- and anti-transit forces will clash, and it will get ugly”? I don’t think we’re talking Ragnarok here, with blood spilling in the streets (or on Empire State Plaza), but just more scanty MTA budgets and more deferred maintenance and more pleas to the Feds for assistance.

I don’t think politicians are the idiots you make them out to be. In my opinion, the city pols have even more to answer for since they refused to support congestion pricing and East River tolls; without that funding, how are we city residents going to keep getting to work?

By: Niccolo Machivelli

Niccolo Machivelli — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:43:08 +0000

Taking politics out of transportation is like taking orgasm out of sex.

By: SEAN

SEAN — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:57:26 +0000

If you are pro car then you are pro tax because cars +road capasity =sprawl. With sprawl more demands are put on local governments wich require more tax revenue to function. Is it a shock that republicans from Long Island the basis of the sprawl econemy would be anti tax knowing full well that taxes keep the sprawl machine alive.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:31:04 +0000

I wish we’d figure out a way to uncouple “pro-car and anti-tax.” These positions can’t be held at the same time, as we all know that being “pro-car” means huge subsidies for cars (that’s tax dollars). I’m not sure how to phrase it — pro-car, pro-tax? pro-car, anti-transit subsidies? — but we let the other side win if we continue to suggest cars and low taxes are complementary positions.