That NBC poll is interesting, but not really that surprising when you think about it. If you follow traditional news, you are being informed by professional news purveyors, aka journalists. If you get your news from the internet, it’s being filtered through the algorithms that feed you more of what you click on, and Trump dominates that clickbait. And if you don’t follow any news at all, you probably think of Trump as a successful businessman because he played one on TV, and you aren’t aware of the reality that he is a human wrecking ball for businesses.
Consistency in government would be a great thing. I’m afraid you would need a real core of moderates for that to work, but as you know the major parties are now ruled by extremes. The truth of the matter right now is the good citizens of NY that work hard and pay taxes are seeing their quality of life disintegrate. There are no consequences for bad behavior. There are not less criminals, they are just loose on the street. We can close prisons, but only to rebuild them in a few years because the need will be greater. Government policy has enabled criminals, drug addicts, and non contributors to society. A democracy is not set up to be a socialist platform. As a democracy people have to contribute their resources to make for a better society. The scale has tilted in a way that the super majority now votes for special interest and the reason the policies make no sense to the normal taxpayer is nothing in Albany gets vetted to make a better decision, the vote is secured before the bill is presented. Legalizing drugs, releasing criminals, giving money to people so they don’t have to work, etc. has led to more mental illness and more crime. Government is causing the problem instead of finding the solution. When the voters realize this, there will be a huge change. The question is how long will it take and will it come soon enough? The lack of law and order will prove that criminals won’t care about your party affiliation. Elected officials with both wisdom and compassion can fix this situation. The compassionate people that completely lack wisdom are currently in charge and we will continue to endure society degradation until that changes.
Hi Brian, I’m a constituent of yours! I agree with a lot of what you said, especially the part where bills in Albany aren’t discussed and debated, but presented as fait accompli. But I caution you not to rely on scare tactics. A moment’s research on the crime rate in NYS on the official NYS website shows crime was trending steadily down over the past 20 years, with a slight uptick starting in 2020, with a slightly larger uptick in NYC itself, most likely, in large part, due to Covid related issues. Crime outside of NYC is still about half of what it was 20 years ago, even with that increase. So please don’t say our quality of life is disintegrating. Crime is a problem, but we don’t need to sensationalize it.
You mention legalizing drugs (are you talking about cannabis?), releasing criminals (are you talking actual convicted criminals, or are you talking about bail reform?), and the government paying people to not work (I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, as there is no government program that I know of that pays people to not work) as the reason there is more mental illness and crime, but correlation is not causation. These may or may not be contributing factors to the problems, or it may be something else entirely. Getting back to where we agree, if our elected leaders tried listening to each other and learning from each other, instead of relying on stock phrases and soundbites, maybe they could actually begin to figure out what the root causes of these problems are, and how to solve them. But we can’t expect the voters to ever change if the politicians won’t!
I’m too transparent to be political on the actual truth in my post. It has been conveyed to me by Democrats that understand the super majority is setting policy that they actually feel is degrading quality of life. Today’s answer in politics is to head for the exit. My agrarian upbringing says to leave it better than you found it, I’m just bringing awareness to where someone will take notice and demand better. Statistics are a funny optics that I take very seriously. So if cannabis accounted for 30% of crime ( but now not a crime) a 20% decrease can be recognized as a an actual increase. The same goes for inflation rate. Years ago the price of food was in the calculation. They didn’t like the optics so food isn’t included in the calculation. Does that make it better? No, this is done to confuse the electorate. Both parties do it. Don’t take my opinion as a political talking point. Talk to people who live or have relatives in NYC, Albany, or rural Washington County. The Town of Hebron just had its worst court case in my lifetime from a murder of a person turning around in a driveway. I can point out the actual drug houses in my Town. I lost a nephew from an overdose years ago. The mental stress on the people that have to be involved with a family member degrades everyone. I’m stating facts, and I want government to change policies to protect the hard working people, instead of protecting criminals. They made their choices and they now don’t have any consequences. Instead the law abiding people just get handed the bill. That is fact. If we can’t start there it is already too late.
The crime statistics were for the big ones, like murder, rape, robbery, etc. Low level cannabis was not included, so did not affect the results. I never meant to imply crime isn’t serious or shouldn’t be addressed, I’m just saying that if elected officials continue to sensationalize it by saying the sky is falling when it isn’t, then we can’t rationally deal with the problems we do have. Criminals do still get consequences, they do still go to jail. If there are places where some are falling through the cracks, then we need to fix that. But I grew up in NYC in the 70’s, and I have friends and family who live there still, and I can tell you crime there is much less now than back then. There are some high profile crimes that get reported and amplified on social media that make it seem like everything there is so horrible, but it’s simply not true.
Opioid addiction is a truly serious problem that drives much of the crime we do have up here in the north country, and I certainly don’t want to minimize the impact it has on families and communities. Does our state government need to do a better job dealing with it? And how! You and I agree that there has to be a better way. But I believe it has to start with a better approach to naming and describing the actual problem before we can get down to business.
"It has just released the Crime in the Nation report for 2021. But the bureau switched the way it collects crime data this year, and many police departments did not get on board. Los Angeles and New York City did not report to the FBI. In fact, only 63% of the country's police departments submitted anything, and some of the data that was submitted was incomplete."
It is inaccurate to compare statistics when the data is incomplete from areas that represent large swathes of the nation.
No one should be surprised by what’s happening today with colleges closing.
As our population ages, the number of people 15 to 24 years of age has not kept pace over the past 40 years with the increase in total population. Colleges scaled to admit an ever-increasing number of baby-boomer students in the 1960’s and 70’s are now scrambling to compete for a limited pool of Gen Z candidates.
While these demographic changes are just one factor in the increase in colleges closing today, it’s likely the major factor. And something that could easily have been foreseen.
(And don’t get me started on the change in numbers of working-age people, a demographic fact poised to cause significant economic and productivity problems — and could be addressed by rational reforms in our immigration policies.)
From what I learned this week end, NYState has one of the worst records when it comes to prison conditions. I don’t know if closing them would help that.
I surely wish those who sell themselves as fiscal conservatives were in fact fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, the mammal is a rare breed in practice. The fact politics has become a career rather than a public service is a big impediment to any politician actually living what they preach. It is just one of the things that is, as you say, hypocritical. The hypocrisy in government is much broader than fiscal responsibility, but I will stick to what you illuminate here.
It is a travesty that the economic health of a region is a government dependent no matter the industry. Realistically though that is where we are and until we have leaders that put future interest ahead of parochial interest that will continue to be reality.
It is indeed hypocritical of the two politicians you identify to speak of being financially prudent while at the same time resisting any fiduciary responsibility that impacts their district. On the other hand, I can only imagine the hue and cry in the North Country if Ft Drum was downsized. You and others on this Substack continually pound at Stefanik, claiming she does little for the district. Yet Ft Drum, as an example is in her district. It would seem critical that she protect and strengthen Drum as part of her job of protecting the district. The same can be said for Stek and the prisons.
In our current bloated, all encompassing, government structures where entire communities are effectively dependents on government largesse, the real fiscal conservative is a rare breed. That rarity extends to local "non-political" leaders who preach fiducial responsibility yet welcome millions for local endeavors such as the South Street albatross.
As for repurposing current "unneeded" government entities by diverting those same dollars into yet another government supported public - private partnership, well that is simply nonsense and in no way represents fiscal conservatism. What it actually represents is a continuation of fiscal imprudence based in ideology that simply calls for the same, probably more, dollars being transferred from the private sector into government hands.
So, while I am in total agreement, as an actual fiscal conservative, until we find a way to take the career out of politics, we will never have a fiscally responsible government.
In the modern form fiscal conservatism is entirely based on whose ox is being gored.
I’m asking because I’m curious and really want to know—as the real fiscal conservative you say you are, is there any form of government spending you think is necessary or beneficial?
We need to have some prisons and army bases somewhere, and anywhere they are located they will naturally be a large part of the local economy. I agree it is best if they are not the ONLY part of the local economy, but how would we fix that?
Sure, some Government spending is necessary. You alluded to defense and law enforcement. I agree both are unfortunate necessities.
I would say interstate transport, customs, border security, are legitimate Federal costs off the top of my head. Intrastate transportation, well defined palliative social palliatives, some forms of public land management, and broad view educational standards at the state levels. Locally what is needed for local infrastructure.
Certainly I miss a few but the general gist is the purse should be tightly drawn and controlled in each instance as close to the people as possible.
What should not be done is the process of alleviating artificial costs, excess taxation or worse borrowing, that are largely created by the very financing system we now use that originally created them. Example giving large sums to businesses to offset regulatory costs that discourage them.
We should never borrow to pay normal bills created by statute. If we want to spend a dollar we need to raise a dollar. Social spending fits that bill. Items with long term life such as physical infrastructure should be paid annually prorated over their expected life with sufficient dollars included for upkeep.
Government needs to be utilitarian, not emotional.
How do we fix it? An excellent question with only one logical answer. The decisions to close, reduce, expand these installations must be made rationally based on need without any regard for unintended consequence. That is utilitarian. It is also realistically very hard.
Such decision making is beyond the ability of people who consider political chairs a career.
Rationally I do not see a voluntary fix. I believe we will continue the road to its dead end.
I can’t argue with any of the things you said you think are appropriate places for government to spend money, and I would agree that a profitable business does not need to be on the receiving end of taxpayer money. It appears you and I differ more in a matter of degree than in kind. For instance, social palliatives. I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t quite see eye to eye on what constitutes worthy social programs. The devil is in the details, as they say.
Also speaking strictly in economic terms, not emotional ones, sometimes it is useful and necessary for a government to borrow, either for a big, unexpected expense or project or to stimulate the economy. Not all borrowing is bad, but I certainly agree that borrowing to pay your monthly bills, so to speak, is unsustainable in the long run.
For as long as I can remember, a major ideological split in our country has been between fiscal conservatives and fiscal progressives. This, of course, has been centered on government programs, taxation, spending, and regulating the economy. But in our current state of politics, I think this split may changing. I don't think it's disappearing, but is being overtaken by another split — between democracy and authoritarianism.
The currency of political discussion now concerns whether we respect the outcome of elections, and whether we value our justice system and the rule of law. Debate over government taxation, spending, and regulation seems rather quaint these days.
Regarding "More informed?", you state the following:
"A recent presidential election poll by NBC news found that President Joe Biden was the choice for those who consume newspapers. Donald Trump did best among those who do not follow the news at all. That should tell you something."
That is an INCORRECT statement. The NBC News article regarding the poll said " Biden is the clear choice of voters who consume newspapers and national network news, while Trump does best among voters who don’t follow POLITICAL (my caps) news at all. ...........And Trump has a major lead among those who don’t follow political news — 53% back him, and 27% back Biden. "
You then state: "That should tell you something." Ok, here is what that poll tells me. Those who immerse themselves in newspapers get way too much political content, which benefits Biden. Those who do not immerse themselves in newspapers do not become indoctrinated in the political views of the writers. Hence, these people support a candidate based on actual performance, rather than soundbites.
That NBC poll is interesting, but not really that surprising when you think about it. If you follow traditional news, you are being informed by professional news purveyors, aka journalists. If you get your news from the internet, it’s being filtered through the algorithms that feed you more of what you click on, and Trump dominates that clickbait. And if you don’t follow any news at all, you probably think of Trump as a successful businessman because he played one on TV, and you aren’t aware of the reality that he is a human wrecking ball for businesses.
Hi Ken,
Consistency in government would be a great thing. I’m afraid you would need a real core of moderates for that to work, but as you know the major parties are now ruled by extremes. The truth of the matter right now is the good citizens of NY that work hard and pay taxes are seeing their quality of life disintegrate. There are no consequences for bad behavior. There are not less criminals, they are just loose on the street. We can close prisons, but only to rebuild them in a few years because the need will be greater. Government policy has enabled criminals, drug addicts, and non contributors to society. A democracy is not set up to be a socialist platform. As a democracy people have to contribute their resources to make for a better society. The scale has tilted in a way that the super majority now votes for special interest and the reason the policies make no sense to the normal taxpayer is nothing in Albany gets vetted to make a better decision, the vote is secured before the bill is presented. Legalizing drugs, releasing criminals, giving money to people so they don’t have to work, etc. has led to more mental illness and more crime. Government is causing the problem instead of finding the solution. When the voters realize this, there will be a huge change. The question is how long will it take and will it come soon enough? The lack of law and order will prove that criminals won’t care about your party affiliation. Elected officials with both wisdom and compassion can fix this situation. The compassionate people that completely lack wisdom are currently in charge and we will continue to endure society degradation until that changes.
-Brian Campbell
Hi Brian, I’m a constituent of yours! I agree with a lot of what you said, especially the part where bills in Albany aren’t discussed and debated, but presented as fait accompli. But I caution you not to rely on scare tactics. A moment’s research on the crime rate in NYS on the official NYS website shows crime was trending steadily down over the past 20 years, with a slight uptick starting in 2020, with a slightly larger uptick in NYC itself, most likely, in large part, due to Covid related issues. Crime outside of NYC is still about half of what it was 20 years ago, even with that increase. So please don’t say our quality of life is disintegrating. Crime is a problem, but we don’t need to sensationalize it.
You mention legalizing drugs (are you talking about cannabis?), releasing criminals (are you talking actual convicted criminals, or are you talking about bail reform?), and the government paying people to not work (I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, as there is no government program that I know of that pays people to not work) as the reason there is more mental illness and crime, but correlation is not causation. These may or may not be contributing factors to the problems, or it may be something else entirely. Getting back to where we agree, if our elected leaders tried listening to each other and learning from each other, instead of relying on stock phrases and soundbites, maybe they could actually begin to figure out what the root causes of these problems are, and how to solve them. But we can’t expect the voters to ever change if the politicians won’t!
Hi Tanya,
I’m too transparent to be political on the actual truth in my post. It has been conveyed to me by Democrats that understand the super majority is setting policy that they actually feel is degrading quality of life. Today’s answer in politics is to head for the exit. My agrarian upbringing says to leave it better than you found it, I’m just bringing awareness to where someone will take notice and demand better. Statistics are a funny optics that I take very seriously. So if cannabis accounted for 30% of crime ( but now not a crime) a 20% decrease can be recognized as a an actual increase. The same goes for inflation rate. Years ago the price of food was in the calculation. They didn’t like the optics so food isn’t included in the calculation. Does that make it better? No, this is done to confuse the electorate. Both parties do it. Don’t take my opinion as a political talking point. Talk to people who live or have relatives in NYC, Albany, or rural Washington County. The Town of Hebron just had its worst court case in my lifetime from a murder of a person turning around in a driveway. I can point out the actual drug houses in my Town. I lost a nephew from an overdose years ago. The mental stress on the people that have to be involved with a family member degrades everyone. I’m stating facts, and I want government to change policies to protect the hard working people, instead of protecting criminals. They made their choices and they now don’t have any consequences. Instead the law abiding people just get handed the bill. That is fact. If we can’t start there it is already too late.
The crime statistics were for the big ones, like murder, rape, robbery, etc. Low level cannabis was not included, so did not affect the results. I never meant to imply crime isn’t serious or shouldn’t be addressed, I’m just saying that if elected officials continue to sensationalize it by saying the sky is falling when it isn’t, then we can’t rationally deal with the problems we do have. Criminals do still get consequences, they do still go to jail. If there are places where some are falling through the cracks, then we need to fix that. But I grew up in NYC in the 70’s, and I have friends and family who live there still, and I can tell you crime there is much less now than back then. There are some high profile crimes that get reported and amplified on social media that make it seem like everything there is so horrible, but it’s simply not true.
Opioid addiction is a truly serious problem that drives much of the crime we do have up here in the north country, and I certainly don’t want to minimize the impact it has on families and communities. Does our state government need to do a better job dealing with it? And how! You and I agree that there has to be a better way. But I believe it has to start with a better approach to naming and describing the actual problem before we can get down to business.
From NPR
"It has just released the Crime in the Nation report for 2021. But the bureau switched the way it collects crime data this year, and many police departments did not get on board. Los Angeles and New York City did not report to the FBI. In fact, only 63% of the country's police departments submitted anything, and some of the data that was submitted was incomplete."
It is inaccurate to compare statistics when the data is incomplete from areas that represent large swathes of the nation.
I was looking at the New York State website, not the FBI’s, and speaking specifically about New York, not the nation as a whole.
Nice save!!!!
Mic drop.
No one should be surprised by what’s happening today with colleges closing.
As our population ages, the number of people 15 to 24 years of age has not kept pace over the past 40 years with the increase in total population. Colleges scaled to admit an ever-increasing number of baby-boomer students in the 1960’s and 70’s are now scrambling to compete for a limited pool of Gen Z candidates.
While these demographic changes are just one factor in the increase in colleges closing today, it’s likely the major factor. And something that could easily have been foreseen.
(And don’t get me started on the change in numbers of working-age people, a demographic fact poised to cause significant economic and productivity problems — and could be addressed by rational reforms in our immigration policies.)
Ceasefire when all hostages are returned to their families!
Thanks for pointing out Stec's hypocracy!!! His stance is totally the Republican "Playbook". Obviously, I'm not a fan of his.
More informed? Or less indoctrinated?
Yikes!!! That's a burn!!!!!
Leaving Mt McGregor empty is a terrible shame.
Solution is to auction it without artificial strings attached.
From what I learned this week end, NYState has one of the worst records when it comes to prison conditions. I don’t know if closing them would help that.
Absolutely correct, Ken, in theory at any rate.
I surely wish those who sell themselves as fiscal conservatives were in fact fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, the mammal is a rare breed in practice. The fact politics has become a career rather than a public service is a big impediment to any politician actually living what they preach. It is just one of the things that is, as you say, hypocritical. The hypocrisy in government is much broader than fiscal responsibility, but I will stick to what you illuminate here.
It is a travesty that the economic health of a region is a government dependent no matter the industry. Realistically though that is where we are and until we have leaders that put future interest ahead of parochial interest that will continue to be reality.
It is indeed hypocritical of the two politicians you identify to speak of being financially prudent while at the same time resisting any fiduciary responsibility that impacts their district. On the other hand, I can only imagine the hue and cry in the North Country if Ft Drum was downsized. You and others on this Substack continually pound at Stefanik, claiming she does little for the district. Yet Ft Drum, as an example is in her district. It would seem critical that she protect and strengthen Drum as part of her job of protecting the district. The same can be said for Stek and the prisons.
In our current bloated, all encompassing, government structures where entire communities are effectively dependents on government largesse, the real fiscal conservative is a rare breed. That rarity extends to local "non-political" leaders who preach fiducial responsibility yet welcome millions for local endeavors such as the South Street albatross.
As for repurposing current "unneeded" government entities by diverting those same dollars into yet another government supported public - private partnership, well that is simply nonsense and in no way represents fiscal conservatism. What it actually represents is a continuation of fiscal imprudence based in ideology that simply calls for the same, probably more, dollars being transferred from the private sector into government hands.
So, while I am in total agreement, as an actual fiscal conservative, until we find a way to take the career out of politics, we will never have a fiscally responsible government.
In the modern form fiscal conservatism is entirely based on whose ox is being gored.
I’m asking because I’m curious and really want to know—as the real fiscal conservative you say you are, is there any form of government spending you think is necessary or beneficial?
We need to have some prisons and army bases somewhere, and anywhere they are located they will naturally be a large part of the local economy. I agree it is best if they are not the ONLY part of the local economy, but how would we fix that?
Sure, some Government spending is necessary. You alluded to defense and law enforcement. I agree both are unfortunate necessities.
I would say interstate transport, customs, border security, are legitimate Federal costs off the top of my head. Intrastate transportation, well defined palliative social palliatives, some forms of public land management, and broad view educational standards at the state levels. Locally what is needed for local infrastructure.
Certainly I miss a few but the general gist is the purse should be tightly drawn and controlled in each instance as close to the people as possible.
What should not be done is the process of alleviating artificial costs, excess taxation or worse borrowing, that are largely created by the very financing system we now use that originally created them. Example giving large sums to businesses to offset regulatory costs that discourage them.
We should never borrow to pay normal bills created by statute. If we want to spend a dollar we need to raise a dollar. Social spending fits that bill. Items with long term life such as physical infrastructure should be paid annually prorated over their expected life with sufficient dollars included for upkeep.
Government needs to be utilitarian, not emotional.
I missed the last part of your thought.
How do we fix it? An excellent question with only one logical answer. The decisions to close, reduce, expand these installations must be made rationally based on need without any regard for unintended consequence. That is utilitarian. It is also realistically very hard.
Such decision making is beyond the ability of people who consider political chairs a career.
Rationally I do not see a voluntary fix. I believe we will continue the road to its dead end.
I can’t argue with any of the things you said you think are appropriate places for government to spend money, and I would agree that a profitable business does not need to be on the receiving end of taxpayer money. It appears you and I differ more in a matter of degree than in kind. For instance, social palliatives. I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t quite see eye to eye on what constitutes worthy social programs. The devil is in the details, as they say.
Also speaking strictly in economic terms, not emotional ones, sometimes it is useful and necessary for a government to borrow, either for a big, unexpected expense or project or to stimulate the economy. Not all borrowing is bad, but I certainly agree that borrowing to pay your monthly bills, so to speak, is unsustainable in the long run.
Thank you!
Well said!!!
I also believe that a social safety net should be supported in part by government (Federal, State and local) along with private funds.
For as long as I can remember, a major ideological split in our country has been between fiscal conservatives and fiscal progressives. This, of course, has been centered on government programs, taxation, spending, and regulating the economy. But in our current state of politics, I think this split may changing. I don't think it's disappearing, but is being overtaken by another split — between democracy and authoritarianism.
The currency of political discussion now concerns whether we respect the outcome of elections, and whether we value our justice system and the rule of law. Debate over government taxation, spending, and regulation seems rather quaint these days.
Ken,
Regarding "More informed?", you state the following:
"A recent presidential election poll by NBC news found that President Joe Biden was the choice for those who consume newspapers. Donald Trump did best among those who do not follow the news at all. That should tell you something."
That is an INCORRECT statement. The NBC News article regarding the poll said " Biden is the clear choice of voters who consume newspapers and national network news, while Trump does best among voters who don’t follow POLITICAL (my caps) news at all. ...........And Trump has a major lead among those who don’t follow political news — 53% back him, and 27% back Biden. "
You then state: "That should tell you something." Ok, here is what that poll tells me. Those who immerse themselves in newspapers get way too much political content, which benefits Biden. Those who do not immerse themselves in newspapers do not become indoctrinated in the political views of the writers. Hence, these people support a candidate based on actual performance, rather than soundbites.
Agree???!!!!!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-biden-trump-supporters-sharply-divided-media-consume-rcna149497
Or maybe they just are privy to facts more than people who don't follow the news at all. It's pretty simple.
The poll DID NOT say all news, only POLITICAL news. Are you not acknowledging your error??