Andrew Cuomo Pardons Violent Felons So They Can Vote for Him

The Albany Times Union  (paid access) reports that New York's Republican-controlled state Senate is investigating Governor Andrew Cuomo's pardons of paroled criminals. Pardons enable parolees to vote, and the Senate believes that, when pardoned, parolees will mostly register and vote as Democrats.

What is the link between criminality and Democratic affiliation?

Both criminals and Democrats believe in wealth redistribution, although most Democrats are not as direct as ordinary criminals. Most Democrats claim that wealth should be redistributed to others, not to themselves, but their claims often involve quid pro quo.  School teachers support welfare, but they expect that welfare recipients will support higher pay for school teachers. Welfare recipients support higher pay for school teachers, but they expect that school teachers will support higher welfare benefits. A supports redistribution to B while B supports redistribution to A.

Much of the support for the 2009 bailout was likely of this nature. Wall Street provides financing for much of what the federal government does, so all special interests indirectly benefit from it. As a result, favoring redistribution to the super rich of Wall Street is equivalent to favoring redistribution to all special interests. A 2012 Huffington Post piece says that by 2012 just 23% of the public supported the bailout.  That was better than three years after the massive media propaganda program in its favor.  A well-known principle in public choice theory is that concentrated special interests will outmaneuver public preference. 

Another difference may be that Democrats base their belief in redistribution on claims of morality. "It is only fair and moral that others should be forced to pay higher taxes to subsidize public-private partnership housing."  Nevertheless, many criminals, if pressed, also will claim that it is fair that they receive spoils because they have been mistreated in the past or because others have unjustly taken the money in the first place.  Left-wing Democrats even justify mass murder in communist countries on putative moral grounds.  That does not differ much from a murderer who justifies his killing of individuals on some fantasized interpretation of justice.

The Times Union piece says that parolees whom Governor Cuomo has pardoned have committed repeat crimes, including rape.

The Democrats are a coalition not of the needy or deserving but of the rapacious. Parolees fit right in.   They are just more direct, but in an era of crude Twitter posts and tasteless, empty-headed television news, politicians like Andrew Cuomo see little difference.

Seidemann Shows How CUNY Supports NYPIRG's Fraud

David Seidemann, who is in the geology department of Brooklyn College,  has written an excellent article in City Journal about how insiders at the City University of New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo, and the New York Times collude to enable NYPIRG to defraud New York State's students.

Seidemann says that NYPIRG raises more student funding than any other student group and uses student funding for purposes completely unrelated to CUNY.  When questioned, CUNY officials linked to NYPIRG have resisted investigating the corruption.  NYPIRG's funding at Brooklyn College is now double the student senate's. As well, NYPIRG suppresses dissent on campus.

Seidemann gives this example of NYPIRG-related fraud at CUNY:

When 58 CUNY scientists accused NYPIRG of committing research misconduct, the university appointed a founding member of NYPIRG—now a CUNY vice chancellor—to look into the matter. Predictably, CUNY declined to investigate further, falsely claiming that the research in question had not taken place on campus.

Seidemann outlines how similar abuses have occurred around the country.  

As I have argued, Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits education institutes from engaging in political lobbying or ideological advocacy, but here we have colleges funneling student activities money into direct political uses that are unrelated to student activities. Not only does this seem to warrant an IRS investigation, but the parties involved should be investigated for fraud.

Astorino for Governor

I have decided to support the Astorino campaign. I have it on good advice that Rob is a man of integrity. He has been campaigning against the corruption in the Cuomo administration.  Running against Andrew Cuomo is like shooting fish in a barrel.  There are so many issues. Rob is electable because he is successful at reaching out to Democrats, and he can improve things from the low level to which New York State has sunk.

Andrew Cuomo's Totalitarianism

(H/t Carl Paladino.)  Establishing an ideological litmus test for citizenship is an element of totalitarianism, and New Yorkers might consider whether, under Cuomo, their form of government has deteriorated into a totalitarian form.  I have considered leaving the state all my life, and I chiefly remain here because of my late parents, my sister, and my wife's health problems.  Nevertheless, hearing an extremist remark like Cuomo's marks a new low.What is the difference between Cuomo and a dictator who tells the public which beliefs are acceptable?

Agenda 21--No

PO Box 130

West Shokan, NY 12494

July 19, 2013

Senator Chuck Schumer

322 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC  20510

Dear Senator Schumer:

Agenda 21 is a mistake, and I oppose it and Andrew Cuomo's Leaner and Greener Communities program.  The concept of sustainability is vacuous.  Like freedom and equality, it can mean anything, and it can be used to institute tyranny.  The Agenda 21 document is based on a fallacy:  rich countries are rich because they make poor countries poor.   I don't know what they taught you at Harvard, but if that belief is consistent with what you know, then Harvard made you ignorant.

People become rich for four reasons:   (1) the marginal value of their labor is high because they have skills that make them productive*,   (2) they work hard, (3) they save their money,  and (4) government provides a stable, limited support to their hard work and  saving and does not arbitrarily interfere, steal or redistribute their earnings.   In contrast, the UN claims that people become rich by stealing from the poor.

The US already has a sufficient level of government.  While coordination among governments is a worthy aim, there is no need for the UN to be involved, even if through a non-binding agreement, with economic regulation.  In fact, though, the implementation of the economic illiteracy in Agenda 21 has not been non-binding.  Through policies like Andrew Cuomo's Leaner and Greener Communities program, one of which is Engage Mid-Hudson, government is turning Agenda 21 into law.

Andrew Cuomo's program is based on deception.  The regional leaders have lied and claimed that there was consensus at the meetings, but there was no consensus.  I was present when the leaders of the Engage Mid-Hudson meeting suppressed those who vocally opposed the ideas that the document expresses.   Opponents were not allowed to be involved in the process.   The document is based on a ridiculous aim, 80% reduction in carbon emissions, that cannot be accomplished without major technological breakthroughs and that, if implemented, will create an unsustainable economy that will make New Yorkers poor.  Who wants to live in a country that will support the Leaner and Greener Communities program, a program that establishes regional soviets to implement ignorant, socialist economic strategies?  My ancestors came here to escape tyranny, not to recreate it.  

The UN has no place in the governance of the American economy, and the US should rescind its association with the Agenda 21 document.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

*William Lewis observed that the organization of work is a critical factor to national productivity levels.  The phrase "marginal value of labor" assumes that hardworking entrepreneurs have, over a period of time, invented work processes with escalating levels of output. Such improvement cannot be accomplished through government because it depends on the ability to fail, go bankrupt, end programs, and learn--processes that no government can implement.

Pennsylvania Town Rejects Agenda 21

Lynne Teger forwarded a February Lebanon Daily News (LDN) article about West Cornwall, Pennsylvania's rejection of Agenda 21.  West Cornwall is in southeastern Pennsylvania's Lebanon County. LDN says that the town passed a resolution opposing Agenda 21 and then withdrew from the state's regional plan.  As the article points out, Agenda 21 is a UN-based plan to globalize the world economy and redistribute wealth from more to less economically productive nations' citizens.  It aims to eliminate property rights by imposing taxes that one-percent property owners can easily afford but that those with constrained resources cannot. The United States signed it under George H. W. Bush, and the nation has funded its implementation ever since through the President's Council on Sustainability and, more recently, through a range of government agencies.

In the Empire State, Andrew Cuomo, emperor of economic destruction, has funded 10 regional councils or soviets to implement Agenda 21-based plans.  The regional soviets are Emperor Andrew's first goose-step toward attacking local democracy.  Given the abject failure of the emperor's economic policies, it stands to reason that  His Majesty Il Duce now pursues fascistic environmental policies.  

One of the tactics that proponents of Agenda 21 use is to forestall intelligent conversation by claiming that Agenda 21 does not exist or that it is a "tin foil hat" conspiracy theory.  Such proponents usually have not read the document and have not thought through the implications of global redistribution of wealth and soviet government.

Agenda 21 is no more a conspiracy theory than is the World Trade Organization, NATO, or the UN itself; you can read it here.   Under town plans like the Woodstock, Saugerties, and Olive, New York comprehensive plans, people who live in rural or suburban areas with constrained cash flows or limited means will be the first to see their lifestyles curtailed.  In exchange for escalating taxes and ever-increasing environmental regulation and control, the towns will build cramped urban housing in mixed-use areas. 

Engage Mid-Hudson: Bad for You, Bad for Me

 I sent this email to David Church, Orange County (New York) commissioner of planning, and Thomas Madden, planner for the Town of Greenburgh.  Church and Madden led an Agenda-21-inspired regional planning charade called "Engage Mid-Hudson." The plan is packed with lies and superstition.  Church and Madden are front men for Andrew Cuomo and Barack Obama, who are pushing for regional plans that aim to destroy Americans' living standards through ill-considered environmental regulation.  Cutting carbon emissions by some predetermined amount is based on ignorant, junk science advocated in places like The New York Times by badly educated "environmental scientists" who are ill equipped to evaluate the limits of their own training.  Ms. Muller is the public relations officer for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which funded 10 regional organizations with $10 million each to draft half-baked regional environmental plans. The Engage Mid-Hudson plan is here.

Dear Messrs. Church and Madden and Ms. Muller:

I am writing an article for The Lincoln Eagle, an 18,000-circulation monthly paper in Kingston, NY, concerning Engage Mid-Hudson’s regional green plan (executive summary attached) that was released in May.  I have a few questions for you.  Please address these concerns either in writing or by telephone:

(1)    “(The plan) was developed through a consensus-building process. “  At the initial meeting there were a number of protestors who voiced concerns about the plan. The plan does not address their concerns. At one point in the initial meeting you threatened to evict those who were disagreeing, although you rescinded that threat.  You did not appoint any who disagreed to officer positions, reserving your organization’s formal appointments  for connected retired IBM employees like Herb Oringel and other corporate-and-government insiders.  Although you ultimately were cordial in the initial meeting, the plan is misleading because it does not mention the sharp disagreement that was made evident to you and that you have failed to address.  This is also evident on your group’s website, which asks for reactions to the plan but does not permit a negative reaction. 

There is no consensus, and your plan’s claim that there is is a falsehood.  In particular Lynn Teger’s group Citizens for the Protection of Property Rights in the Mid Hudson Region was excluded from the process. If you wish to contact Ms. Teger, she can be reached at teger.lynn@gmail.com . If you do not wish to contact her for her group’s input, I would appreciate an explanation as to your selective choices as to who got to be invited to your charade.  IBMers, yes. Property rights activists, no.  There is no consensus because major opponents of your “non-binding”  plan were excluded.

(2)    You claim that carbon emissions cause global warming.  Yet, here is a graph of 5 million years of climate change, and current temperatures are well below those of five million years ago, when there were no human carbon emissions.  How is it possible that the climate is now cooler than it was before humans existed if climate warming  is anthropogenic?  If you do not know the answer, please explain why you claim to know the sources of climate change in your report, but really you, your consulting firm, Francis Murray, Andrew Cuomo,  climate scientists, and the environmental movement are ignorant about it.

(3)    You make the claim that you aim to “reduce the region’s overall contribution to climate change.” Please produce empirical evidence of any kind that specifically shows that the Catskills and Hudson Valley region make any significant contribution to climate change.  On what factual evidence other than hearsay from your consulting firm and the ignorant parties previously noted do you base this claim?

(4)    How much did you pay Ecology and Environment, Inc. to frame this plan?  The plan is a knock-off of other ICLEI-and-Agenda 21-based plans; a monkey could have copied it off other plans for free.  Please explain why 300 people who supposedly participated in this planning process came up with a model that already exists in hundreds of plans around the world.
 

(5)    In the 1930s, there were the dust bowl storms, which were worse than any storms occurring now.  Please provide me with evidence of this claim: “Critically, climate change can impact the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. The Mid-Hudson Region is already challenged by extreme weather events, particularly flooding, as evidenced in the recent hurricanes Irene and Sandy. “  Was Sandy the first hurricane or storm to affect the region? I think not.  In 1821 a hurricane made landfall in New York, flooding Manhattan to Canal Street. 

(6)    Your report lacks evidence of an understanding of cost-benefit tradeoffs.  Even if windstorms increase by 50%, is that a rationale to curtail living standards by 50%? Please clarify how you calculated the tradeoffs in the report’s many far-fetched, extreme claims, such as that there is a need to reduce automobile use or to force people in rural settings to move to urban ones.

(7)    You write that the region needs to “become radically less energy and fossil fuel intensive while strengthening the regional economy.” Please provide data or empirical evidence that the region needs to become less energy and fuel intensive.   There is no evidence that the regional economy can become stronger without fossil fuels. You implicitly make the claim that it is possible, but there is no empirical evidence that it is.  Please provide some.  You wild, unverified claims amount to superstition, not intelligent policy making.

(8)    The reduction in available farmland was caused by a massive building binge that was funded through sub-prime mortgage lending.  Earlier, the Federal Reserve Bank expanded the money supply over a century, in part to fund energy-intensive centralized agriculture, suburban development, and the automobile industry.  Could you please mention that Andrew Cuomo in 1993 had proposed expansion of home building to include sub-prime borrowers, which led to increased use of farmland for home building and ultimately harmed the financial industry? First, Cuomo advocated massive expansion of private home ownership.  Now he is attacking private home ownership.  Can you please reconcile these wild vacillations in the direction of Mr. Cuomo’s maelstrom?

(9)     You write that you aim to “foster economic development” and “make all growth smart growth.”  The term “smart growth" is vacuous and nonsensical.  Historically, economic growth occurs in the absence of government regulation.  I do not believe that you or your crew of IBM bureaucrats have the slightest idea as to how to foster economic growth.

The best way for New York to grow is to abolish Engage Mid-Hudson and fire three quarters of New York’s vampire government.  Would you please explain your track record in fostering economic development in a state that has lagged the national economic performance for decades? To be precise: What do you know about economic development?  Is Orange County successful in developing economically compared to North Dakota or other carbon energy-developing states?

(10) You make the claim that tourism can strengthen the area’s economy. Do you have any evidence that you know how to develop tourism?  You remind me of the film Roger and Me in which Flint, Michigan attempts to turn itself into a tourist mecca. They succeeded in further damaging their blighted economy--which was not as blighted as New York’s.

(11) Engage Mid-Hudson has no authority to pass legislation or regulation, yet you write in terms of targets. How can you implement targets if you have no authority?

Paradox inside an Enigma: Engage Mid-Hudson's Puzzling Kickoff

I submitted this piece to The Lincoln Eagle early this morning. 

Newburgh, NY, July 30--Lincoln Eagle exclusive.  About 200 people, mostly town-and-county-level politicians and bureaucrats, descended upon the Newburgh campus of Orange County Community College to participate in Engage Mid-Hudson's kickoff.  Engage Mid-Hudson is one of 10 regional sustainability groups that Governor Andrew Cuomo has funded through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). The mid-Hudson region extends north from Westchester through Rockland, Putnam, and Orange, to Dutchess and Ulster Counties.  Co-chairs David Church, planning commissioner of Orange County, and Thomas Madden, commissioner of community development and sustainability for the Town of Greenburgh, led the meeting. 

Assemblyman Frank Skartados, representing the Newburgh (100th) Assembly District, offered a few opening remarks. He thought that Engage Mid-Hudson is out to streamline government.  A paradox became evident a few minutes later when Mr. Church divulged that Governor Andrew Cuomo had spent $100 million to fund the 10 regional sustainability groups (according to NYSERDA's website the booty was split evenly across the 10 regions).  I asked Mr. Church whether the aim of streamlining government is consistent with eight-digit slush funds.  Mr. Church's answer was that the endowment reflects the voters' will, even though the senior elected official present, Mr. Skartados, had just expressed a preference for streamlining government. Also, since the majority of New York residents in my lifetime have fled the state because of excessive costs and mismanagement, it is difficult to know whose preferences Mr. Cuomo has in mind: waste's victims or its progenitors. 

A second paradox followed.  Engage Mid-Hudson bills itself as open to public opinion, but a number of pro-freedom activists were present, and they called out questions during Mr. Church's talk.  Mr. Church handled the disagreement well, but several members in the audience began to berate the pro-freedom activists.  One, whom one of the freedom activists alleged is the owner of a green development firm that stands to profit from Engage Mid-Hudson, suggested to Mr. Church that the freedom activists be banned from future meetings.  It would seem that owners of businesses that stand to directly profit from Engage Mid-Hudson should be required to identify themselves at the beginning of meetings.  It seems as likely as not that Engage Mid-Hudson is just one more Democratic Party scam, like Maurice Hinchey's green development follies and Barack Obama's bailouts.   

A third paradox became evident when Mr. Church announced six working groups, including one for economic development.  Herb Oringel, an IBM retiree and chair of the economic development consortium, claimed that Engage Mid-Hudson could bring jobs to the region. Activist Glenda Rose McGee asked what kind of jobs could a tax-based bureaucracy like Engage Mid-Hudson create.  The question was a good one.  Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson explains why the broken window fallacy, an economic fallacy that has re-gained currency under the Bush and Obama administrations, is incorrect.  Government cannot make work by breaking windows.  The reason is that to pay for the broken window repair someone must be taxed.  The taxed money reduces private sector demand.  By advocating government spending and higher taxes, groups like Engage Mid-Hudson destroy legitimate jobs, jobs that satisfy legitimate market demand, and replace them with jobs that reflect the needs of politicians and special interests.  

Mr. Oringel's response to Ms. McGee was not reassuring. His chief example of jobs creation was the turning of Sing Sing Correctional Facility into a tourist attraction.  I would feel better if a private developer were to take the project because Mr. Oringel's IBM experience has not prepared him to assess market risk of this kind. For example, might Steve Wynn be willing to take gambling up the river? Engage Mid-Hudson and Governor Cuomo don't know. Since they are not going to invest their own money, they don't care in the same way that Steve Wynn would. There is little difference between Mr. Oringel's project and window breaking. 

In a question-and-answer period Ms. McGee raised a further point: regional sustainability plans are likely a pretext for more intensive intervention and regulation. In particular, the Towns of Woodstock, Olive and Saugerties have seen proposals for the construction of unneeded planned housing projects tightly linked to sustainability plans.   

I raised a question as to Engage Mid-Hudson's identity.  I asked whether it is a government organization or a non-government organization.  Mr. Church said that it is neither. This was a fourth paradox because if Engage Mid-Hudson is neither a government nor a non-government organization, then it does not exist and it cannot cash NYSERDA's $10 million check. Tsk, tsk--a Zen-like conundrum any green business crony can ponder.

Rife with paradox the meeting was unpersuasive.  What is the purpose of Engage Mid-Hudson beyond providing funding for crooked, green businesses?  In Canada and elsewhere NGOs have been used to subvert republican governmental structures and regulatory authority. In the tradition of New York's honest graft, are we to expect just one more deal in the Plunkitt tradition or a more serious incursion on republicanism?

Say No to Engage Mid Hudson July 30 6:00 PM Newburgh

This "Engage Mid Hudson" Agenda 21 organizing stuff in our own neighborhoods is serious stuff -  Wake up - this is not good - mert
The program was announced (supported) by Gov Cuomo in 2011 (who would have guessed that)  They hope to impliment Agenda 21 in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullvan, Ulster, and Westchester Counties.  This first meeting is July 30, from 6:00PM to 8:30PM at SUNY Orange Newburgh Campus, in the Great Room, Kaplan Hall.  This is an attempt at a huge power grab and if it moves forward, it will totally affect you daily life, adversely.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Langbert <mlangbert@hvc.rr.com>
To: NYLibertyAlliance-list <NYLibertyAlliance-list@meetup.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 11:48 pm
Subject: [NYLibertyAlliance] Engage Mid Hudson (Agenda 21 pseudo) Public Meeting July 30

(1)    The first meeting of Engage Mid-Hudson will be on Monday, July 30. Engage Mid-Hudson covers the Southern and Northern Westchester Energy Action Consortia up through Ulster County (and everything in between).   If you haven’t been following Engage Mid-Hudson, it is the latest manifestation of the regional push to implement UN Agenda 21 through non-governmental organizations that violate republican and constitutional principles by providing a carte blanche to exercise eminent domain and other authoritarian planning tactics that obviate republican standards and freedom.  Please bring your friends who favor private property rights, oppose eminent domain, and oppose authoritarianism.   I have linked below to a video of Rosa Koire’s recent talk in Olive and, as well, my recent interview on A-21 with Tom Sipos on Hudson Valley Focus. 

The idea would be to attend the meeting and, where possible, raise key issues like these:  property rights,  your preference for freedom and market processes over authoritarian and government-based ones, the failure of state-based solutions to improve the economy, improve equity, or help the environment,   your opposition to eminent domain, and your opposition to granting legislative power to non-governmental organizations (NGOs).    The view that no NGO should be permitted legislative, zoning, or eminent domain authority needs to be loudly voiced.  

These are not distant concerns. The purpose of Engage Mid-Hudson is to establish a vehicle that will usurp republican local government authority and establish eminent domain and zoning authority for Engage Mid-Hudson or a successor NGO. This will be used to implement radical environmental policies that will increase in severity over time.  

http://www.rocklandrecycles.com/docs/Engage_Mid-Hudson_Public_Meeting_Evite.pdf

(2)    Several people on the New York Liberty list wanted to discuss our strategy for discussing A-21 with Congressman Gibson. At his kick-off event he was interested enough to ask for information, and we thought we’d meet with him.  Please contact me if you want to work on preparing a presentation and setting up a meeting with him.

(3)    Links:

http://www.rocklandrecycles.com/docs/Engage_Mid-Hudson_Public_Meeting_Evite.pdf

http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2012/07/rosa-koire-speaks-to-town-of-olive-on.html

http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-2nd-hudson-valley-focus-interview-re.html

Greed Prevents New York's Teachers' Unions from Learning Math

New Yorkers for Growth sent the e-mail below (with this article attached) in favor of Andrew Cuomo's  property tax cap.  The article points out that Taxachussetts has lower taxes than New York and that the Taxachusetts tax cap, which is similar to the one that Governor Andrew Cuomo is proposing, has resulted in  better education than New York's more expensive education system.  More spending will not improve education.

Last semester a student in my class said that she was majoring in education and that after graduation she planned to become a principal.  I spent several classes on writing.  Following one of the classes the future principal asked, "Are we going to keep working on writing, or will we learn?" 

Its achievement is average but the state's spending is the nation's highest. The problem is its   "progressive" education approach, which reflects a Democratic Party-dominated education establishment.  Many New Yorkers prefer to spend thousands of dollars per year to send their children to Catholic schools whose budgets are one fourth --no typo-- public schools'.  In other words, New Yorkers spend $4,500 to send their children to Catholic schools to avoid public schools that cost $17,500 per student.  But the New York State Union of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers insist that too little is spent. 

Why did not Governor Pataki propose a tax cap five or ten years ago?  If the New York State GOP can answer that question without blaming the Democrats (for Pataki was a Republican, not a Democrat, and if what he does depends on the Democrats, then there is no point in voting for Republicans) then they will be on the road to improving their party. 

My complaint about Cuomo's proposal is that it does not go far enough.  Vouchers are preferable to the current education system.

>February 7, 2011


We thought you might be interested in this article that appeared in the Buffalo News yesterday. It compares New York's tax burden to that of our neighboring state, Massachusetts. The article highlights how Massachusetts' property tax cap has been a successful tool in driving down the overall tax burden for residents and small business owners.

Massachusetts, once notoriously known as "Taxachusetts," implemented a property tax cap in 1980 similar to the one now being proposed by Governor Cuomo and already adopted by the state Senate. Despite what teacher union critics in New York say, the property tax cap in Massachusetts has worked extraordinarily well.

As a result of the cap, the attitude toward taxation has changed. Localities have found ways to consolidate and reduce duplication of services. Taxpayers have found themselves with more power, while local governments have been forced to make a case for increased spending. The days of taxpayers being simply an endless source of financing for ever larger, less efficient government has come to an end.

The article also rebuts critic's most threatening claim that the quality of education will suffer. Massachusetts scores higher than New York in nearly every fourth and eighth grade reading, math and writing test and ranks number one in the nation in fourth and eighth grade math and reading. While New York spends the most per pupil in the country, our test scores consistently rank 24th or 25th in performance.

The proof is in the pudding. Massachusetts has successfully reduced its tax burden and New York can and must do the same. Of course, the tax cap is just one piece of the puzzle, albeit a critical one. We have a lot of work to do to change our "tax attitude," including reducing spending and ending unfunded mandates. New Yorkers for Growth will continue to be a leader in this fight, and we hope you'll join us in our efforts to make New York affordable again.


Best,

New Yorkers for Growth