Monday, July 30, 2007

Dem Candidate John Rossi Writes to Newsday About GOP Gimmick

Sorry, it's not freezing taxes

Newsday is right to admonish the Nassau County legislators' seeking a five-year freeze on property assessments ["Nassau GOP brain-fade," Editorial, July 3]. The most important part of this topic is the "tax rate" - computed by dividing "the total amount of money to be raised with taxes" by the assessed value of the jurisdiction.

Freezing the assessment only addresses one part of this formula. My concern is that many residents will believe that "freezing assessment" translates into freezing taxes.

These headlines, coupled with the legislative mailings we all receive in our homes, have the potential to confuse and move the public dialogue away from the really important component of the formula - "the total amount of money to be raised with taxes."

John Rossi

Editor's note: The writer is a candidate for Nassau County's 13th Legislative District.

North Merrick

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Schmitts Lawyer Defends Himself Pt. 1

I give Paul Millus a ton of credit for commenting on my post about him yesterday. The problem is that his is a very lawyerly answer. He still does not see that his very squishy answer just keeps proving he is on both sides of the issue but uses clever phrasing to try to get out of it. He begins "Ah,the difference is my overzealous and biased friends, Mr. Mejias is a lawyer. As a lawyer he owes a duty to speak the truth and not to attack other lawyers when his facts and understanding of the law are plainly incorrect. So, (now read carefully) even if Mr. Mejias remarks might not qualify as defamatory under New York Law, a lawyer has an ethical obligation as well to not mistate facts for his own purpose and question a lawyer's integrity if there is no basis to do so."

1. Of course I am biased. Schmitt is a proven liar and it is about time he is made to pay for his lies. Sadly right now, the taxpayers of Nassau County are paying.
2. Schmitt, as an elected official charged with the public trust - and I'll paraphrase Millus here - "owes a duty to speak the truth and not to attack others when his facts and understanding of the facts are plainly incorrect." Heck, Schmitt knew damn well he was lying and he did it anyway. This is a pattern for Schmitt. Two years ago the REPUBLICAN Nassau D.A. rebuked Schmitt's scare tactics about soaring crime rates in Nassau but Schmitt continued and continues to this day to lie. Why is that Mr. Millus? Doesn't Schmitt owe the public the decency to tell the truth?
I'll paraphrase Mr. Millus again "an elected offical has an ethical obligation as well to not mistate facts for his own purpose and question a persons integrity if there is no basis to do so."
I have a basis for questioning Schmitt's integrity and the facts speak for themselves.
The point is that the taxpayers should not have to pay for Schmitts lies.
You should bill Schmitt directly, Mr. Millus. Let him pay for his own defense. Nassau County can't afford Peter Schmitt.
Now let's go further along the course of Mr. Millus' apparent reasoning. The defense of Schmitt is that his lies were said while he was wearing the hat of "Legislator" and not a private citizen. Again to quote Millus from earlier this year "Politicians have to have the flexibility to say things in the public interest." Legislator Mejias is speaking in the public interest when he questions why we the taxpayers are paying for Schmitts lies.
The long and short of it for Mr. Millus seems to be that as a lawyer, Legislator Mejias has to meet a higher standard but Legislator Schmitt sans a Juris Doctorate is in no way ethically or morally compelled not to lie.
I find that to be an interesting distinction.
I would hpe that Mr. Millus expects more from our elected officials.

Mr. Millus continues "For example, did you know that the amount billed to the county thus far has been $160,575? Mr. Mejias did."
Oh, I know that and so does Legislator Mejias.
I am going to assume that you meant to add that you will not be doing the rest of your work for Schmitt's defense pro-bono and that an additional $25,000 is being requested to pay legal fees. To quote Newsday reporter Celeste Hadrick "On Wednesday, Mejias voted against paying Millus up to $185,000, calling it "an outrageous waste of taxpayer money."
The tab most certainly will continue to rise. I ask Mr. Millus if he believes that there is an ethical obligation to not leave out inconvienient information.

I will get to the rest of the rebuttal of my post tomorrow.
To read the entire comment right now by Mr. Millus, please see yesterdays post.
Again I give great credit to Mr. Millus for responding.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Schmitt Lawyer Proves the Case Against Schmitt

Paul Millus is a real character. It is costing Nassau County taxpayers upwards of $180,000 for Millus to defend Schmitt against a slander lawsuit brought by the firm of Crowe-Deegan.
The long and short of it is that Millus is arguing that Schmitt as a legislator is protected and can say whatever he wants and not be sued. Then comes the Newsday story where Dave Mejias says "Paul Millus has milked the taxpayers for nearly $200,000. Now he wants to milk us for more."
Millus responds to my utter delight "If he says I'm acting unethically, I'll take action against him. ... He better watch his step."
Yes dear readers, Millus is threatening to go after Mejias the same way the Plaintiffs Crowe-Deegan are going after Schmitt. Millus will defend Schmitts right to say anything but doesn't think Dave Mejias has a right to question Millus' billing.
This is really very funny. Millus has now taken two sides on this case.. the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
To quote Millus himself "Politicians have to have the flexibility to say things in the public interest."
And he says he'll take action against Mejias.
It's time for Schmitt to take responsibility not only for the words he says but for the bills the County is paying for him.
Nassau County Can't Afford Peter Schmitt.

The Unmitigated Gall of Schmitt and His Crony Ed Ward

You really have to get a roadmap to follow all the players in Nassau County politics. You need the roadmap because the public doesn't know about all the little side roads that are out there. Take for instance the budget for Nassau Community College. The budget is being held up in the legislature because of a proposed $166 increase in tuition. Many NCC students work very hard and $166 might seem like a small sum to many but to students at NCC, that may mean dropping out or putting off taking more classes. I agree that the $166 increase should be eliminated. But how do you do it? Let's hear from Ed Ward, the $80,000/year spokesman for Peter Schmitt who is quoted in Newsday "Ed Ward, spokesman for Minority Leader Peter Schmitt (R-Massapequa), said yesterday that Schmitt wanted to see what the college presents as an alternative budget. Schmitt said he's most concerned about the $166 annual tuition hike."
Funny thing is, Ed Ward is an employee of NCC.. specifically Vice President of Legal Affairs. How much is he making there? Maybe if he quits, the college eliminates his salary and Ward survives on the $80,000 he makes on the taxpayers dime, there won't be a $166 increase. Oh wait, Ward lives off the taxpayers dime no matter what he does.
Let's ask for Ward to resign from NCC so they save his salary and pass that savings on to the students.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

State Chairman Mondello Loses Another One

No, there wasn't a special election you didn't hear about, it was a party switch by Westchester Assemblyman Nick Spano.
Journal News reports "Spano, a member of the Yonkers-based family that was once a symbol of Republican power in the Lower Hudson Valley, announced that he was switching parties and becoming a Democrat because the national Republicans had moved too far to the right.
"The Republican Party, for some reason, has not really embraced moderates like me, and I thought that this was my way of almost protesting, saying it is time to move on," Spano said about his decision.
On issues like health care and abortion rights, the Republican Party has simply moved away from average Americans, Spano said.
Spano's decision to register as a Democrat provided yet another blow to a Republican Party that has seen its influence in Westchester diminish drastically in the past decade. The party has also suffered a string of key election defeats in recent years - including the loss suffered last year by Spano's elder brother, former state Sen. Nicholas Spano of Yonkers."

And what does Chairman Mondello have to say about this switch??
Absolutely nothing.
Mondello is doing for the state party what he did for the county party and bless his little heart, he's doing it at a faster pace.

Monday, July 16, 2007

A Frustrated Resident of South TOBAY

Note: This was sent to the Massapequa Post and forwarded on to us.

Dear Editor:

The Massapequa Post isn't exactly known as a humor publication, but I must compliment you on the very funny joke that is the article on page 1 of your July 4, 2007, issue, which had the headline: "Hearing set on proposed building moratorium for the Massapequas".

Maybe the article wasn't meant to be funny, because it is on a serious topic, specifically concerning the area of Massapequa south of Merrick Road. But it's the funniest thing I've ever read in your newspaper.

Like any good joke, the punch line was saved for the very end. After explaining the public hearing will be held so "residents will be able to have input into the question", with a quote from Oyster Bay Town Supervisor John Venditto that each community in the Town has "specific needs and concerns", the article reveals in the last sentence that this hearing concerning Massapequa will be held at a time and place that could hardly be more inconvenient for most Massapequa residents: at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday, 20 miles away from Massapequa, at Town Hall in Oyster Bay.

It should be obvious to all that if Town officials were really interested in public comment on a Massapequa-only issue, they would hold their hearing in Massapequa, in the evening.

It was just a coincidence, I'm sure, that right next to this article was a photo of Mr. Venditto and other Oyster Bay politicians at an Elks Lodge event in Massapequa. But that was good for a few extra chuckles.

Of course, Post readers see photos of Town officials at Massapequa civic-group events all the time.

But we won't be seeing them in Massapequa for this public hearing.

[Insert your own punch line here about elected officials who spend too much time dashing to and from photo-ops, and not enough time thinking about how to best serve the people who elected them.]

Stanley Newman
Massapequa Park

Friday, July 06, 2007

What's the Difference Between Planning and Zoning?

From our friends at The Community Alliance....

In Hempstead Town, Even The Worst Laid Plans Get Variances

At first blush, it seems like a good idea -- the local Zoning Board also acting as Planning Board. After all, if the plan for development, revitalization, or renewal is sound, why bog down the process with too much bureaucracratic red tape?

The Planning Board draws up the plans, considers the proposals, examines the options, then, in virtually the same breath -- save a pro forma public hearing, or two -- approves the variances, the issuance of permits, and the exceptions to both standards and rule of law (if not reason) necessary to move the project forward.

Government streamlining at its best, yes?

Well, not quite.

First off, in the generally accepted scheme of things, a planning board may not consider or issue variances, hear appeals from the official responsible for zoning administration, or issue interpretations of zoning provisions. In fact, that happens to be the law in most jurisdictions.

There is, after all, an inherent conflict of interest.

It should logically follow, then (as if logic dictates any practice engaged in by local government), that a planning board and a zoning board cannot be the same entity; the same folks being obliged to pass on the legal muster of the plans offered up by that very body politic.

Next, consider that few zoning boards either know or take the time to understand even the basic precepts of planning, and you have bad plans -- or no plans at all -- being ratified by the bad planners who promulgated them.

Add to the mix the inherent politics of cronyism, favoritism, and the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" that is the hallmark of local zoning boards, and you have the recipe for disaster from drawing board to implementation.

The Town of Hempstead is not unique in this regard, where zoning board serves as planning board. [We wonder, do they get two salaries, or double benefits, for sitting as both?]

We simply use Hempstead Town as our illustration because (a) we know it all too well, and (b) it is a prime instance of where the mix of zoning and planning -- or the inherent lack thereof -- clearly does not work. At least it doesn't work in favor of residents who, by default, must endure a paucity in planning, overshadowed only by the laxity in zoning.

For anyone who wonders whether planning and zoning on the same plate -- a broken plate, at that, the set having gone out of production more than a century ago -- is such a bad thing (or half as bad as we make it out to be), we point you in the direction of the nearest unincorporated business district, be that along Hempstead Turnpike, Sunrise Highway, Merrick Road, Dutch Broadway, or a so-called "Main Street" near you.

Indeed, if you reside in an unincorporated area of the Town of Hempstead -- over which the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals has primary jurisdiction for both planning and zoning -- a walk through your local business district will likely demonstrate two truths: (1) That little or no planning -- at least not in the last half of a century -- went into the development of the area; and (2) that zoning, from application through the wholesale carving out of exceptions to the long-established rules, and in enforcement of the code that, in theory, sets the standard, is haphazard, at best, and nonexistentent, at worst. [Maybe not "at worst," on second thought. No zoning at all -- as in "hands off" by the Town -- would, in many instances, have yielded better results.]

And then there's the ever-present issue of who's zoning/planning board is it, anyway, with political appointees (okay, let's call them what they are -- hacks) making the decisions on what gets built (or not) and where.

Face it. There isn't one person in Hempstead Town outside of Town Hall who can say, at least with a straight face, that Katuria D'Amato got her "full-time benefits for part-time work" job on the zoning board because of her all-consuming knowledge of the code or her abiding interest in preserving anything other than the stagnant political atmosphere that pervades America's largest township.

Indeed, it wouldn't be a stretch to venture a decent guess that a D'Amato on the zoning board -- or is it planning board -- favors not the average Joe who owns a cape on a 60' x 100' lot in Elmont, but rather, that well-connected developer, or that former Senator from Island Park who got every varience he -- and his new wife -- needed to build that McMansion on the beach.

Most residents of the Town of Hempstead probably don't know, even now, that the Town's zoning board also serves as its planning board. There's been so little planning of note, after all. Then again, given the "anything goes" zoning in Hempstead Town since Levitt built his homes more than 60 years ago, we think most residents would be surprised to learn that Hempstead Town has a zoning board.

Suffice it to say that one would be hard pressed to find code provisions that haven't been excepted, or stipulations regularly honored in the breach, with the violations overlooked, this by a zoning board of appeals that regulates development in Hempstead Town with the same zeal and aptitude that lumberjacks regulate the preservation of the Brazilian rain forest. Hmmm. Hempstead Town used to have trees, too, didn't it?

To say that the Zoning Board of Appeals of Hempstead Town has done a lousy job of it over the last 50 years would almost be too kind. To place in the hands of this very board the authority to plan for the township's next 50 years is nothing short of absurd.

To mesh planning with zoning may have, as the old adage goes, "seemed like a good idea at the time." Its not. And for places like the Town of Hempstead, it has proven to be disasterous.

Just don't take our word for it. Walk the streets in the business districts of the unincorporated areas of the township, and witness, first hand, the devastating impact of bad planning (or no planning), and zoning that serves the special interests of real estate developers and the politically well-connected, not yours.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Happy Independence Day

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Newsday Editorial on Nassau GOP Gimmicks

Nassau GOP brain-fade

Freezing property assessments a bad way to address future tax increases

July 3, 2007

If it wasn't simply a cynical election-year stunt, a Republican proposal to freeze property assessments in Nassau is stupid public policy. The plan might sound good as a way to ease future tax increases, but it is far more likely to make a relatively small problem worse for a majority of the county's homeowners and its government.

Assessments are the value the county places on a home for property tax purposes. Every homeowner in a particular taxing jurisdiction has the same rate per thousands, and each tax bill varies based on how much the home is worth. So an accurate assessment is crucial to whether an owner pays his or her fair share of the burden.

But for decades, hundreds of thousands of homeowners paid too much or too little in taxes because the county refused to reassess homes to gauge how much they'd risen or fallen in value. This was a willful violation of state law that only stopped when a lawsuit forced a countywide reassessment. Now, the rolls are far more accurate.

Errors in individual assessments continue to crop up, however, and homeowners are miffed about paying some of the nation's highest taxes, accurate values or not. So they continue to file formal challenges in larger than expected numbers. They should, if they believe their assessments are inaccurate.

But freezing assessments for five years, as Minority Leader Peter Schmitt (R-Massapequa) proposed Thursday with non-incumbent challengers in tow, will only lead to a less accurate tax roll. And it will penalize owners of homes that fall in value or rise more slowly than those in neighboring communities: The laggards will be paying proportionately more than they should.

The county should do everything it can to value every home as accurately as possible. Homeowners should not hesitate to challenge assessments higher than they believe their home is worth. And the Republicans should find another issue - an intellectually honest one - in their zeal to win back control of a county that they once brought to the brink of bankruptcy.

Ironically, it was the GOP's gross mishandling of property assessments that did most to build up a sea of red ink. Its officials should know better."

Monday, July 02, 2007

Gas Tax Cap Full of Schmitt.... Again

Schmitt is always full of gimmicks and this time he is rehashing a gimmick he tried last year.... to cap the gas tax at $2.00.
Instead of repeating myself, I'll post what i wrote last year.....
The long and short of it is really that lost revenue from the $1.00 or so that the county makes on each fill-up will create a bad fiscal situation for the county.

What's worse than taxes?
A badly planned psuedo-tax cut.
Pataki and the NYS legislature passed a cap on gas tax which went into effect July 1st. The cap is set at $2.00/gallon.
Now Schmitt and his republican soldiers are proposing the same in Nassau.
"Minority Leader Peter J. Schmitt and members of the Republican Caucus to the Nassau County Legislature have filed a bill which would not only opt Nassau County into the elimination of State tax on gasoline passed over $2.00 a gallon, but also provides for Nassau County to eliminate its tax on gasoline over $2.00 a gallon.
Recent New York State legislation will cap the New York State Sales Tax on gasoline at $2.00 per gallon and Republican Legislators have introduced legislation to also cap County Sales Tax at $2.00 per gallon."

Sounds good right?
"Minority Leader Peter J. Schmitt stated, “We want to be ready to give much needed tax relief on the ever-increasing price of gasoline to our residents.”
“Legislation in Albany will soon be passed and we want Nassau County to be ready to not only join in eliminating the State Sales Tax over $2.00 a gallon but also the County tax on the same amount continued Schmitt.”
The higher price of gasoline has especially burdened Long Islanders who use their cars to commute to work. With the upcoming summer, residents are expected to vacation locally, and while good for the Long Island economy, they will be using their automobiles at a higher rate.
“If the Administrators of Nassau County would stop thinking about taxing our residents and proposing new tolls on our highways, they could begin to attempt to eliminate some of the taxes all our residents pay”, stated Legislator Schmitt."

Wow, a grand burden will be lifted from us taxpayers.
But Wait!
All is NOT what it seems.
While the proposed savings could be up to 8 cents per gallon, reality just happens to get in the way. Gas prices are still going up and the savings are lower than 3 cents per gallon if that at all.
But the the real problem is the cost - the REAL cost - to taxpayers.
It might make a nice sound-bite to motorists who are paying alot at the pump but a few pennies saved won't compare to the loss the state and the county will incur.
On the state level, Nassau is looking for more school aid which would bring down school taxes which are the bulk of our taxes. With this cap, the state will lose $450 million this year.
Wouldn't it be better to apply this $450million to alleviate school or property taxes instead of literally nickel and dimeing taxpayers with such a miniscule "tax cut" that will come to a few dollars over the year?
And where will the state make up this loss?
What gets cut next year and what gets increased?
Now Schmitt and company want to cap the Nassau portion of the tax.
We all know that the county, because of Schmitt and the Gulotta republicans, sank to near bankruptcy. Schmitt says “We want to be ready to give much needed tax relief on the ever-increasing price of gasoline to our residents.”
It's not the taxes but the actual cost of the gas that is hurting consumers. And by capping the Nassau portion of the tax, Schmitt will make the fiscal situation in Nassau worse.
Other counties in NYS are already seeing the problem with the cap "In Albany County, as Comptroller Michael Conners is prudent enough to point out, the loss of revenue is likely to be $2.7 million a year for the county itself, and $1.8 million a year in money the county shares with cities, towns and villages.

In Broome County "when (County Executive) Fiala found out the cap would cost the county about $2.3 million annually with current prices, she modified the proposed gas tax cap to $3 per gallon. That would help taxpayers if costs continue to rise at the pumps, although it currently affects only higher grades of gas.
Any county losses would have been made up by increasing property taxes, Fiala said.
"We didn't want to give with one hand now and take from the other later," she said."

Republican mayor Bloomberg in NYC said the city could lose up to $50million. From the Gothamist "Fifty million dollars a year is probably a thousand cops, close to a thousand cops, close to a thousand teachers," he said. "If we don't have the money, we can't have these things. What do we want to do without?
Reducing taxes when you're trying to end energy dependence on foreign cartels is not exactly a terribly smart policy
The long-term solution in this country, which nobody wants to hear, is to use an awful lot less energy and to get away from fossil fuels, particularly oil, that mostly comes from overseas."

What will Nassau lose?
How much revenue that could go to funding youth programs, hire more police or keep property taxes stable will disappear for a cheap stunt pseudo-tax cut?
Wouldn't it be better to use the gas tax revenue to continue to revive the county?

And wouldn't it have been smarter for our state legislators to properly fund our schools instead of trumpeting a "tax cut" that will hurt us in the long run?

Who's Running Pt.2 : Another Shot in the 10th LD

Democrat Lisanne Altmann is not running for re-election so Harry A Demell who ran in 2005 is gunning for that open seat. Altmann won 71-28 last time around. Demell is an immigration attorney from Great Neck
Back in 2005, Demell ran on eliminating the town governments in Nassau "
He states that "the first area of waste is government spending in the form of township governments." Mr. Demell supports eliminating "town councils, and town leaders."
Demell also ran for congress in 1980 and the State Assembly a few years later.