.

EGO	Let the Record Show...	HYPOCRISY
	ARROGANCE

      SAVE OUR SALOONS - BAN BLOOMBERG

 
 
 

It will be proven that what does die are the bars and restaurants.  Some will close, many will lose money and the employees he presumes to "protect" will be without the jobs that give them the revered title "employee."

Sean Delonas
 

2...4...6...8...What can  exaggerate!?!
 

American Council on Science & Health - Dec. 12, 2002 - Mayor Bloomberg Exaggerates Secondhand Smoke Risk

"Who exactly are these 1,000 New Yorkers whose deaths Mayor Bloomberg claims will be prevented by his legislation?

"If, as we suspect, he is referring to deaths caused by exposure to secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars, the estimate of 1,000 deaths prevented is patently absurd...  There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant."

As reported by the NY Post, Nov. 4, 2003, Bloomberg says in the December issue of Vanity Fair:

Bloomberg also compares the number of deaths caused by secondhand smoke to the number of people killed in the World Trade Center collapse.

Doubling his previous estimates, the mayor says that 2,000 New Yorkers die each year from secondhand smoke.

"Think about all the press attention to 9/11," he says. "That number of people die every year in the city from secondhand smoke.

"Or think about all the press focus on anthrax," he continues. "Six months. Headline stories. Every radio station. Every television station. Every periodical. Every newspaper. Anthrax, anthrax, anthrax.

"There were seven deaths."

To which the NY Post responds in an editorial:

Is Mayor Mike the only one who doesn't think all of this is getting pretty ridiculous?

Apparently so - after all, he's still making offensive and insulting moral equations between the alleged victims of second-hand smoke and the people who were killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Which, apart from its appalling insensitivity, is utter nonsense factually.
 

Being a politician isn't easy at the best of times. But it is even tougher when the politician is achingly stupid.

Bloomberg -- who would appear to be a candidate for examination by the master for lunacy -- went on to brag that his management style was the opposite of ... Giuliani's: "He made all the decisions ... particularly when it came to police and fire. Rudy wanted to be the police commissioner. Rudy wanted to be the fire commissioner. He rushed to fires. My attitude is, my job is to pick people and let them do it." Common sense would suggest that if you recognize that you are not up to taking over the management of the best-run big city in the world, you wouldn't brag about your lack of energy, focus, interest, knowledge, commitment and general capacity.

But the insatiable Bloomberg had yet more appetite for self-destructive accusations. Firmly in the saddle of his favorite hobbyhorse -- anti-smoking -- he compared the alleged number of deaths from secondhand smoke that he implied Giuliani condoned by inaction (which His Brilliance Mayor Bloomberg has saved by banning smoking in his city establishments) to the number of New Yorkers killed on September 11. This is deranged in so many different ways. First, comparing himself in any way to Giuliani's magnificent, heroic, humane and wise performance in the aftermath of September 11 is violently unuseful to Bloomberg. Equating the consciously evil slaughter of thousands of souls to the perhaps transitory consequences of industrial modern life is morally disproportionate. (In fact, his claims of deaths from secondhand smoke are based on disreputable junk science.) Implying equivalence between Giuliani's alleged inaction and the terrorists' mass murder is one of the most savage (and unjustifiable) acts of political rhetoric in living memory.

NY Post, April 22, 2004
City Puffed With Pride Over Cig-Patch Smoking 'Cure'
 

One in three New Yorkers who received nicotine patches from the city were still not smoking after six months, officials said yesterday - raising eyebrows with a figure that's double the norm.

Previous studies have shown success rates half of what the city had.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1999 found 16.4 percent of smokers who used the patch stopped smoking over roughly the same time period.

A similar 2003 American Cancer Society study shows a 17.7 percent quit rate among smokers who used the skin device.

"From general real-world experience, this doesn't happen that often," said Joel Spitzer, a Chicago-based smoking prevention and cessation consultant.

"Even the patch companies don't report those sort of results."

[NYC C.L.A.S.H. Note: They called SOME participants (out of a total of near 35,000) and asked if they had lit up IN THE PAST SEVEN DAYS.  Of those "some," 33% REPORTED "no" (to the people who they got free stuff from. Do they show their gratitude by telling them their gift was a dud?).  Apply the magic of extrapolation to the unknown number of people they DIDN'T SPEAK TO and the "some" that they did (33% of 35,000) and voila!.....  you get the "over 11,000" that the other articles report DOH Commish Frieden says quit.
 
 

NY Times, May 12, 2004:
A City of Quitters? In Strict New York, 11% Fewer Smokers
 

In the wake of huge tobacco tax increases and a ban on smoking in bars, the number of adult smokers in New York City fell 11 percent from 2002 to 2003, one of the steepest short-term declines ever measured, according to surveys commissioned by the city.

NY Daily News, May 13, 2004
Tax, ban slash city smoking - poll
 

But some experts were skeptical of the survey's methods.

"I would not put too much credence in these new studies," said Robert Levy, a smoking policy expert at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank.

The Health Department's survey was based on two polls of random groups of people, taken one year apart. The more accurate way to gauge the impact of policy on smoking patterns, Levy said, would have been to select a group of smokers and follow their habits over time.

NY Post, June 28, 2004
Stadium would clear gridiron gridlock: city
 

Move the Jets to Manhattan and watch traffic practically disappear.

That's the word from city planners who predict that a mere eight cars with fans would cross the Triborough Bridge on game day if the Jets moved -- down from 2,634 cars that now cross the span to games in New Jersey.

The city based its projections on a survey of 600 Jets season-ticket holders, which found that 68 percent of fans said they'd take mass transit, including ferries, to get to games on the West Side.

But the survey's findings left some transit experts flabbergasted.

"Those figures are unmatched anywhere in the country, and they are unmatched at any other stadium in the city," said Jon Orcutt of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

Orcutt called the projections "overly optimistic" and vastly different from transit use and traffic at similar downtown stadiums across the nation.

 
As reported by the NY Post's Page Six on Dec. 26, 2002:

SMOKERS at the Snafu bar/lounge on East 47th Street breaking into applause when a man walked in wearing a T-shirt that proclaimed:
"Mike Bloomberg for Ex-Mayor"

(If anyone knows who that rabble rouser is, please let us know.  We'd like to give him credit.)

Hey Mike, Gregg Easterbrook of the NY Times says: "...in outdoor use, chemical agents are lethal only for a few moments, because the wind quickly dilutes them."  How you can be rational and realistic in one respect but completely hysterical in another, both concerning "exposures," shows your true biased morality at play.  We're waiting to hear about your plans to ban smoking outdoors.  We know it's coming.
 
 
 

EGO

ARROGANCE

HYPOCRISY

 

HI

ONER

LET THE RECORD SHOW...
 
 

HE SAYS:	Newsday column by Dennis Duggan repeats a quote by Bloomberg said sometime the week of Dec. 23rd: "I'd like to say to the terrorists, 'Stick it.  You can't beat us.'"
WE COUNTER:	The emphasis in that sentence should be on "You."  The terrorists certainly did fail to beat us down.  It took Mayor Bloomberg to finally kill the spirit of NYC when they couldn't.  Take a bow, Michael.
HE SAYS:	As reported in Business Week on April 23, 2001 "The Bloomberg Machine" in discussing his possible run for mayor: Bloomberg pretty much created the business in his own image. Some 7,200 employees around the world toil in a demanding, frenetic environment where loyalty is prized (he never rehires employees), titles are nonexistent (not to mention offices), and bravado is encouraged.  Bloomberg is very much his own man: He pilots a helicopter and, with no shareholders to cross him, says pretty much what he pleases. Which makes it all the harder to imagine Bloomberg as a public servant. Unless, that is, you subscribe to the theory that Bloomberg is having a post-midlife crisis of sorts. "An oversized ego got him into this business, and an oversized ego is luring him out of it," says one money manager. The man who unabashedly used to call himself a mogul now wants to be known as a man of the people. Bloomberg isn't one of those quiet do-gooders, though. "I'd love to run a public-health organization, or the World Bank," he declares. "Wouldn't it be great to say you saved more lives than anybody in the history of the world?"
WE COUNTER:	Evidence that he has always had an omnipotent complex. He hasn't yet run a public-health organization. Instead, he's using his newly attained political powers to impose his god-like ambitions on the people of New York City.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - December 27, 2002:  Dumb & Dumber Mayor Bloomberg last night abruptly fired the head of the city's customer-service office - after The Post alerted City Hall that the official had called New Yorkers and city workers "dumb," "whining" and "stupid." Bloomberg's aides were appalled last night after learning about the official's remarks.  "The sentiments expressed on the Web site fly in the face of the citizen-service mentality the mayor seeks to establish in city government, and are downright offensive," said Bloomberg's press secretary, Ed Skyler.
WE COUNTER:	And this is different... how? NY Newsday - August 13, 2002:  Not Just Blowing Smoke: Bloomberg presses his case for broad anti-tobacco law Unveiling a sweeping anti-tobacco bill, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called smokers "stupid." ---- Los Angeles Times - October 28, 2002:  Smoking-ban debate flares in NY "You've got to be stupid, really dumb to smoke," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ---- NY Daily News - February 16, 2002:  NYPD Urged Not to Cop a Smoke "I think anybody that smokes is crazy." ---- NY Post - August 14, 2002:  BLOOMBERG'S SMOKING COMMENTS DEEMED 'UNKIND' In his crusade to ban smoking in bars and restuarants, Mayor Bloomberg called smokers "stupid."  That did not sit particularly well with experts.  Dr. Lynn Clemow, a psychologist who heads the smoking-cessation program at Mount Sinai Hospital said, "Calling them 'stupid' is unkind." How about "offensive?"
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - December 18, 2002:  Mike gets an F: News poll gives him low marks for year 1 An overnight poll conducted on The News' Web site gave Bloomberg a big fat F. By 7 p.m., 50% of the respondents gave the mayor an F, while only 8% gave him an A. The sentiment was the same on the streets yesterday, where thumbs-down far outnumbered thumbs-up. "He [stinks]!" declared Barry Hanks, 45, a security officer who lives in Brooklyn. "The first thing I noticed, after he took office, is the homeless people started invading the subways again. He raised cigarette taxes, which put a terrible burden on me. He is banning cigarette smoking in bars. I don't like the way he handled the transit strike. I think he was very crass and rude." Emily St. Germaine, 22, tech support from lower Manhattan heatedly stated, "I'm really angry about the whole smoking law.  I tell you, it probably pisses me off more than anything else right now.  ...Bloomberg is actually going to kill the night life -- he's going to kill all the businesses in the city." Ed Skyler, Bloomberg's press secretary, refused to respond to The News' E-poll, saying he doesn't "comment on Bigfoot ... the tooth fairy or other fictions."
WE COUNTER:	If you want to tell the man who has taken up residence in his own fantasy land that you who live in the real world think he better believe he deserves an "F" you can call his Action line, write or fax: Mayor's Action Center 51 Chambers Street, Room 510, New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-9600 (phone) or (212) 788-7599 (fax) A call is more effective, but if you want to email, a letter can be sent via: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/mail/html/mayor.html
HE SAYS:	NY Newsday - December 30, 2002:  Mayor Signs Smoking Ban Into Law "This law does not legislate morality. This law does not take away anyone's rights," Bloomberg said at a City Hall bill-signing ceremony, according to a news release issued by his office.
WE COUNTER:	Oh no?  Then what's this? NY Times - December 31, 2002:  Mayor Signs Law to Ban Smoking Soon at Most Bars Mayor Bloomberg called the smoking ban one of the most important things he has done in his life, saying that it would save "literally tens of thousands of lives." That number can only mean people who SMOKE Colin McCord, an assistant commissioner of the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said the law would help fight what he called an "epidemic." SMOKING is what they have called an "epidemic."  "It is the most important epidemic of our time," he said. "Each year the Health Department signs death certificates of 10,000 New Yorkers who died because of a tobacco-related cause; 1,000 of these people died because of exposure to secondhand smoke." It's obvious that Bloomberg and his clan have indeed taken it upon themselves to legislate their own warped idea of "morality."  Their hypocritical words speak for themselves.
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - January 4, 2003:  End crazy suits, Mike says "Everybody thinks that if it's the city's money, it's nobody's money," he [Bloomberg] said. "I'm telling you, if it's the city's money, it's everybody's money."
WE COUNTER:	NY Daily News - October 2, 2002:  Mike's anti-smoking push ads up to 1.1M  Mayor Bloomberg's Health Department has burned through $1.1 million on ads outlining the ill effects of secondhand smoke as he pushes a bill to ban smoking in city bars and restaurants.  Asked about the ad campaign yesterday, Bloomberg said, "If you mean saving people's lives, that is the Health Department's purpose. That's why they're there."  Not everyone agrees.  "It's an outrage," said Brian Rohan of the United Restaurant & Liquor Dealers Association. "Our small businesses are the ones that are paying the taxes in this city, and now Mayor Bloomberg is using those taxes against us." If it's everybody's money then where was the equal air time for people who opposed Bloomberg's legislation, paid for with everybody's money?
HE SAYS:	NY Post - January 4, 2003:  MAYOR'S $OUNDING LIKE CABLE APOLOGIST Mayor Bloomberg yesterday defended soaring cable TV rates, telling New Yorkers that if they don't like it, they should try reading a book. Bloomberg had a suggestion for anyone unhappy with the latest rate hikes: "You can read a book. You don't have to watch television."  Bloomberg said the government shouldn't regulate the industry.  "If it's something the public absolutely has to have, then the government has a right and a responsibility to protect the public," the mayor said.  "If it's not something the public has to have, I don't think the government should get involved."
WE COUNTER:	"Choice" is only viable when Bloomberg says so.  You are free to choose to read a book if you find paying more than you can afford to watch cable is personally offensive, but you are not free to choose a different job if you find your surroundings personally offensive. According to Bloomberg what you CHOOSE to do (meaning you do have CHOICES) is none of his mayoral business. In his words, "Don't like it?  Do something else."  Funny how the same logic doesn't apply to employment.  A job in a bar is not something someone HAS TO have.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - January 4, 2003:  MAKE ALL ILLEGALS CITIZENS: MIKE  "There are things the city has to provide and because they don't have papers and they're here illegally, they don't interact with city government and you do want them to interact with city government," the mayor said on his weekly radio show. "Let's tighten the borders. Make everybody that's here already a citizen - whether it's fair or not. Just solve the problem."
WE COUNTER:	Whether it's fair or not??  It certainly does seem that the problem Bloomberg is referrring to would be "solved" in his own interests and not that of our nation's. Bloomberg says it himself.  He doesn't care about being fair.  He only cares about Bloomberg.
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - January 20, 2003:  City may order McD's to go from hospitals Mayor Bloomberg's planned campaign to reduce obesity in children could mean that the McDonald's franchises in three municipal hospitals could get the boot when leases are up. "To tell you the truth, if it were up to me, I wouldn't have necessarily contracted with fast foods," said Dr. Benjamin Chu, president of the city's Health and Hospitals Corp. Although McDonald's menu includes salads, grilled chicken and diet drinks, Chu acknowledged that customers prefer the fattier burgers and French fries.
WE COUNTER:	You can order a salad or you can order grilled chicken.  No one is stopping anyone from making that personal choice.  But if YOU DECIDE you want a Big Mac instead, well then, you're too stupid and Bloomberg and his appointed health nazis are going to make the "right" choice for you by ordering the business out of your reach. So really, daddy Bloomberg IS stopping adults from making a personal choice (in the name of the children -- always a red flag).
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - March 1, 2003:  Mayor sez parades not his line It's not Mayor Bloomberg's job to tell the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day Parade whom to invite, he said yesterday - likening the event to an exclusive dinner party. "If I were running a parade, I'd run it differently," he said."But you know, [if] you're invited to somebody's house, you don't walk in and tell them how to decorate, or what to serve or what the conversations should be."
WE COUNTER:	Bloomberg likens an outdoor parade to private property where the host should have final say over how it's to be "run."  Bars?  Restaurants?  Private Clubs?  SANCTIMONIOUS HYPOCRITE
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - March 2, 2003:  Mike defends 26G raise for top aide He's worth it. That was Mayor Bloomberg's defense yesterday of the $26,000 raise he gave his top deputy - as city labor leaders blasted the generous pay hike. When pressed how he could justify the pay hike, he said: "I justify it because I made the decision.  What other questions do you have?"
WE COUNTER:	Ohhhh, because HE [read dictator]SAYS SO
HE SAYS:	NY Post - March 12, 2003:  MAYOR RIPS GOV'S MEDICAID PLAN  Surrounded by 21 county executives from around the state, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday described the state's Medicaid funding formula as "taxation without representation." "They represent 10 percent of our budget, but we have zero percent influence on them," the mayor said of state-mandated Medicaid services. "Whatever happened to taxation and representation being tied together?"
WE COUNTER:	Smokers represent 25% of the city but Bloomberg can turn a deaf ear to our concerns.  If 10% is a big deal to him, what is 25% with no influence?  Taxation without representation doesn't apply to everything EXCEPT adults who choose to use a legal product. If he can dish it he should take it just to serve him right.
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - May 9, 2003:  Trash plan raises a stink  Councilman Michael McMahon (D-S.I.), who chairs the Sanitation Committee, told the Daily News: "The outer boroughs are getting dumped on. You'll see an increase in illegal dumping. You'll see an increase in garbage piling up on the streets." Mayor Bloomberg tried to quell interborough sniping. "This is a city of 8 million people that work together," he said. "And people who constantly try to divide the city are going to be sadly mistaken."
WE COUNTER:	Like people who try to pit smoker against nonsmoker, Mr. Mayor?
HE SAYS:	"I have always thought that people should be allowed to go about their business themselves." -- Mayor Bloomberg, urging the Republican National Committee to drop its opposition to homosexual marriages (as printed in the NY Post's editorial - July 3, 2003)
WE COUNTER:	Or as the same NY Post editorial counters....  But, 'Put Out That Cigarette!!!'
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - August 6, 2003:  No parking in park, cops told After the Sept. 11 terror attacks, police set up barriers and a security checkpoint on Park Row to thwart a feared car bomb attack on 1 Police Plaza.  But people in Chinatown complained, saying the street had been taken over without discussion. Mayor Bloomberg said the city would try to strike a balance. "I'm a big believer that if you... take away people's personal rights in the interest of security, the terrorists win without firing a shot," he said.
WE COUNTER:	We've said it before... The terrorists killed our own and destroyed a special piece of our city but they couldn't kill our spirit.  Osama Bin Bloomberg took care of the latter himself with his tali-ban.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - August 27, 2003:  MIKE: CASINOS WORTH A GAMBLE  Keep the money here. Mayor Bloomberg suggested yesterday that he'd like to see legalized gambling in the city, considering casinos already are in nearby states and on upstate Indian reservations. "If everybody is going next door across a border, spending their money there, why not keep the money here?" Bloomberg asked on his weekly radio show.
WE COUNTER:	But sending the smokers across the river to spend their money on dining and drinking there or to Indian reservations or other states to avoid paying ANY cigarette tax to New York State and City doesn't hold the same logic for this genious.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - October 28, 2003:  MIKE FIGHTS CANADA RX IMPORT BAN Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday he is pressing the Food and Drug Administration to allow New Yorkers to buy prescription drugs from Canada.  "I've always been in favor of allowing the free markets to work," Bloomberg said. "If the Canadians can produce drugs that the FDA says are effective and safe and well-labeled, then I would like to see New Yorkers being able to benefit."  Bloomberg is adding his name to a petition being circulated by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich urging the FDA to allow Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada.  There are several businesses across the state that help seniors and others buy prescription drugs from Canada at lower prices - sometimes as much as 40 to 60 percent cheaper than in the United States.  But the FDA and the Justice Department are trying to shut them down. The FDA has sent warning letters reminding companies it is illegal to import drugs into the United States.
WE COUNTER:	Let's see if we have this straight...  Bloomberg believes New Yorkers should be able to buy a product somewhere else because it's cheaper and doesn't like the fact that it's illegal to do so right now. But he raises the "price" of a pack of cigarettes, fully expecting New Yorkers to pay his price, and when they won't he sues the retailers that supply it to us at a cheaper price. It doesn't matter what the reasons are behind either.  Both are legal products and the people involved with each look to save money on the purchase whether it's cost or tax.   Another inconsistency, this time in Bloomberg's alleged support of "free markets."   Yeah, when HE says so.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - December 13, 2003:  MIKE AND GIFFIE GET HUFFY IN ELEX-$$ WAR  The war of words between Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Gifford Miller over the campaign-finance system exploded yesterday, with both men using strong language about one another and the plan itself. The mayor not only ripped the way the proposed changes - including a doubling of public-matching funds - came to be, he laid into the campaign-finance system as a whole.  "People give money to a candidate and they come before that candidate and ask them for a vote. It is so outrageous. It is so corrupt. It is just rife with conflicts," the mayor fumed on his weekly radio show.
WE COUNTER:	Oh. My. G*d.  May we remind you of the following? (also posted towards the top of this page): Billions And Ballots Brooklyn Skyline - February 17, 2003 According to Councilman Allan Jennings, the billionaire mayor promised to pump money into the campaigns of any council member who voted for the 18.5 percent property tax hike.  In an open letter voicing his complaints to the mayor, Jennings said that was “close to a bribe” and definitely “improper.” The letter also says that Mayor Michael Bloomberg threatened to fund million dollar campaigns against councilmen who did not vote in favor of his smoking legislation. 'Nuff said.
HE SAYS:	NY Times - January 18, 2004: Mayor and Editor, Fussing Over Fuming ...They were, in Mr. Carter's [editor of Vanity Fair Mag] estimation, friends. But that was before Mr. Bloomberg imposed an almost total ban on indoor smoking in public places in New York City, infuriating Mr. Carter, who enjoyed lighting up in restaurants, bars and, according to three summonses he has received from city inspectors, his office at the sleek West 42nd Street headquarters of Condé Nast. Mr. Carter has called the enforcement of the new law harassment, among other things. "It is an important issue," said Mr. Carter. "It is about freedom and your own civil liberties, and it is about the city.  Over the last six months, Vanity Fair has been ripping into Mr. Bloomberg on almost a monthly basis, vexing the mayor's staff and angering Mr. Bloomberg at times, too. In September, the magazine ran a lengthy profile of Mr. Bloomberg that was far from flattering, referring to him as "waiflike." Mr. Carter has also devoted no fewer than three editor's letters to criticizing the mayor. In the latest, in the February issue of the magazine, Mr. Carter says the mayor is "like a husband who returns home after the honeymoon and announces to his new bride that he has decided that henceforth they will be vegans." For that same issue now on newsstands, Mr. Carter commissioned an article by Christopher Hitchens in which Mr. Hitchens chronicled his minor crime spree throughout the city — feeding pigeons, smoking in a luxury car — painting Mr. Bloomberg's New York as something just short of a police state. But Bloomberg administration officials say Mr. Carter has crossed a line. "It certainly raises the question of whether it is ethical journalism for an editor to use his magazine to push his agenda," said Edward Skyler, the mayor's press secretary, who last week accused Mr. Carter of ordering up a series of hatchet jobs on his boss.
WE COUNTER:	Our letter to the NY Times editor: How insulting or hypocritical can Mayor Bloomberg and his press secretary, Ed Skyler, get?  In response to the recent article by Christopher Hitchens and the accompanying editor's letter by Graydon Carter in Vanity Fair denouncing the mayor for his smoking ban, Skyler states that Mr. Carter has crossed the line.  He has the audacity to question Mr. Carter's use of his own privately owned magazine, asking "whether it is ethical journalism for an editor to use his magazine to push his agenda." I suppose it wasn't unethical for the mayor to run for office without ever once mentioning that he'd use his new found power to push his own personal opinion down everyone's throat.  The mayor certainly has a hard time discerning the difference between public and private affairs. Vanity Fair is a private business that is free to speak for itself whereas the Mayor of NYC is a public servant who is supposed to speak for the people, not himself.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - June 4, 2004:  Mike in 'partner' law flip Mayor Bloomberg yesterday vetoed a bill that would have forced businesses that have contracts with the city to offer domestic-partner benefits.  "When companies choose to forgo dealing with the city based upon our efforts to dictate their employment policies all New Yorkers also lose," Bloomberg said in his veto message.  "Not only because we still do not succeed at achieving the social-policy change we seek, but also because competition for the city's business is reduced."
WE COUNTER:	But dictating employment policies to bar owners is okay, right?.  His philosophy need not apply to them. ONLY when it suits his ends.  Indeed, some bar owners in NYC have lost so much that they have relocated to other states to open new bars, "forgoing dealing with the city."  Bloomberg's selective dictating has caused many bars to lose money, many employees to lose their jobs, and the citizens of NYC to lose their freedom of choice -- the most offensive loss there can be.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - June 29, 2004:  Pols trump Mike on gay bill (follow-up to immediately above) The City Council yesterday voted to override Mayor Bloomberg's veto of a bill forcing contractors doing business with the city to offer domestic-partner benefits -- but the mayor said the courts would have the last word. The mayor has said he doesn't believe the city's contracting process should be used to effect social change. "We will probably go to court," Bloomberg said.  "We can't tell another company what's in their best interest.  They've  got to decide for themselves."
WE COUNTER:	But he's damn sure that smoking bans are in the best interest of bars -- that their businesses will flourish -- and he'll make damn sure of that for the owners by deciding FOR them.  Funny isn't it how he's depending on the court to back him up in objecting to the city telling other companies what's "in their best interest" but when bar owners go to court over the exact same thing he considers it grasping at straws.
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - September 28, 2004:  Mike: If tix too pricey, stay HoMA Mayor Bloomberg had little sympathy yesterday for New Yorkers who find the new $20 admission to the Museum of Modern Art a bit steep.  "Some things people can afford, some things people can't," said Bloomberg, whose estimated personal fortune is $4.9 billion.  "MoMA is a private institution. It's not a city institution. And they have a right to set their own pricing policies."  Over the past five years, the city funneled $65 million in taxpayer money to help fund MoMA's expansion.  Despite the taxpayers' contribution, Bloomberg - who was in last week's Forbes 400 list of richest Americans - said the city should not be involved in "pressuring" private groups about fees. Besides, he said, there are plenty to choose from. "If you can't afford [admissions] at any one, you can go to another one," he said.
WE COUNTER:	Ohhh, a PRIVATE institution, is it?  And private places can set their own policies, can they? Choice yet too!  What a novel idea!  If you don't like it or can't afford it, tough.  You're not entiiiiiiitled to have access to a private place.  Isn't that what he just said?  Hard to tell because he says that people who don't like smoke can tell everyone else to stop it because they shouldn't have to stay home because of it.  We can even get into the fact that MoMA is partly public since it's been partly funded by taxpayer dollars.  Yet he still calls it private and says that's reason enough to stay out of their business.  But not those pesky blue collar bar and restaurant owners.  No, he has no problem holding his thumb over them. This is deja vu.  Seems awfully reminiscent of Bloomberg's opinion on cable rate hikes when he said if you can't afford it, read a book. (See item dated January 4, 2003)
HE SAYS:	NY Post - January 21, 2005:  Mike Wants All Bets Off in Budget Bloomberg said yesterday he's not enthusiastic about Gov. Pataki's proposal to build five video lottery casinos in the city to help raise millions of dollars for schools. "From a philosophical point of view, gambling tends to be regressive, and I don't know that that's the best way to balance the budget," [Bloomberg] added.
WE COUNTER:	Oh, but when it's cigarettes those values are of no concern of his... First, let's look at how Bloomberg and his mouthpieces want smokers (but not gamblers) to balance his budget: Commissioner Stark said, "People who conspire to cheat the City out of its due must be held accountable, because these taxes fund critical services on which we all rely." http://www.nyc.gov/html/law/pressreleases/pr011703.pdf "The law says you've got to pay your taxes," Mr. Bloomberg said about the city's efforts to collect from smokers. "You pay your taxes; I pay mine. Most people do, and the handful of people that don't are just stealing from the rest of us." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/nyregion/15tax.html (let's not overlook the fact that the "handful of people" he refers to were singled out by him in the first place to pay a tax so high on a product they use that no other consumer would stand for on any other product) Then let's review what the experts say about trying to balance budgets through cigarette taxes: "...these taxes are terribly regressive. Not only are the poor more likely to smoke, but they spend a far greater percentage of their income on tobacco when they do." ~...Cigarette Tax Hike Opens Door to Real Vice "Because smokers are mostly low-income people, the cigarette tax is the most regressive tax..." ~Proposed Cigarette Tax Hike... Hitting Mainly Poor Smokers "...cigarette taxes are an ineffective deterrent to smoking, inherently unfair, regressive, and a further burden on an already overtaxed citizenry." ~Taxpayer Group...Warning Against Regressive Tax Increase "Cigarette taxes are regressive. Families in the bottom 20 percent of income earners spend 4 percent of their after-tax income on tobacco, compared to 1/2 of 1 percent by families in the top 20 percent bracket. The late Professor Harvey Brazer of the University of Michigan put it this way: 'From the standpoint of equity, few existing taxes can be held to be more reprehensible than the cigarette tax. . . .Tax-bearing cigarette smokers typically do not smoke less when rates go up; they and their families consume less of other things.'" ~The Hazards of Cigarette Taxes "I document the history of the term regressive tax, show that traditional definitions have always found cigarette taxes to be regressive..." ~Poor smokers, poor quitters, and cigarette tax regressivity. (Am J Public Health. 2004 Feb;94(2):225-9) "Taken as a proportion of relative incomes, the regressive nature of increases in cigarette taxation is even more pronounced." ~Are increases in cigarette taxation regressive? (Health Econ. 1992 Dec;1(4):245-53.)  Get the point?
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - February 19, 2005:  Bid for 'real' film times bombs with Bloomberg With the City Council mulling a bill that would force theaters to print when movies actually begin - rather than when ads and previews begin - Bloomberg suggested yesterday there may be a better way.  "If people don't like the [ads], why don't they just say to theater owners, 'I am not coming back to this theater until you get rid of it,'" Bloomberg said on his weekly WABC-AM show.  "Then the theater owner has got to decide - do they want fewer people coming, or less advertising revenue," he added. "Let the marketplace settle it."
WE COUNTER:	Just like all those bar owners whose customers were clamoring for no smoking like Mayor Bloomberg says they were, right?  Must have really hurt the owners financially, right?  That's why they all chose to go non-smoking, right?  Oh, no, wait, I'm sorry.... Bloomberg settled it for them by decree, not the marketplace. Oh, and after he did and the owners complain to this day that less people are coming in because of it does he allow them to "get rid of it?"  Nope. He tells them they're making it up and to "get over it."
HE SAYS:	NY Post - July 26, 2005:  Clothes Tax to be Slashed Just in Time for Elections Mayor Bloomberg joined Gov. Pataki yesterday at a bill signing that will allow the city to lower the tax on clothing sales under $110 from 8.375 percent to 4.375 percent on Sept. 1. "This is the most regressive of all our taxes," the mayor said yesterday. ...pointing out that the city will soon have the lowest clothing tax in the state, the mayor urged residents of Westchester, Long Island and neighboring counties to "consider doing their shopping in New York City."
WE COUNTER:	I see.  Paying 4 percent more for clothing is "most regressive" but a 1,775 percent increase on another product isn't even a consideration for top honors? We don't mind repeating what we've detailed before: "...these taxes are terribly regressive. Not only are the poor more likely to smoke, but they spend a far greater percentage of their income on tobacco when they do." ~...Cigarette Tax Hike Opens Door to Real Vice "Because smokers are mostly low-income people, the cigarette tax is the most regressive tax..." ~Proposed Cigarette Tax Hike... Hitting Mainly Poor Smokers "...cigarette taxes are an ineffective deterrent to smoking, inherently unfair, regressive, and a further burden on an already overtaxed citizenry." ~Taxpayer Group...Warning Against Regressive Tax Increase "Cigarette taxes are regressive. Families in the bottom 20 percent of income earners spend 4 percent of their after-tax income on tobacco, compared to 1/2 of 1 percent by families in the top 20 percent bracket. The late Professor Harvey Brazer of the University of Michigan put it this way: 'From the standpoint of equity, few existing taxes can be held to be more reprehensible than the cigarette tax. . . .Tax-bearing cigarette smokers typically do not smoke less when rates go up; they and their families consume less of other things.'" ~The Hazards of Cigarette Taxes "I document the history of the term regressive tax, show that traditional definitions have always found cigarette taxes to be regressive..." ~Poor smokers, poor quitters, and cigarette tax regressivity. (Am J Public Health. 2004 Feb;94(2):225-9) "Taken as a proportion of relative incomes, the regressive nature of increases in cigarette taxation is even more pronounced." ~Are increases in cigarette taxation regressive? (Health Econ. 1992 Dec;1(4):245-53.) And get this!  While Bloomberg directs his NYC Dept. of Finance to run after smokers for back taxes they "cheated" the city out of because they didn't want to pay the high city tax and found cheaper cigarettes elsewhere, he's proposing that others cheat their own counties out of their taxes!  They're supposed to report out of county purchases TOO, you know.  He implies that he doesn't expect them to do any such thing.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - August 26, 2005:  Freddy Rips Pol Pal for 'Jewish' Remark Mayor Bloomberg and Fernando Ferrer yesterday called Bronx Democratic Party Boss Jose Rivera "divisive," "disgraceful" and "unacceptable" for saying that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver did a favor for another Jewish lawmaker because "blood tak[es] care of blood." Mayor Bloomberg -- while saying he, too, had accepted Rivera's apology -- called the offensive words "disgraceful."  "There is no room for anti-Semetic remarks or any kind of anti-anybody remarks," the mayor said.  "This is a city that gets along -- where everybody gets along -- in a way that we didn't before.  It's a city of tolerance."
WE COUNTER:	We agree that anti-semetic remarks have no place in this city.  We agree there is no room for anti-anybody remarks in this city.  But once again, Bloomberg obviously does not consider adults who choose to smoke "anybody."  Let's remind you one more time about his intolerant anti-somebody remarks that helped to create a class of people that others are encouraged to be intolerant of: NY Newsday - August 13, 2002:  Not Just Blowing Smoke: Bloomberg presses his case for broad anti-tobacco law Unveiling a sweeping anti-tobacco bill, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called smokers "stupid." ---- Los Angeles Times - October 28, 2002:  Smoking-ban debate flares in NY "You've got to be stupid, really dumb to smoke," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ---- NY Daily News - February 16, 2002:  NYPD Urged Not to Cop a Smoke "I think anybody that smokes is crazy." ---- NY Post - August 14, 2002:  BLOOMBERG'S SMOKING COMMENTS DEEMED 'UNKIND' In his crusade to ban smoking in bars and restuarants, Mayor Bloomberg called smokers "stupid."  That did not sit particularly well with experts.  Dr. Lynn Clemow, a psychologist who heads the smoking-cessation program at Mount Sinai Hospital said, "Calling them 'stupid' is unkind." How about "intolerant" and "anti-somebody"??
HE SAYS:	NY Daily News - September 17, 2005: Mike Vetoes Measure[s...] Bloomberg also nixed a bill requiring a new safety certification process for more than 2,000 sidewalk stands used to hawk fruits, vegetables, flowers or ice cream. He said the bill mandates unnecessary inspections even when no one has complained.
WE COUNTER:	No bar employer or employee in NYC ever complained about smoking in their places.  It was the professional outside agitators, anti-smoking group leaders from NY, and one or two bar owners out of thousands that agreed to be their puppets that ever demanded a complete ban to smoking inside.  Oh, and King Bloomberg and his unelected nanny Tom Frieden (Health Commissioner).  So now half a million dollars a year are spent on inspectors to conduct inspections even when no one has complained -- except the dictator.
HE SAYS:	NY Post - Page Six - May 2, 2007:  Cheers, Mike! MAYOR Bloomberg is no fan of trans-fats and cigarettes, but he has nothing against booze. "I don't understand why, when they take your picture, you put your glass down," Hizzoner told guests at Lincoln Center's "Goodnight Alice" gala the other night. "What's wrong with drinking?"
WE COUNTER:	Testifying for the smoking ban before the City Council on October 10, 2002, Bloomberg said, "If I owned a bar I would love to have this legislation passed because I would be making money based on how much alcohol is consumed, and if people are not smoking they will probably be drinking more."  Apparently an ardent champion for drinking but foe of smoking.  No consistency.  Following in the footsteps of Anti-Smoking who accuses anyone that objects to smoking bans of being "shills for Big Tobacco" we're tempted to ask if Bloomberg is a front for Big Alcohol?  Or ask how much stock in that industry does he own?  Or how much has that industry contributed to campaigns? Meanwhile the Motion Picture Association of America just caved to Big Anti-Smoker and agreed to consider giving R ratings to films with smoking scenes.  What Big Anti-Smoker hopes is that rather than lose PG-generating revenue they'll just cut smokers out of the film.  A billion bucks that Bloomberg won't be wondering "I don't understand why, when they take your picture, you put your cigarette down."