An Unlikely Combo: Politicians, Charity & You

Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Trib Publisher chatting in the Trib office.

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

This column is usually about politics.

In the past, I’ve deviated to comment on journalism; the first amendment, or the process of covering the news stirs me to act. I’ve occasionally shared personal reflections and family milestones. But for the most part, I don’t stray too far afield.

So when Tribuneeditor Brian Rafferty strongly suggested to me on Friday afternoon as I was getting ready to leave the office: “Mike, for our ‘Not-For-Profit’ glossy issue, I assume you’re writing about ‘Giving,’” I was taken aback.

Giving? Not an alien concept to me, but what the heck made me an expert on the subject – or even an informed commentator?

But if Brian thought this issue needed some additional words or thought on the subject, I’d try to do my part.

My approach was reflexive and thus politically oriented.

Two of today’s political giants are super-significant players in the world of philanthropy. And both have recently made headlines concerning “Giving” – the subject of this special issue.

Earlier this month, Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s office released his list of charitable donations made in 2006. Wow!

With a major focus on medical research, public health and the arts, Bloomberg gave away $165.3 million last year – an increase of some $22 million over the year before. His generosity has accelerated greatly each year since becoming Mayor.

In an in interview with this writer a few years ago, Bloomberg, one of the nation’s richest people, told me that he has no political aspirations beyond Mayor and plans on running a foundation when his term is up at the end of 2009. He has said that he plans to give away most of his fortune.

Mike Bloomberg, like several of today’s financial phenoms – most notably Bill Gates and Warren Buffet – is dedicating much of his fortune to improving the lot of mankind. After impacting society and acquiring a fortune, some of today’s most exceptional view “giving” as the way they can truly make a difference.

Mike Bloomberg does on a grand scale, what each of us can do in our small way, closer to home.

Next stop, Barnes and Noble to pick up the current best seller by the granddaddy of today’s political icons: Bill Clinton.

“Giving – How Each Of Us Can Change The World,” was written by the former President to inspire people to realize that they each have the power to participate in changing the world. Clinton clearly hopes to motivate a wave of volunteer activism and charitable giving. He provides stories of true charity in an effort to convince Americans at all income levels that happiness and fulfillment can be achieved by giving.

 

The current best seller by Bill Clinton, “Giving - How Each Of Us Can Change The World.”

Citing the universality of the obligation to give preached by religions (tzedakuh in Judaism, zakat in Islam, tithing in Christianity, etc), Clinton closes his book with a final chapter: “How Much Should You Give and Why?”

Clinton’s response to the question is in the book’s final paragraph. He writes: “I think you know the answer. There’s a whole world out there that needs you, down the street or across the ocean. Give.”

As the holiday season approaches, Brian and his staff have prepared this Tribune special guide to Queens Not-For Profits to offer borough residents some direction in choosing to give to one of the many worthwhile organizations that can be found along the streets of Queens.

If Clinton is right, we are moving from an era of greed and moral stagnation into a rebirth of idealism and generosity.

Make the trip – it feels good.

MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com

 

______________________________________________________________________

New Yorkers Like Spitzer, 2-1; Want His Testimony, 3-1

GOP Retains Special CounselTo Aid with Public Hearings

By HENRY STERN

A majority of New Yorkers have a favorable opinion of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, but they believe he should be more forthright about Troopergate, and should publicly testify under oath and tell everything he knows about the issue, according to a Siena Poll.

The poll by the Siena Research Institute, affiliated with Siena College in Loudonville, N.Y., was conducted by telephone calls to 604 registered New York State voters throughout the state, including 291 Democrats and 156 Republicans.  Its margin of error ranges from 4 to 7.8 percent.

In an opinion column in The Daily News, Michael Goodwin writes: “He tried bravado, he tried apologies and he tried silence.  Sooner or later, Eliot Spitzer is going to have to try the truth.

“That’s the loud-and-clear message from the latest voter survey on what New Yorkers think about the dirty tricks plot cooked up in Gov. Spitzer’s office.  His plans A, B and C about how to fudge and duck the Eliot Mess didn’t work.  Big doubt about Spitzer’s honesty are sticking in voters’ throats, and they won’t go away until he raises his right hand and swears to tell the whole truth.”

The Post ran a full column edit: ELIOT’S TRUST DEFICIT. It begins: Gov. Spitzer’s stonewalling of multiple probes of his office’s dirty-tricks campaign doesn’t seem to be doing him much good with voters.  Almost 60 percent still think he hasn’t been fully honest about the affair and that he “needs to be more forthright,” a recent poll shows.  Even more remarkable is that 70 percent of New Yorkers think he should testify publicly - under oath - as to what he knew about the dirty-tricks campaign.”

New Yorkers do not, however, believe that dirty tricks, whatever they may have been, are the most important issue facing the state.  Only 12 percent of the public told the Siena poll that the investigation should come before other state business.

So the results are a kind of standoff, 70 percent believe the Governor should testify under oath; his favorable rating is still better than 2-1, 56-26, a mere 12 percent think the affair is the most important issue for the state, and he beats his potential rival in 2010, Andrew Cuomo, by a 47-24 margin, almost 2-1.

We should make it clear that Cuomo has done nothing to indicate he will run for governor in 2010, and that these polls are taken without regard to the intentions of the people whose popularity they measure. No one can keep his name out of a poll, even if its result is to make him appear to be competing in a race he may, or may not enter.  That is the way polls and politics work.

  If the polls, however, would show Cuomo to be leading Spitzer in 2010, it would be difficult for the Attorney General not to make the race. And he cannot be accused of overweening ambition, all he aspires to is his father’s old job, while before this year, Spitzer was thought of as potential Presidential timber.

The prospects for partisan confrontation escalated last week with the Senate Republicans’ appointment of Joseph E. diGenova as their special counsel, escalating the political battle between Spitzer and the Senate Majority Leader, Joseph L. Bruno.

To conclude this installment of what appears to be turning into a soap opera, the governor’s poll figures are holding up relatively well, the great majority feel that he should testify on the matter, but that Troopergate, as it is sometimes called, is by no means the most important issue facing the state.

The trouble with the  governor’s testimony is that he may already have said, under oath or to the public, something that requires, as Senator Hillary Clinton said with regard to General Petraeus’ testimony Sept. 11, “a willing suspension of disbelief.”  That crafted phrase recalls the eloquence of her distinguished predecessor in the Senate seat she now occupies, Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Always tell the truth when you can.”

Addendum: When you can’t, keep your mouth shut.

StarQuest@NYCivic.org