We all know what happens if you put a cap on a tooth-paste tube which is full of holes: The cap helps somewhat, but toothpaste still leaks or squirts onto the bathroom countertop.

The “property tax cap” just passed by the state Legislature is a good and important step in the right direction. The cap was much needed: New York taxpayers have the highest combined state and local tax burden in the nation. Majority Leader Dean Skelos and fellow Republican state senators worked hard to secure the tax cap’s passage.

However, the Democratic-controlled state Assembly saw to it that much of new law resembles a hole-y toothpaste tube.

Under the new law (bill S-5856-2011), annual property tax increases cannot exceed a cap of 2 percent or the rate of inflation (Consumer Price Index), whichever is lower.

However, there are many ways that local governments and school districts can skirt around the new annual tax cap.

First, slim “super majorities” can defeat the tax cap. School districts may exceed the 2 percent cap if they obtain a “super majority” of 60 percent of a public vote. Sixty percent of the vote is usually easily achievable by school districts, since the vote occurs in May, when much of the public is not paying attention, instead of on Election Day in November.

Other local government units may exceed the cap if 60 percent of the members of the unit’s governing body (such as a board of trustees) pass a resolution approving exceeding the cap. In other words, no public taxpayers vote is required for local governments to exceed the cap.

Second, there are significant “exceptions” and “adjustments” to the property tax cap, for funds needed to support: increases in government pension costs in excess of 2 percent; growth in a town or school district; court judgments arising from tort actions exceeding 5 percent of the prior year’s tax levy; and voter-approved capital expenditures.

Since pensions are one of the largest expenditures of schools and local governments, these exceptions could seriously reduce the effectiveness of the tax cap. The various exceptions to the cap are likely to make the “real” tax cap closer to 3 to 4 percent per year.

Third, tax increases not imposed in one year can be added to the increase in the following year. If a local government or school district is under the cap limit one year, up to 1.5 percent of the previous year’s potential tax increase can be carried over to the next year. In other words, taxpayers could see a 3.5 percent property tax increase the next year, even without super majority approval or the use of any “exceptions” to the cap.

Fourth, the tax cap “sunsets” at the end of 2016 unless rent regulation laws are extended.

Some aspects of the new law are more favorable to taxpayers. For instance, if a school budget is defeated after two presentations to voters (or after one defeat where the school district decides not to resubmit a budget to the voters), then the school district is required to adopt a budget with a tax levy less than or equal to that of the prior year.

Also on the bright side, the new tax cap law includes some mandate relief, expected to save local governments $127 million dollars, which will hopefully help local governments limit tax increases. The new law also establishes a Mandate Relief Council to identify and repeal additional burdensome government mandates.

But, the state Legislature also potentially increased local property tax burdens, by simultaneously passing a bill (S4067A-2011) which allows defined local governments (including school districts) to issue bonds for teacher and other municipal employee pension costs, without first obtaining a vote of the people in the district.

In other words, our (and our children’s) taxes can be raised for years into the future to pay for bonds used to finance current generous government pensions – and taxpayers will not even have an opportunity to vote on these costly bond issues. Moreover, local governments are essentially allowed to “double dip” to cover pension costs – first through the tax cap exception, and a second time by issuing bonds that will burden taxpayers in future years.

According to the 2010 Census data, in Great Neck Village, median (before tax) household income was $78,660, and median selected owner housing costs (including mortgage) were $3,764 per month (or $45,168 annually). When one figures in federal and state income taxes, it’s clear that many people in our community are seriously squeezed financially.

While it appears that the new tax cap law will provide some much-needed relief to New Yorkers, our overburdened taxpayers need a stronger, solid tax cap which cannot be easily circumvented. Meanwhile, we’ll need to vigilantly watch local government and school district attempts to override the tax cap. And we’ll need to make sure that the new Mandate Relief Council actively works to further reduce unnecessary mandates that drive up local government costs and our taxes.

(Author’s Note:  The article was first published in the Great Neck News, New Hyde Park Courier and Williston Times on June 30, 2011.)

North Hempstead Town leaders’ Resolution In Defense of Israel’s Borders aptly noted that Obama’ speech called into question the legitimacy of Israel’s completely lawful present-day borders, and flies in the face of Israel’s historical reality and present-day security needs.  It’s good to see (most) people on both sides of the political fence standing up to Obama. 

Sadly, there is even more to condemn:  Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech demonstrated our president’s longstanding anti-Israel hostility and agenda.  This two-part article explores Obama’s agenda and recent speech in depth.

On May 3, 2011, the Hamas terrorist organization and Fatah (the Palestinian Authority’s governing party) signed a unity pact in Cairo, brokered by the new, Muslim-Brotherhood-influenced Egyptian regime.  Hamas-Fatah unity means that Israel surely has no “peace partner” to negotiate with.  The pact also means that a Palestinian state would surely be a terrorist nation, dedicated to destroying Israel and the West.  Both Fatah and Hamas’s charters call for violent destruction of Israel, and Hamas’s charter Article 7 calls for the murder of every Jew.

Yet, on May 19, 2011, before the ink was dry on the treacherous Hamas-Fatah agreement, President Obama pressed for a “contiguous” Palestinian State; exhorted Israel to retreat to indefensible borders – and to then deal with even further Palestinian demands (including a so-called “right of return”); lied about the reason for Palestinian demands at the United Nations; pledged billions of our tax dollars in loan forgiveness and loan guarantees to the disquieting new Egyptian regime; demanded regime change from friendly allies; and failed to confront America’s and Israel’s enemies.

Unfortunately, Obama’s latest push for concessions that endanger Israel’s existence, immediately after the announcement of Hamas-Fatah unity, did not surprise Obama-watchers.  In May 2008 (before his presidential election), Obama stated in a New York Times interview that Hamas and Hezbollah have legitimate claims. 

During his second day in office (while announcing a pro-Palestinian appointment), Obama stated that the “Arab peace initiative” (also known as the “API” or “Saudi peace initiative”) was “constructive.”  

The Obama administration has consistently supported the API anti-Israel game plan, notwithstanding Obama’s occasional bouts of empty language professing concern for Israel’s security.  In a Charlie Rose interview (on 1/6/10), Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, stated that “full implementation of the Arab peace initiative” is “the objective set forth by the president [Obama] and the Secretary of State.”  

At a March 2009 Brookings Institute diplomatic conference, Mitchell stated that the API will be incorporated into the Obama administration’s Middle East policy and marketed by the U.S. State Department.  The White House press release about Obama’s April 2, 2009 London meeting with Saudi King Abdullah stated: “The President reiterated his appreciation for Saudi Arabia’s leadership in promoting the Arab Peace Initiative.”  During his June 2009 Cairo speech, Obama called the API “an important beginning.”

What is the API?  In a nutshell, Israel gives up everything in exchange for an impossible-to-enforce promise of “normal relations” (not peace or recognition).  The API requires Israel to retreat to indefensible pre-1967-war borders (sound familiar?), resulting in displacement of 600,000 Jews from their homes; grants 4 million Arabs who never lived in Israel “rights of return” to live in Israel and overrun the country (also sound familiar?); insists that Palestinians will not be settled in Arab countries; grants a Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem; and requires Israel to withdraw from the strategically essential Golan Heights, thereby displacing another 30,000 Jews and rendering Israel’s northern border indefensible.  In sum, the API is a plan for Israel’s destruction.

(Another variant is Yasser Arafat’s “plan of phases.”  On September 13, 1993, the very same day that Arafat and Yitzchak Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn to celebrate the Oslo accord – which was supposed to bring Palestinian-Israeli “peace in our time” – Arafat declared in Arabic, in a pre-taped interview on Jordanian television (broadcast into Israel): “Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do it in stages.  We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more.  When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.”)

Obama’s actions have been consistent with his “objective of full implementation of the API.”  During Operation Cast Lead, Obama refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend herself from Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza.  Just days after taking office, Obama issued an Executive Order authorizing payment of $20.3 million for “migration needs” of “Gaza conflict victims.”  (Presidential Determination 2009-15, Jan. 27, 2009)  

He thus declared Palestinians and Hamas the victims, and used our tax dollars to bring Hamas-connected individuals from Gaza to America.  This was followed by Obama pledging $900 million of our tax dollars to Gaza (on 2/23/09); partially lifting sanctions on Syria; sending the Palestinian Authority almost a billion of aid each year; constantly pressuring Israel not to build homes in Jerusalem or the West Bank and to withdraw from the Golan; vowing during his April 2009 speech in Turkey to pursue the goals of a Palestinian state and Syrian-Israeli agreement; refusing to confront Iran’s leadership; refusing to allow a vote on Iranian sanctions for a year; authorizing American training of the Palestinian police force (training which has been used to murder Israelis); exhorting Israel and American Jewish leaders that Israel has not taken real steps for peace and that they should “search their souls about whether Israel is serious about peace,” while refusing to hold the Palestinians accountable for their intransigence and incitement; failing to condemn Muslim slaughters of Christians; blaming Israeli “occupation” for causing Palestinian “suffering” during his 2009 Cairo speech; calling Israeli settlements “illegitimate” during his Cairo and U.N. speeches; and conditioning continuing U.S. support for Israel on Israel’s recognition of supposed legitimate Palestinian claims during Obama’s U.N. speech – to name a few.  

Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech followed the same API game plan.  The speech was even worse than many people realize.  For instance, Obama did much more than simply imply that unsecure pre-1967 lines should be the framework for negotiating future borders.  Obama said that the “United States” believes that the “result” of negotiations should be the (indefensible) 1967 borders with some swaps.  In other words, Obama declared that such borders are U.S. policy – an extreme anti-Israel position.  

“Pre-1967 borders” refers to the 1949 Armistice lines, where the war stopped after six Arab countries invaded Israel and seized existing Jewish homes and synagogues and historic Jewish areas, including land promised to Israel by the Balfour Declaration and San Remo conference.  Obama’s position reverses all prior U.S. policy.  Former President Bush’s 2004 letter to former Israeli prime minister Sharon declared: “[I]t is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”  President Bush’s letter also noted that such a retreat was not feasible due to the presence of “major Israeli population centers” beyond the 1949 lines.

Alarmingly, Obama’s May 19 speech also characterized Israel’s territorial retreat and the establishment of a Palestinian State as a first step, which would not be enough: issues of Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem would still be outstanding and then require resolution.   Obama’s statement gave credibility to Palestinian claims to Jerusalem and a so-called Palestinian “right of return” to overrun all of Israel.   Obama’s proposed phased steps are also reminiscent of the API and Yasser Arafat’s “plan of phases” to destroy Israel.  

(Obama’s Orwellian phrasing of a phases plan was: “Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.  I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain:  the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.  But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair.”) 

It would of course be suicidal for Israel to “move forward now” on giving up more territory, retreating to indefensible borders and permitting a terrorist Palestinian state, and to then have to contend with millions of Palestinians also demanding to move to homes in Israel that they never lived in, thereby destroying Israel.  Obama’s apparent support for such phased concessions and a Palestinian “right of return” reverses prior U.S. policy. 

To be continued next week.

Part II:  “Obama Wrong In Mideast Speech”

This is the second part of a two-part article about Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech: how the speech was even worse than many people realize, and demonstrated Obama’s longstanding anti-Israel agenda and hostility.

Part 1 last week described how Obama long ago revealed his anti-Israel agenda to those who understand “Middle-East-speak,” by repeatedly voicing his support for the so-called “Arab Peace Initiative.” Obama’s Middle East special envoy put it succinctly: “full implementation of the Arab peace initiative” is “the objective set forth by the president [Obama] and the Secretary of State.” (1/6/10 interview)

The aim of the “Arab peace initiative” is not peace; it is the destruction of Israel. The initiative doesn’t even promise peace; in exchange for giving up everything, Israel merely receives an unenforceable promise of “normal relations.” The Arab Peace Initiative calls for Israel’s retreat to indefensible pre-1967 borders (the 1949 Armistice lines where the fighting stopped after six Arab countries invaded Israel, seizing Israeli land); a so-called “right of return” for millions of Arabs who never lived in Israel to go live in Israel and overrun the country; a Palestinian State whose capital is Jerusalem; and evicting hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes, among other things. The API is actually akin to Yasser Arafat’s infamous “plan of phases”: namely, take whatever you can through negotiations, and then go to war to completely wipe out Israel.

I also listed some of Obama’s numerous anti-Israel statements and policies last week. I then began describing how Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech follows his anti-Israel “Arab peace initiative” (“API”) agenda.

Like the API, Obama called for Israel’s retreat to indefensible pre-1967 borders. Obama’s wording also made such a retreat official U.S. policy, which is unprecedented.

Like the API, Obama’s speech called for the establishment of a Palestinian state (just after the Hamas-Fatah unity pact – which makes it certain that any such state will be a terrorist state committed to Israel’s destruction).

Also like the API, even the retreat to indefensible borders and establishment of a Palestinian State was insufficient. Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech also called for Israel to retreat first (to “move forward now on the basis of territory” so that Palestinians would “know the territorial outlines of their state”) and to then face additional Palestinian demands for Jerusalem and a “right of return” to overrun and destroy all of Israel.

Such absurd “it’s never enough” concessions were never American policy in the past. America’s prior policy, outlined in former President Bush’s 2004 letter to former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, was that any establishment of a Palestinian state must be in the context of a “final” agreement, and must settle Palestinian refugees in their own state, not in Israel. In other word, the Palestinians must accept that there is no so-called Palestinian “right of return” that permits them to destroy Israel. (Of course, after the Hamas-Fatah pact, and continued Palestinian incitement and terrorism, further Israeli territorial retreat and a Palestinian state make no sense at all.)

Obama’s May 19 speech also called for a “contiguous” Palestinian state. A “contiguous” Palestinian state would cut Israel into two separate pieces. In other words, Israel – America’s ally – will no longer be “contiguous” in order to make way for a contiguous Hamas-Fatah terrorist state!

In his May 19 speech, Obama also falsely claimed that Palestinians were “pursuing their interests at the United Nations” because of growing “impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one.” Obama’s statement failed to place the blame for the absence of a peace process where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian leadership.

In truth, the Palestinian Authority is seeking a state from the United Nations in order to avoid making peace with Israel. Palestinians admit that U.N. recognition will be a springboard for “lawfare” (war through abusive lawsuits) and “phases plan” actions against Israel. In a May 16, 2011 New York Times Op Ed, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas wrote that U.N. recognition would enable Palestinians to pursue “human rights” claims against Israel in numerous international legal courts, and to continue to pursue “a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194.”

The latter item refers to a Palestinian “right of return” to all of Israel, pursuant to the Palestinian one-sided misinterpretation of U.N. Resolution 194, which, it so happens, every Arab country voted against. (An honest implementation of Resolution 194 would allow Jews to return to the homes Jews had to flee from in East Jerusalem and throughout the Middle East.)

By contrast to UN action, a negotiated peace (which the Palestinians have studiously avoided) would require the Palestinians to finally recognize the Jewish State.

Obama’s statements also ignored the long history of broken Palestinian promises. In five written Palestinian-Israeli agreements, commencing with Oslo I in 1993, Israel made enormous territorial concessions, in exchange for promises that the Palestinian Authority would end violence and incitement against Israel, and turn over terrorists and illegal weapons.

Israel kept its end of the bargain, conveying half the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, while the Palestinian Authority violated every one of its obligations. The Palestinian Authority repaid Israeli generosity by continually inciting terror and deadly intifadas against Israel, which killed and injured thousands of Israeli civilians.

Obama’s pledge in his May 19 speech of $1 billion of loans forgiveness plus $1 billion of loan guarantees to the new Egyptian government was another outrage. In its short existence, the new Egyptian regime has already been punctuated by: wholesale murders of Christian Copts; increased arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza (for use against Israel); the opening of the Egypt-Gaza border; obvious involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood; the brokering of the Hamas-Fatah pact; potential Egyptian president Muhammed el-Baradei’s April 4, 2011 threat to declare war on Israel, and more. Shouldn’t American promises of assistance at the very least be conditioned upon better behavior?

On May 19, Obama also explicitly demanded that leaders of friendly regimes (Yemen and Bahrain) must step down, but failed to insist that the leaders of enemy regimes Syria and Iran must do so. Obama also failed to mention Iran’s mounting nuclear threat or effective counter-measures.

Obama’s horrendous May 19 speech again demonstrated our president’s anti-Israel agenda and lack of regard for other American allies. Hopefully, everyone who cares about Israel and/or America’s relationships with our allies – Republicans and Democrats alike – will remember this when it counts.

(Author’s Note: This article  was first published in the June 17 and June 24, 2011 Great Neck News, New Hyde Park Courier and Williston Times.  You may reprint it if you mention the newspapers where it was first published.  Please also mention my website.  Liz)

Decades ago, as a freshman at Cornell University, I walked into the women’s bathroom late one night and discovered a male student repeatedly throwing up on the floor, after having imbibed what seemed to be gallons of Sangria. He was semi-suicidal.

I wish I could say that I immediately ran for help, but he begged me not to tell anyone, so I did the next best thing: I spent the rest of the night talking to him and looking after him, making sure that he didn’t do anything more harmful to himself. In the morning, he was better. The incident made me into a lifelong teetotaler – I was so horrified and shaken up by the piles of red vomit he emitted throughout that night and the psychological impact that alcohol had on him.

At last week’s Seder, after four cups of grape juice, the discussion turned to an alcohol-related fraternity hazing death at Cornell a few weeks ago. (My sisters are also Cornell alums, and my niece is currently a student there, as are many students from Great Neck and surrounding communities.)

The official version as to what occurred is incomplete, and police and university investigations are ongoing. However, even though all the facts are not yet available, the story deserves our attention, and I felt impelled to write about it. This senseless, heartbreaking tragedy is a stark reminder to every parent to instill in his or her children the dangers of alcohol abuse and hazing, and the need to call for help immediately when in doubt about another student’s physical condition.

Cornell sophomore George Desdunes was just 19 years old. He was an only child and the first person in his family to attend college. His father had recently passed away. Thus, George’s death on Feb. 25 leaves his poor mother completely alone. Mr. Desdunes was black, hailed from Brooklyn, and was acclaimed as a cheerful, friendly, spiritual person.

According to a statement by Cornell Vice President of Student and Academic Services Susan Murphy, Mr. Desdunes was provided alcohol “while in the care of certain members and associate members” of fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon and became incapacitated. Murphy stated, “Even though the members and associate members recognized the condition Desdunes was in, they failed to call for medical care. He subsequently died.”

Unconfirmed rumors (which may or may not be accurate) detail that the following occurred: SAE freshmen pledges were encouraged to kidnap and haze upperclassmen in their fraternity. Six freshman SAE pledges kidnapped Mr. Desdunes and forced or strongly encouraged him to drink significant amounts of alcohol.

According to some, Mr. Desdunes was on medication which did not mix with alcohol; others say that he had no known medical conditions. He passed out on the sofa in SAE’s living room – but no one called for help, perhaps thinking that he would “sleep it off,” as may have occurred previously. In the morning, Mr. Desdunes was found unconscious, and was brought to the hospital and died.

Afterwards, Cornell rescinded SAE’s recognition as a Cornell fraternity (barring SAE for at least five years), placed a moratorium on fraternity parties, and required students living at SAE to find other housing. The six pledges involved in the incident are no longer at Cornell, and may face civil and criminal liability. Their academic plans have been destroyed, and they face a lifetime of guilt. In other words, this turned into a nightmare for everyone.

The George Desdunes tragedy is not an isolated incident. Deaths and injuries from hazing and alcohol abuse at college campuses are a nationwide scourge.

According to StopHazing.org, every year there is at least one hazing death on college campuses. This has continued even though hazing is a crime in most states, including New York. (Hazing also usually violates New York’s drinking age law.)

There is a famous old legal case called Vosburg v. Putney, about an 11-year-old boy who lightly kicked a 14-year-old boy in the knee. Although most children would not have been damaged by such a kick, the 14-year-old had a weak knee – and the light kick caused him to lose the use of his leg. The case is taught to first-year law students to exemplify that for certain wrongs, one “takes his victim as he finds him,” and is responsible for whatever damage results.

The larger message is that people are fragile, and some of us are more susceptible than others.

With alcohol and hazing, it’s too easy to underestimate how someone will react and the harm that can occur. What seems like harmless fun may result in injury, trauma, or death.

Hopefully, the recent tragedy at Cornell will shake all of us up, and remind us to remind our children to act responsibly.

(Author’s Note:  This article was first published in the May 3, 2011 Great Neck News, New Hyde Park Courier and Williston Times.  You may reprint it on your website if you mention the newspapers where it was first published.  Please also mention my website.  Liz)

by Elizabeth (Liz) Berney, Esq.

It’s terrific to see how the Great Neck News has become a debating forum for significant issues facing our community. This paper should be congratulated for giving persons on all sides of these issues an opportunity to speak out!

In the April 8 and 15, 2011 issues of this paper, I wrote about the constitutionality and need for Gov. Cuomo’s proposed property tax cap, which was passed by the Republican-controlled state Senate but has been held up (and not acted upon) in the Democratic-controlled state Assembly. Very briefly, taxpayers need the certainty and affordability of a property tax cap, and the cap would stem the startling flight of homeowners from our state and community. Throughout this past decade, for every two people moving to New York, three leave. Moreover, the state legislature has a constitutional duty to prevent the abuse of taxpayers by local taxing authorities.

Letters on both sides of the fence have appeared in the Great Neck News regarding these articles. On the “con” side of the fence, in the Great Neck News (April 29, 2011), a letter writer expressed his concern that the proposed property tax cap would threaten schools and parks that make Great Neck great. The letter writer stated that he would gladly pay higher taxes to keep these facilities great. The letter-writer’s concerns are deserving of a response.

First, the proposed property tax cap would not decimate budgets for our local facilities, as last week’s letter-writer apparently feared.  In fact, local budgets would likely continue to increase.  There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what the proposed property tax cap entails.  The proposed cap merely limits the rate of increase in local property taxes to 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.  Thus, the property tax cap would merely prevent unnecessarily large increases in local budgets.

Second, local spending is already significant and sufficient to assure Great Neck’s continuing high-quality facilities, especially since budgets may continue to increase modestly under the property tax cap proposal.

For instance, New York State schools spend the most per pupil in the entire nation (See The New York Times, 5/24/07, “The Highest Per Pupil Spending In The U.S.”), and Great Neck is at the top of the spending heap.

Political analyst Adam Shaeffer’s detailed analysis last year of Great Neck’s 2009 school spending (included in his analysis of 18 metro area schools) calculated that, taking into account various capital items, etc., Great Neck schools spend $29,836 per pupil – more than any other community in his study. (Other measurements also peg Great Neck spending at significant per pupil amounts.) It seems unlikely that we would need to increase this ample amount of spending by more than the rate of inflation or 2 percent per year.

Third, the people here are what make Great Neck great – not ever-increasing spending. For instance, Great Neck North High School Principal Bernard Kaplan’s caring and devotion towards every student is what is truly valuable. Seeing Mr. Kaplan outside, warmly greeting students and parents every morning has started the day right for everyone at the school for years. I still recall fondly how, after I learned that my younger daughter was accepted to her first-choice college, Mr. Kaplan ran to my daughter’s gym class to tell her the good news!

Beyond a certain point (which Great Neck has achieved), increasing spending does not equate with increasing educational quality.

Despite the fact that New York State is number one in per pupil spending, the National Assessment of Educational Progress places New York in the middle of the pack for educational achievement (e.g., #21 in reading and #28 in math in 2005). North and South Dakota spend about half of what New York spends, and yet place at or near the top in educational achievement.

In 2010, Newsweek rated Great Neck South High School as No. 75 in the country, and Great Neck North High School as No. 93 in the country (excluding elite private high schools). These are excellent ratings.

However, high schools which spend much less (about half of what Great Neck does) have similarly high or higher rankings than Great Neck.

For instance, the highly ranked Dallas, Texas magnet schools, Evansville, Indiana, and Corbett, Oregon high schools (ranked in the top five), and schools ranked similarly to Great Neck such as Little Rock Central (No. 94) and Booker T. Washington High in Tulsa, Oklahoma (No. 74) each are located in states that spend approximately half per pupil of what New York schools spend. There are schools located in many of the 43 states with existing property tax caps that surpass Great Neck in the school rankings.

Fourth, the most important influence on children’s educational achievement (and general happiness and adjustment to life) is still simply having concerned parents who involve themselves in their children’s education and lives.  My real education came from my parents teaching me algebra and chess at a young age, and discussing history, current events and moral issues at the dinner table in a way that made these topics come alive.  Parents who have to spend every waking minute working to pay their taxes and other bills do not have the time to teach and speak with their children about schoolwork and the myriad of subjects which a parent can convey to make his child truly educated.

Fifth, some optional improvements can be privately financed, with donations from those who can truly afford to contribute more, so that those who are struggling to pay their bills are not further burdened. For instance, last summer, Great Neck News senior editor Karen Rubin and her husband spearheaded a worthy drive for donations to buy trees for Great Neck parks, to replace trees felled by the micro shear/storm. Perhaps last week’s letter-writer – who loves Great Neck’s parks – will consider donating to the Rubins’ tree-purchasing effort.

On community issues, balance is often a virtue.  After over a decade of huge, runaway property tax increases, many families in Great Neck and surrounding communities are struggling to pay their current taxes and other bills, and cannot afford any further tax increases.  On the other hand, there are some people such as last week’s letter-writer who apparently don’t mind if their taxes increase considerably.  The property tax cap proposal strikes a balance, permitting limited property tax increases, keeping us from losing more of the wonderful overburdened families who live in our community, and keeping Great Neck great.

(Author’s Note:  This article was published in the Great Neck News, Williston Times, and New Hyde Park Courier on May 19, 2011.)

by Elizabeth (Liz) Berney, Esq.

The adage “no good deed goes unpunished” has a new victim – Great Neck resident Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, who serves as a member of the board of trustees of the City University of New York. Mr. Wiesenfeld bravely stood up to oppose an outrage about to take place at CUNY’s John Jay School of Criminal Justice – and now Mr. Wiesenfeld is being subjected to a slew of attacks.

For those of you who have not been following this story, here is some background:

If the world’s greatest physicist stated that “it would have been better if blacks never existed,” there isn’t a single university in America that would even consider bestowing an honorary degree on such a hateful, bigoted individual.

Yet, CUNY’s John Jay School is about to award an honorary degree to a mediocre, propagandizing playwright, Tony Kushner, who has made a career out of spewing similar hateful statements at Israel, and who serves on the board of radical leftist organizations such as the so-called “Jewish Voices for Peace,” which promote anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and other campaigns aimed at destroying the State of Israel.

Playwright Kushner called Israel’s founding a “mistake” (Ha’aretz, 4/7/04) and stated “it would have been better if Israel never happened” (NY conference reported in NY Sun (10/14/02).

Kushner also falsely accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and “behaving abominably towards the Palestinian people” (Yale Israel Review, winter 2005), falsely accused the Israel Defense Forces of “brutal and illegal tactics” (London Times, 5/7/02), and blamed Israeli policies for the PLO massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich.

Another Tony Kushner “gem” was: “The biggest supporters of Israel are the most repulsive members of the Jewish community and Israel itself has got this disgraceful record.” (Ton Kushner in Conversation, ed. Robert Vorlicky, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1998, pp. 83-84.)

Kushner also edited a book of essays, “Wrestling With Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” (2003), condemning every aspect of Israeli life and law including Israel’s right to defend herself from attack.

Kushner’s screenplay for the movie “Munich” was atrociously inaccurate.

The film was criticized by Professor Alan Dershowitz, former U.S. Holocaust Museum Director Dr. Walter Reich, CAMERA (the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting), and a slew of others.

Kushner’s “Munich” falsely depicted Israelis as bloodthirsty, money-obsessed, unjustified, sloppy, guilt-ridden avengers, morally equivalent to terrorists.

The film falsely blamed Israel for “dispossession” and “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians, and portrayed Palestinian terrorists sympathetically, as, for example, middle-aged poets, teachers and ordinary family men.

According to former Mossad director Ephraim Halevy, Kushner’s screenplay for the movie “Munich” “had no relation to the truth or the facts.”

Leon Wieseltier wrote that “Munich” equated counter-terrorism with terrorism. (The New Republic, 12/19/05)

Senior editor Gabriel Schoenfeld’s thorough analysis called Kushner’s Munich “pernicious” in its espousal of a “cycle of violence” theory and “the most hypocritical film of the year.” (Commentary, Feb. 2006). Schoenfeld also noted that Avner Kauffman, the real Mossad agent in the counter-terrorism effort, remained a patriotic Israeli afterwards, certain that the counter-terrorism mission was necessary.

In reality, Kauffman and the other Mossad agents felt much like the Navy SEALs who were involved in the bin Laden operation must feel.

Yet, Kushner falsely portrayed Kauffman as guilt-ridden and so disgusted and tormented by the “treatment” of Palestinians that he abandoned Israel. (In Kushner’s world, America’s SEALs should be so tormented and guilt-racked about having killed bin Laden that they will reject America.)

Schoenfeld also explained that the movie never gave any inkling that the PLO’s massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich was preceded by decades of unrelenting Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, abetted by Arab governments – including the PLO bombing of a Swiss Air flight bound for Tel Aviv in 1970 (killing 47 passengers), hijackings and attacks on passengers at European airports, and PLO sub-group PLFP’s attack on passengers at Israel’s Lod airport (killing 26 passengers) five months before Munich.

Instead, Kushner made it seem as if Israel did something horrible prior to Munich which instigated the PLO terrorism there. Nor did the movie reveal that the post-Munich counterterrorism operation was also necessary to prevent future attacks. Instead it portrayed counterterrorism as encouraging future attacks.

As bloggers have noted, Mr. Kushner’s anti-Israel, pro-Arab propagandizing is downright bizarre in light of the fact that Kushner is a self-proclaimed gay Jewish socialist. He would probably be murdered on the spot if he stepped foot into the homophobic Palestinian/Arab territories whom he lauds over the tolerant State of Israel.

To return to our brave fellow Great Neck citizen: Mr. Wiesenfeld (whose parents are Holocaust survivors) was rightly outraged when he learned of plans to confer an honorary degree on anti-Israel propagandist Kushner. At a CUNY Trustees’ meeting on Monday night, May 2, 2011, Mr. Wiesenfeld spoke up about Mr. Kushner’s anti-Israel views and the growing acceptance of anti-Israel views on CUNY campuses and elsewhere. (Hurling false accusations at Israel is the current form of the ages-old scourge of anti-Semitism.)

In the ensuing vote, Mr. Wiesenfeld and four other trustees (Judah Gribetz, Peter S. Pantaleo, Deputy Mayor Carol A. Robles-Roman and Charles A. Shorter) voted against the Kushner nomination, thereby defeating it. (Nine out of the 12 trustees must approve an honorary degree nomination.) The CUNY Trustees also voted overwhelmingly, 10 to 2, to table any further discussion of the Kushner nomination, rather than to take it up again. (NYT, 5/5/11 & 5/6/11)

Unfortunately, the story did not end there, as it should have. Kushner “defended” himself by issuing a statement claiming that he “supports” Israel while reiterating his false anti-Israel views and justifying them on the basis that other Jews (the ill-informed and/or self-hating variety, no doubt) share his “outrage, grief, terror” and “moments of despair” that the “brunt” of the “ongoing horror in the Middle East . . . has been born by the Palestinian people.” (Tell that to the Israeli Fogel family – including the two-month-old baby girl and two little boys who were brutally murdered in their sleep last month by Palestinian terrorists. And tell that to the Chasids returning from praying at Joseph’s tomb two weeks ago, who were gunned down by Palestinian policemen shouting “Allahu Akbar.”)

Kushner also claimed that he is not an extremist, while Jeff Wiesenfeld rightly pointed out that accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” crosses the line and constitutes an extremist blood libel against the Jewish people. Wiesenfeld asked, if Kushner is correct that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing, then why are one million Arabs living in Israel, under better conditions than in Arab countries?

Certain groups insisted that Tony Kushner should still be honored, and that Jeffrey Wiesenfeld should be thrown off the CUNY Board of Trustees! According to the respected New York Academy of Sciences: “A campaign against Wiesenfeld has been launched by the PSC-CUNY faculty union, almost entirely dominated by members of the extreme Left, who have never been shy about their anti-Israeli and anti-meritocratic sentiments.”

A writer for the Guardian (a paper that is always ready to viciously attack Israel) compared Wiesenfeld and the CUNY Trustee’s vote to the McCarthy era. (No one is impinging on Kushner’s first amendment rights; the vote merely reflected the fact that Kushner does not deserve discretionary accolades for his hateful propaganda.)

A one-sided New York Times blog (5/6/11) claimed that the vote stifled “freedom of thought and expression” at CUNY and spoke of Kushner’s supposed “extraordinary talent,” without mentioning any of Kushner’s extreme anti-Israel statements.

Incredibly, pro-Israel former Mayor Ed Koch wrote to CUNY Board Chairman Benno Schmidt, demanding Wiesenfeld’s removal from the board of trustees, and demanding that, despite the vote against him, Kushner should receive the honorary degree. Koch stated that Kushner’s personal views should have nothing to do with honoring him, and asked, “What does Kushner receiving an award have to do with criticism of the State of Israel?” (Id.) Similarly, chairman Schmidt publicly stated that political views were irrelevant to the granting of an award.

Really? Hateful views don’t matter? Would CUNY ever confer an honor on David Duke, even if Duke invented a cure for AIDs? And, here, Kushner is being honored for the same written work which espouses and is permeated by his false and hateful views!

Shamefully, as of the writing of this article, it appears that the Chairman of the CUNY Board of Trustees will capitulate to Koch’s misguided letter and the leftists’ campaign. Chairman Schmidt scheduled a meeting of the seven-member trustees’ executive committee (which he is believed to control) for Monday evening May 9, to apparently overrule the full board vote and to grant Kushner the award.

I hope our community will support Mr. Wiesenfeld for standing up for what is right.

Feel free to write to The New York Times, or to CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein (535 East 80th Street, New York, NY 10075) or Inside Higher Education (on the web) or any other appropriate publication. If a college trustee such as Great Neck’s Jeff Wiesenfeld is removed from his post for refusing to honor an anti-Semite, we are all in trouble.

(Author’s Note:  Sadly, Kushner was given the underserved honorary degree.  On the bright side, a local Great Neck Democratic leader, Steve Markowitz, wrote that he supported my above article, despite our political differences on other issues.  This article was first published in the Great Neck News, New Hyde Park Courier and Williston Times on May 13, 2011.  You may reprint it on your website if you mention the newspapers where it was first published.  Please also mention my website.  Liz)