The Government Law Project at Albany Law School under the leadership of Dean Patricia Salkin has launched a new blog on government reform at http://governmentreform.wordpress.com/.

Readers will find more information than opinion on this blog, but as in the case of many public policy issues these days, more information on this topic is sorely needed.

Posts in recent days have reported on Governor Cuomo’s state of the state, on reform efforts in Indiana and Ohio, on the benefits of going “paperless,” and on public-private partnerships. The latter topic is particularly significant given Gov. Cuomo’s plan to utilize such partnerships to finance major projects in New York.

Rich Karlgaard, publisher of Forbes Magazine and self-appointed technology guru, argues in a Wall Street Journal op ed piece that the staid business environment of Rochester contributed to Kodak’s ill-fated decision to stick with film instead of pushing heavily into digitial cameras.

“Kodak’s other structural problem is geography,” Karlgaard writes. “When you study the history of great American companies that stumbled and failed, or only partially recovered, you see how difficult it is to overcome the mindset of your immediate surroundings. Businesses located in places where success is the norm, and innovation is built into the ecology, have a better chance of fixing themselves.”

What do you think? Is Karlgaard onto something or is he blaming the victim?

If the “99%” can feel justified in taking property away from the “1%” on the grounds of fairness, then why can’t workers take a bigger share of a company’s revenue on the same basis? That’s the logic behind a campaign launched by CWA 1199 against Cablevision. Why do Cablevision’s employees need a union according to 1199? Because a former company COO earned more than twice as much as his employees.

Fairness as a determinant of a person’s pay level is also behind the drive to raise New York State’s minimum wage and behind living wage legislation on the agenda in New York City and elsewhere.

The fairness doctrine is predicated on the notion that one’s pay should be more a matter of want than one’s contribution to the enterprise in which one is employed.

Hence, performance as a basis for rewards of pay and status should be downgraded because that criteria undermines the opportunity for those who do not perform well to get their fair share.

Further the ability of the enterprise to pay — whether public or private — should not be considered when it comes to compensation of the work force. Such considerations undermine the ability of those who are unproducitve to gain their fair share.

Let’s be clear that fairness is a subjective value. In the past fairness was balanced against the need of the enterprise to be successful and survive (either make a profit or do the job with available resources). Today, there’s an underlying assumption that no company or government entity is paying its workers a fair wage. Rather, they are hoarding their resources and giving them to the 1%.

A company that pays its workers above the value of the contribution they add to the product or service will not long remain in business. The history of the American car industry is about that very issue. By giving in to union wage and benefit demands, GM, Ford and Chrysler had to charge so much for their cars that they opened the door to foreign manufacturers which were able to sell a superior product at a lower price even when the cost of shipping foreign made cars to the US was taken into account.

The history of the public sector over the past 40 years parallels that of the automobilie industry. Elected officials gave in to union demands without consideration of the ability of taxpayers to foot the bill, often by ignoring the future pension obligations they were agreeing to. That lack of political courage has harmed both public sector employees and the general public, as it contributed to the belief that public sector employees are overpaid and underworked relative to private sector workers.

Let’s not waste our time debating whether fairness as a basis of compensation is socialistic or communistic. Labels are not important. What’s important is to recognize the long-term implications of undermining ambition and achievement.

Taken to its logical conclusion doing well in school and working hard in order to obtain a job that gives one decision-making authority and pays well should be discouraged. Why? Those values place the successful individual above the norm and undermine the ability of those who are below average to get their fair share.

Like pay, school grades should not be given out on the basis of performance but rather on the basis of want. Minority and handicapped students have a greater want of good grades since many come from low-income households and enter school with “unfair” disadvantages. Since they will not need to learn skills or work-world values in order to get a fair wage why require that they master subjects or compete with other students!

Grades, jobs and compensation should not be based on merit or performance but rather want — the measure of fairness.

Since the majority in any country skew to the average, the tendency of democractic societies is to elect officials who are in favor of policies that focus on results rather than contribution, on rewards rather than worth, on outcomes rather than effort.

The question we must ask ourselves is will that kind of society be able to compete against those that reward success based on enterprise, competition and equal opportunity and that provide a model for young people justifying effort and ambition? We only need to read the daily accounts of the problems facing Europe to gain a hint of the answer.

If that’s where this country is headed, is such an outcome the kind of fairness we owe future generations?

Thank you to Russell Sykes for pointing out that Sheldon Silver, the majority leader of the NYS Assembly, made a meaningless promise to people living in povery on Wednesday during his remarks prior to Governor Cuomo’s state of the state.

Sykes wrote on behalf of the Empire Center for NYS Policy:

In addition to seeking a higher minimum wage, Speaker Sheldon Silver announced this week that the Assembly will seek to reduce state taxes on the working poor. Specifically, Silver said:

Under our plan, working families who earn less than $30,000 annually will see their income taxes cut. Working families who earn less that $25,000 will pay no taxes at all.

But this is a solution to a non-existent problem. The working families described by Silver already pay no income tax, thanks to New York’s exceptionally (and appropriately) generous Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). As documented in a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a family of three pays no income tax until its income exceeds $34,600, and a two-parent family of four pays none until income exceeds $40,300.

At a poverty level income of $17,374, a single parent of two children gets a refund of $1,917 due to the EITC. At a minimum wage annual income of $15,080, a two-parent family of four gets a refund of $2,109 – in effect raising its annual income to $17,189.

Because it’s only January, Andrew Cuomo could enjoy, while writing his State of the State message, the luxury of ignoring the fact that it’s an election year. As we move closer to November, however, the ambitious agenda he proposed in yesterday’s State of the State will begin to come up against political realities. The major political issue facing the Legislature is redistricting, the outcome of which will determine whether the Republican Party retains its majority in the State Senate. If the Senate Republicans feel their toehold on political relevance is threatened, their willingness to go along with the governor’s program will diminish; yet who can blame the Democrats for wanting to draw district lines that would give them control over both Legislative bodies?

For the most part the Republicans should be happy with the Governor’s agenda. He says he will balance the budget without increasing taxes or imposing new fees; he wants to reduce the state’s pension obligations by creating a Tier 6 for future state employees; he wants to do something about the unfunded mandates that are crushing localities; he wants to put money into the state’s transportation infrastructure, which is particularly important to the business community; and he wants to make New York more competitive to boost job growth.

In fact, Cuomo may have more trouble with the Assembly than the Senate over such questions as imposing teacher evaluations on public schools, amending the Constitution to allow casino gambling and Tier 6. Knowing that his agenda is to the Assembly’s right, he threw the Assembly several bones in his State of the State, including foreclosure relief, protection for renters and doubling the goal of state contracts awarded to women and minority contractors.

Some commentators see Cuomo positioning himself for a future bid for the Presidency. He certainly infused his speech with campaign-style rhetoric, claiming he and the Legislature restored New York’s reputation as “the progressive capital of the nation.” 2011 did represent a change in direction for New York, but it was one that was forced on the state, not one the Legislature in particular wanted to embrace.

As the nation’s economy continues to teeter on the edge of another recession, depending in large part on what happens in Europe, New York again has little choice in continuing on the path of reducing the cost of government without undercutting essential governmental programs or raising taxes. To that end the governor is placing a huge bet on the idea of public-private partnerships–the idea that public investment can leverage private capital. The billion dollar leveraging projects he announced Wednesday include building the country’s largest convention center on the site of the Aqueduct Race Track, the rehabilitation of the Javits Center into a Battery-Park style complex, transportation infrastructure upgrades, an energy highway and $1 billion to help Buffalo reduce its 28% poverty rate.

Whether these public-private partnerships succeed in leveraging the kind of private investment Cuomo envisions only time will tell, but the concept is worth trying. It’s certainly an approach that makes much more sense than the Obama administration’s approach to economic development of investing public funds in companies (like Solyndra) that it wants to succeed in the market place.

The people of New York State owe a big thank you to Manhattan Media for continuing to promote the kind of journalism that is needed to protect the public from the politicians. Their combined publication City & State continues to provide the kind of investigative reporting that is essential in a democracy where the average citizen doesn’t have the time (or the skills frankly) to see through the curtain of rhetoric our political system engenders.

Take today’s story by Chris Bragg — Martin Golden’s Member Items Help Group That Helps Him. Bragg exposes how member items are used by elected officials like Martin Golden (D-Brooklyn) to help themselves in the name of helping their communities. Read the article to learn exactly how Golden runs this scam.

Whether technically legal or not, it is the self-serving use of taxpayer funds like this that is behind the anger voters feel towards elected officials. Whether they express their anger by joining the tea party movement or sleeping in a tent in some public park, they are right to be angry.

Thank you Manhattan Media. We look forward to more stories like this in the future.

The Empire Page conducted a poll on the question of whether to continue an expensive government program that obtains ballistic identification information on every handgun sold in NYS. 95% of the respondents said ‘No. Shut it down’ while only 1% voted to keep it going no matter the cost.

The key selling point for shutting down the program is that in its 11-year history it has not led to a single arrest or conviction, which was the original justification for the law. That does not mean, however, that there are not plenty of handgun crimes committed in NYS. Earlier this month a NYC police officer was shot and killed by a fugitive with an illegal gun. Apparently the vast majority of the guns used in crimes in New York are both illegal and brought to New York from other states.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau argues that Congress is not doing enough to end the flood of illegal guns into New York.

Morganthau states that by failing to appoint a permanent director of the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Congress has undermined that agency’s commitment to stopping the illegal gun traffic. His evidence is a roughly 30 percent decline in federal prosecutions over the period that ATF has lacked a permanent director.

Morganthau states that the “gun lobby” is responsible for the holdup, due to pressure on Congress.

So, here’s a question: If the NRA and other organizations that seek to protect the rights of Americans under the 2nd Amendment to own firearms want government to stop harassing legal gun owners, don’t they have an obligation to support government’s efforts to prosecute those involved in the trafficking of illegal guns? On what grounds can they justify lobbying against the appointment of a permanent director of the ATF without being hypocritical?

In an editorial today, the WSJ makes the same point I made a week ago. Under the title of “Ron Paul Nader?” they state that Paul “owes the GOP voters a straight answer on a third-party run.”

–

And, the Journal finally made the obvious point on the payroll tax imbroglio, that the problem largely derives from the lack of courage on the part of the GOP members of Congress. Instead of being trapped by President Obama into opposing a “tax cut,” the GOP has been afraid to remind the American public that the 2 percent reduction in their payroll taxes was passed as a temporary one-year measure and that the country has to borrow money from the Chinese and others to pay for it.

The question they should be putting to the public is do you want the temporary cut continued if it means your grandchildren will have to pay for it plus interest down the road?

NYS has spent more than $40 million according to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association to collect identifying data from the shell casings of all new handguns sold in the state. The rationale for CoBIS (Combined Ballistic Identification System) was that by tracking shell markings police agencies would be able to solve more crimes and put more bad guys and gals behind bars. The folks at NYSRPA claim the expenditure has not resulted in a single arrest, much less a conviction for a crime. If this is not true, I hope some responsible person will contact us. NYSRPA argues in tough fiscal times NYS cannot afford to continue the program. Should the program be kept going or should we shell (I mean shelf) it? Vote now on the Empire Page’s poll question of the week.

I’m a registered Independent for mutliple reasons–the primary one being that as the pubisher and editor of the non-partisan Empire Page website I don’t want to engage in partisan activities of any kind. As an independent I feel free to praise or criticize leaders of any political organization.

My focus today is on the blackmail position of Republican hopeful Ron Paul. His refusal to this point to agree NOT to run as an independent should send a clear signal to Republican primary voters that he is the last person they should consider as their nominee.

Blackmail is a threat that compells someone to do something they don’t want to do. In this case unless the Republicans nominate him Paul is threatening to sabatoge the Republican Party by running as on the Libertarian line.

Whether you like his politics or not I don’t see how any registered Republican could vote for him in a primary under those circumstances.

It’s fine that Paul is a fervent advocate for his libertarian point of view, but to place himself above the political party of which he is a member to me disqualifies him as a candidate for the office of the president.

Governor Cuomo and the leaders of the NYS Assembly and NYS Senate announced a tax and spend deal yesterday which cuts taxes for “moderate” income New Yorkers while raising the rate for high income earners. They also agreed to spend $1 billion on public works projects and move towards a constitutional amendment to allow casinos on non-Indian lands.

Read the details on the Empire Page, then vote on our poll question of the week.

Read NYS Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s op ed on tax reform in the guest editorial section of the Empire Page.

When Ron Paul described foreign aid as taxing the poor in the U.S. to give to the rich in poor countries, he repeated a slogan that appeals to many Americans who have forgotten why their relatives came to the U.S. His comments came in response to a question specifically about funding PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, created by George W. Bush in 2003 with help in the U.S. Senate from Rick Santorum.

It costs the U.S. taxpayers about $6.1 billion annually to support PEPFAR and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Rather than enrich the wealthy in poor countries those programs fund about 400 AIDS prevention and treatment programs in 100 countries which serve approximately 6.6 million people. How effective are those programs? A recent study showed they reduce the chance of transmitting the virus by 96 percent.

Unfortunately, the global economic crisis and ideologues like Ron Paul threaten these programs. Italy and Spain have failed to make their pledged contributions in recent years and the U.S. share may also be cut depending on how the political battles play out in the coming months.

Without question some U.S. foreign aid has been misspent. However, to tar all programs with the same brush shows is an example of the kind of thinking that would be extremely dangerous in a President. Ideologues on the Left and the Right can’t be bothered understanding the world they live in. They don’t want to know the facts on the ground. If things don’t go the way their theories suggest, they either tell you to wait a while or their theory wasn’t applied properly.

For another analysis of Ron Paul’s answers in Tuesday’s debate read James Taranto’s Nov. 23 column in the Wall Street Journal.

In the second debate of GOP nominee hopefuls held in Washington, D.C. last night (Tuesday, November 22), we saw the difference in the approach to important topics between the ideologues and the pragmatists. Starting in six weeks Republican primary voters will decide which is the right approach to put before the electorate next November.

The first question where this difference was made clear concerned foreign aid.

Ron Paul’s response was to kill it. The Libertarian ideology says we’re taxing poor people in the U.S. to give money to rich people in poor countries. That sound bite appeals to a certain part of the population without regard to facts or reality.

Rick Santorum, former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, represented the pragmatist on this issue. As a Senator he helped draft legislation for a program that attacked the spread of AIDS and malaria in Africa.

On the question of immigration Newt Gingrich and to some extent Rick Perry represented the pragmatists while Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney spoke for the ideologues. Her sound bite was “magnet”. Programs such as in-state tuition for illegal immigrants are magnets attracing more illegal immigrants and therefore are wrong in her opinion. Mitt Romney picked up on that phrase. But Gingirch, the pragmatist, is concerned about the 10-12 million illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S. Do we break apart families sending back to their countries men who are employed, pay taxes, are married and have children?

There’s a different between an ideologue and someone who approaches policy from a principled position. Ironically Wolf Blitzer, the moderator, spoke to that difference when he quoted Ronald Reagan as saying if you can get 75-80% of what you want in negotations you take that and work on the rest of your agenda later rather than get nothing.

There’s also the matter of having a moral conscience. If you have the cure for a disease for a unemployed individual next door or thousands living in a poor country in Africa, do you let your ideology stand in the way of providing aid? If your ideology says the appropriate punishment for someone who came to the U.S. illegally is the export him, do you do so even if that means his wife and children become homeless?

The pragmatist finds a way to make foreign aid work for its intended targets rather than enrich the powerful. The pragmatist finds a way to cut the number of illegals entering the country so that morally humane policies for those who are here can exist.

Ideologues are also pessimists. They don’t believe that government can successfully address any issue except defense. Certainly some programs fail while others have unintended negative consequences and need to be reformed or killed. However, to write off everything other than defense and turn our backs on the rest of the world, is a difficult position to defend both on moral and pragmatic grounds. Reducing AIDS in Africa gives people in that part of the world the opportunity to become trade partners for the U.S. and African prosperity becomes a barrier to terrorists and other anti-US ideologies.

Time will tell which approach the GOP voters prefer and whether the American people see the Republican candidate as a better steward of our nation’s future than the man currently sitting in the White House.

Want to learn more about microfinancing? (See my blog post How to Grow the Economy: A Blueprint for NYS and the World.)

Check out today’s Business section of the Washington Post. A full page (G4) is devoted to the concept (Online link), including a brief interview with Premal Shah, founder of Kiva.

A secondary feature of microfinancing businesses in the U.S. is the phenomenon called “crowd funding.” Crowd funding takes advantage of the Internet to allow private businesses to raise capital through sales of shares to online purchasers. Legislation is being considered that would enable that a method of raising money to become more widespread. One proposal is to annow companies to sell a maximum of $2 million in equity with minimum investments of $10,000 for qualified investors.

Congress should take steps to clear the way for crowd funding with minimally invasive protections for potential investors. The benefits to small businesses seeking to grow in an environment where the traditional means of raising capital are not accessible is enormous in terms of potential for growing the economy and boosting employment.

They could call the new legislation the Stimulus That Costs The Taxpayer Zero law.