Empire Page - Improving New York

Interview with Brian McMahon, Exec. Dir., NYS Economic Development Council

2010-03-01T17:14:00Z

Background: To get us out of the current recession government agencies, elected officials and the business community these days are all focusing on the problems of economic development. What obstacles do we face to growth -- is it a lack of credit or customers? Are high taxes and make-work regulations the problem? The NYS Economic Development Council represents the 900+ professionals engaged in helping to attract and retain businesses. We talked to NYSEDC's executive director Brian T. McMahon about what his members are telling him.

Empire Page: Your members are on the front line of trying to grow the economy in NYS. What are they telling you are the major obstacles they face in trying to attract and keep business in NYS?

McMahon: The biggest obstacle to attracting and keeping business in my members’ communities is the very high cost of doing business in NYS. Our business tax environment is the second worse in the country: Workers Comp costs are the highest; electric costs are fourth highest; and Medicaid costs exceed California, Texas, and North Carolina COMBINED. The work done by NYSEDC members are essential to somewhat level the playing field.

But, my members are deeply concerned that during this severe economic crises, NYS government is dismantling its most important economic development programs at the very time we need them most. The Empire Zones program, which is responsible for factories being built in every corner of the state and more than 70,000 new jobs being created, will end on July 1, 2010. Industrial Development Agencies, local government’s most important economic development program, are under assault by unions and some legislators who want to impose job-killing wage mandates on projects they finance. These additional costs would greatly exceed the value of incentives that IDA can provide to projects.

The credibility of the state as a trusted partner in economic development is being questioned by business decision makers and site location consultants: the very people we are trying to convince to invest in our communities. The rules of key programs, such as Empire Zones and the Brownfield Cleanup Program, keep changing in the “middle of the game.” As a result, many businesses that followed the rules, did nothing wrong, and factored these incentives into their investment decisions and financial plans, are being kicked out of the programs. Business leaders are losing faith that a commitment made by the state of New York will be honored in the future.

While other states are creating new economic development programs because they know that economic growth must be part of the solution to long term financial stability, New York seems to be unilaterally disarming.

Empire Page: In his state of the State, Gov. Paterson proposed several new economic development programs, including a "Manufacturing Legacy Program" which would "repurpose abandoned industrial facilities," a small business revolving loan fund, efforts to advance clean energy use with the implication of lowered energy costs and an Excelsior Jobs Program designed specifically to replace the Empire Zone program. How do your members view these initiatives?

McMahon: In the last 10 months starting with the enactment of last year’s budget, taxes and fees on businesses have been increased by $7.5 billion, and the sunset date of the state’s flagship economic development program, the Empire Zones program, has been moved-up 18 months. There is a huge need to establish certainty in our economic development programs in order to re-establish credibility by the state.

That is why NYSEDC is urging the legislature to extend the life of the Empire Zones Program, which is scheduled to end on July 1^st. The Empire Zones program has been a very effective jobs creation program. Former ESD Commissioner Marisa Lago testified at last year’s budget hearing that the average benefit to cost ratio for businesses in the Empire Zones program is 35 to 1. While the cost of the program is what many focus on exclusively, the program has generated significant benefits for the state, the communities where EZ projects locate, and has helped create more than 70,000 new jobs for its citizens.

The Empire Zones program has 10 years of branding with our business customers; ten years of fine tuning by the Legislature; and ten years of effective job creation. NYSEDC does believe the program can be simplified, made less bureaucratic, and less costly. For example, the program could be targeted to larger expansion and attraction projects. It could be further targeted to specific sectors, and, the Real Property Tax Credit, which is the most expensive and unpredictable part of the Empire Zones program, could be contained so as to make the cost to the state predictable from year to year. But, simply ending the program and replacing it with a far less effective program, such as the Governor’s proposed Excelsior program, would add to the state’s uncertain commitment to economic development.

NYSEDC believes the Excelsior program would accomplish many, but not all of the goals we think the State’s flagship economic development program should achieve. Some of our concerns with the Governor’s proposal include the following:

1. We are not sure how the $50 million cap could be managed effectively. For example, a few large projects could easily consume most of the $50 million in credits, leaving other attraction and expansion projects left out…probably left out of New York. Also, would the program be "first in, first served"? If so, projects that apply early in the year would have a clear advantage of securing approvals.

2. The 50 jobs threshold would probably preclude many areas of the state from participating. This is especially true of the Adirondacks.

3. Because the 50 new jobs requirement would be a net job requirement against statewide employment, the program would discriminate against existing New York businesses. Larger multi-location employers considering expansion may not be able to utilize the program because of layoffs due to the recession in other parts of the state

4. The program fails to allow investment to qualify. Consequently, the program fails as a job retention tool. This is important since investment secures employment in our communities, especially for manufacturers.

5. While the job credit is not insignificant, the program fails to address the primary cost factor businesses are most concerned with in New York: Real Property Taxes.

6. Businesses still would not know what their benefits would be until completing a negotiation with ESD. Certainty in the economic development process is essential. Businesses will be less likely to factor New York into their investment decisions if they think approvals are part of non-economic considerations.

The Governor’s budget would create a new $25 million small business loan program. We support this because of the credit constraints small businesses face. We have recommended to the legislature that the program be administered by the New York Business Development Corporation, which could leverage the dollars many times over, and has the small business underwriting experience that few organizations in the country possess.

The Governor also proposed creating a $25 million seed venture fund to support early stage start-ups. This is the hardest kind of VC to attract for entrepreneurs, and often good ideas never get off the ground due to a lack of early stage seed venture capital.

Empire Page: Let's turn to the national stage. President Obama in his state of the union and since has focused on restricted lending opportunities for busineses as the primary obstacle to growth. Yet many businesses report the problem is a lack of customers and not difficulty obtaining loans to replace inventory or hire new employees. In general what are your members telling you about obtaining credit from banks in New York?

McMahon: Businesses are not investing now because they do not know what their future tax and regulatory liabilities will be. Until there is more clarity, investment will be slow.

Empire Page: Twenty plus years ago when I started Empire Information Services (a press release distribution service which today is named readMedia) I was surprised to find economic development agencies "competing" against each other in neighboring communities. In Schenectady, where i eventually started my company, there were both city and county agencies. Are there too many unique economic development agencies across New York State today which duplicate efforts, consume local resources and potentially undermine results?

McMahon: Economic development agencies rarely compete with one another. Sometimes a business will consider multiple locations in an area or around the state, and local economic development organizations will respond to those inquiries. There often are multiple economic development organizations in an area because economic development is a priority for most local governments and those governmental entities want to have some influence and control over their economic futures. But, where there are multiple organizations serving municipalities within the same region, there should be and usually is a high degree of cooperation and collaboration, not competition.

Another aspect of this is the trend toward regionalism. As this trend develops further due to dwindling state/local/federal resources, and a recognition that regions typically develop along common economic interests, regionalism will become the dominant focus of economic development in NYS and around the country. We are seeing that already as regional economic development organizations, such as the Buffalo Niagara Enterprise and the Center for Economic Growth, grow to become respected and important coordinating agencies for economic development in their regions.

Empire Page: You stated your top priority is extension of the Empire Zone program which the Governor wants to replace. What kind of reception are you getitng in the Legislature? Are they listening to the business community and its allies on this issue?

McMahon: I do not want to predict what the NYS legislature will do. But, I do believe there is a recognition by legislative leaders in both houses and both parties that economic growth must be part of the solution to addressing NY’s long term fiscal problems. I also believe there is a recognition that NY must establish greater continuity in its economic development programs in order to re-establish credibility with the internal and external business community. That is why we are hopeful the Empire Zones program will be extended in a manner that simplifies it, makes it less bureaucratic, less costly, yet remains a powerful tool to create jobs and attract investment.

Empire Page: You also stated that workmen's compensation rates are an obstacle to employment growth in NYS. Wasn't that addressed a few years ago? Why does it keep coming back as a problem? Is there are long-term fix that needs to be adopted?

McMahon: I am not the WC expert, so cannot tell you how to fix the problem. What I can tell you is that WC costs remain a significant cost factor for current NYS employers and those considering NY locations.

Empire Page: Final question: What's your prognosis for New York's economy in 2010 and 2011?

McMahon: NY’s economy will remain slow this year, but I believe will show improvement in 2011. However, history shows that NY usually remains in recession long after the country recovers. For example, according to the NYS Labor Department, for the four recessions that preceded the current one, the country was in a technical recession for 16 months, while NYS remained in recession for 75 months. That indicates structural underlying problems related to costs. Long term, NY must control spending and begin to reduce employer costs. But, if the state does commit to this long term strategy, it is positioned well, especially in technology sectors, to again lead the world in innovation, finance, and advanced manufacturing.

Interview with Warren Redlich, candidate for Governor

2010-02-05T03:08:00Z

Background: On February 1, Guilderland, NY businessman and two-time candidate for Congress, Warren Redlch announced his candidacy for Republican and Libertarian Party nominations for Governor of New York.

Empire Page: You have announced that you are seeking the Republican and Libertarian nominations for the Governor of New York. Some might view that as an odd combination. The Libertarian Party also does not traditionally cross-endorse candidates from other parties and no Republican since Nelson Rockefeller has won statewide office without the Conservative Party endorsement. Which are you a Republican or a Libertarian?

Redlich: Both. Since the LP is not a "ballot-line" party in NY, you can be a member of both parties. I see myself as a libertarian Republican or perhaps a "Ron Paul Republican." In practice the GOP doesn't really have much in the way of ideology, as the Scozzfava debacle showed all too well.

Empire Page: Are you not interested in the Conservative Party line? If not, where do your views diverge from the Conservative Party platform?

Redlich: I'm not interested in any of the three recognized third parties. The Independence Party is not really independent. The Conservatives pretend to be conservative but then they endorse someone like Pataki or Lazio. And don't get me started on WFP.

Empire Page: What prompted you to run for Governor and why do you believe you would make a good governor?

Redlich: Friends in the LP asked me to run. I was vaguely thinking I might run for AG only on the LP line when they asked. Then I started thinking about the Governor's race and the state budget. The more I saw, the more motivated I got.

I would make a good governor because I'm not afraid to do what really needs to be done. The Governor has to say "no" to people. To save our state we have to eliminate whole state agencies. That means people lose their jobs. I've done that in my own business, and I would do it as Governor.

The typical politicians, including Paterson and Lazio, say they will "control spending." That means they take our money and spend it how they want to. I will cut spending. That means the government taking less of our money. I'm not afraid to tell people where I will cut spending - it's on my website - http://wredlich.com/ny.

Empire Page: In his State of the State address Governor Paterson proposed a package of "ethics" reforms including campaign finance reform, a revised Ethics Commission and term limits for legislators. Where do you stand on the Governor's "Reform Albany Plan"?

Redlich: I'm opposed to the campaign finance rules. They always make it harder for challengers to challenge incumbents. The Ethics Commission will be just as empty as the Commission on Public Integrity, which I would eliminate. I don't have strong feelings on term limits one way or the other. But I would limit myself to only one term. There's not enough oxygen inside the Albany bubble.

Empire Page: The Comptroller issued a report today that states that Governor Paterson's budget proposal over-estimates projected revenues. What would you do today if you were governor to balance the state's budget for 2010-2011?

Redlich: Eliminate a bunch of state agencies - see http://wredlich.com/ny/issues/cuts/. Cap public sector pay at $100K and pensions at $75K:
http://wredlich.com/ny/issues/pay-and-pension-caps/

There's more, but those are the two big ideas. When the head of a library makes $688K, it's time for things to change.

Empire Page: In his budget message Governor Paterson states that New York is facing $60 billion structural deficit. How would you address that long-term deficit?

Redlich: The proposals I mention would help a lot. I would also go through individual agencies and find more programs to eliminate. The key is finding programs that either do nothing, or very little for the amount they cost. There's a lot that can be eliminated.

Empire Page: It takes money to run a successful statewide campaign. How much money do you need to raise in order to run a viable campaign for the GOP nomination?

Redlich: I don't know and I don't worry about setting a goal. We'll raise as much as we can and be very careful how we spend it. I can assure you the money won't be going to consultants, as it seems to be in another campaign.

Empire Page: If you do not get the GOP nomination, but are the Libertarian Party candidate, are you concerned that your candidacy could lead to the defeat of the GOP candidate?

Redlich: No.

Jonathan Salant, Bloomberg Political Correspondent

2010-02-01T01:18:00Z

For the past 5 years, Jonathan Salant has been Political Correspondent for Bloomberg News, but more than a decade ago, he covered Albany for the Times Union and Newhouse newspapers. The Empire Page wanted to know how covering Washington is different than covering Albany (besides the traffic) and get his views on other issues related to political news coverage.

Empire Page: Jon. You spent a number of years covering Albany for the Syracuse Newspapers. What are your strongest memories from those days?

J.S.: I worked for the Albany Times Union (as Fred Dicker's successor) and then the Syracuse Herald-Journal, which at the time was New York's largest evening newspaper and is now defunct. As an afternoon newspaper reporter, I pushed the governor's office and legislative leaders' offices to give me advance copies of press releases and announcements for the PM newspaper, since we wouldn't be out until after their press conferences. Nothing happened between 9 am and 2 pm that I didn't get into the Herald-Journal's city edition. That was very different from today's 24-hour instant news cycle.

I remember Mario Cuomo's keynote speech at the 1984 Democratic convention, which made him a national political figure and forced him into the conversation for 1988 and 1992. It was my first convention -- I've been to every one since then -- and there was an electricity that has rarely been duplicated. Then in 1985, I was one of only two New York reporters who covered Cuomo in San Antonio, Texas -- I drove from Albany to Newark to save hundreds of dollars on airfare -- and after his speech, he invited us back to his hotel room where he said he would consider running for president if nothing else to disprove those columnists who insisted that a man whose last name ended in a vowel couldn't occupy the Oval Office.

The biggest story I ever did was a series with Erik Kriss on the Public Service Commission. Shortly thereafter, Governor Cuomo did an editorial board meeting in Syracuse and announced he was replacing the PSC chairman. The most fun story I ever did was the North Syracuse sixth graders who got the apple muffin names as the official NYS muffin. And I still have fond memories of coaching the LCA softball team, and I regret that we were never able to defeat Cuomo's team, despite our best efforts.

Empire Page: Today you are a political reporter for Bloomberg. How long have you been doing that and what are some of the differences you've found between covering Albany and covering Washington?

J.S.: The biggest difference is access. I miss being able to go on to the floor of the legislature to talk to lawmakers, or walk down to the second floor and go into the governor's press office rather than have to sit at my desk waiting for a call to be returned. Even before 9/11, there were a lot of restrictions on movement. For example, when the governors came to Washington to meet with the president, I, then the Washington correspondent for the Syracuse newspapers, was waiting outside for an hour trying to be cleared into the White House grounds while Cuomo was holding a press conference on the White House lawn.

As a national reporter, access is far better than it is as a regional reporter in Washington. If people don't see your stories, then they don't return your phone calls. Bloomberg has worked very hard to get its stories in front of government officials and decision makers.

I've been at Bloomberg News for 5 1/2 years, covering campaign finance, lobbying and politics. I still use my New York connections for stories. It doesn't hurt that the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter, was one of the lawmakers I covered in Albany. I came to Bloomberg after seven years at the Associated Press, where I covered lobbying, campaign finance, transportation and telecommunications during my tenure there.

Empire Page: What do you make of the White House's involvement in NYS politics -- telling David Paterson not to run and discouraging potential opponents to Kirsten Gillibrand?

J.S.: It's not unusual for the national party to go into a state and try to avoid a primary, preferring instead to use those resources against the opposition party in the fall.

Empire Page: You mention impact of 9/11 on access. Another worry some people have is that newspapers financial problems will weaken political coverage, resulting in the public's being less informed. From your viewpoint in Washington, how's the health of our nation's political press corps?

J.S.: The real loss is the demise of the regional news bureaus that played the traditional journalism watchdog role. Copley, Ottaway, Thomson, Cox and the place where I worked, Newhouse, all have shuttered their Washington bureaus. That means fewer reporters to keep an eye on the lawmakers that those papers' readers send to Washington, and the issues of particular concern to those communities.

I was in Washington after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 35 students enrolled in a Syracuse University overseas study program, and for years afterwards, even after the national media had moved onto other issues, I never failed to ask an airline security question whenever I attended a press conference with the transportation secretary. For the community that the Syracuse newspapers served, it was still an important issue. While Syracuse still has a Washington correspondent, many other communities no longer have reporters in Washington keeping an eye on their representatives and asking questions of federal officials of particular concern to those readers.

There are also fewer reporters to do the kind of meaty, watchdog reporting that I believe the First Amendment was written to protect. Some of the great stories in Washington weren't written by the national newspapers. Keith Epstein, then of Newhouse's Cleveland Plain Dealer, wrote a terrific series about how National Transportation Safety Board recommendations were ignored, leading to more deaths and injuries that might have been avoided had those recommendations been implemented.

A lot of voices have been silenced by cutbacks. Bob Mitchell, then of Thomson, which included such papers as the Altoona Mirror, found a congressman spending his campaign funds at Washington's most plush restaurants. Copley's Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer won a Pulitzer Prize for their investigation of California Republican Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Copley and Thomson are both out of the newspaper business.

And Newsday's Supreme Court reporter, Tim Phelps, broke the Anita Hill story. Newsday is down to one reporter in Washington. The paper no longer has a person covering the Court.

Empire Page: I guess we'll never know the stories that weren't covered, but that said, do you see any gains in the almost universal access people now have to information that years ago reporters had to file FOI requests to obtain? Does having so much information available make your job easier or harder?

J.S.: You still have to file FOIA requests for a lot of information, and each administration decides whether to look for ways to honor the requests or look for ways to deny them. What the Internet does do is allow us to obtain information from our desks. I rarely have to go to the Federal Election Commission offices any more or the Senate or House public records room. It's all online. And computers allow us to crunch the numbers and discover relationships that otherwise we would never have found. All of that information makes our jobs easier.

Empire Page: The Obama administration made a point early on of saying that they would improve transparency. Have they lived up to their promises? What could they do better?

J.S.: The Obama administration has gotten high grades from some watchdog groups for a move toward transparency, including releasing the names of White House visitors and instructing its FOIA officers to look for ways to release documents rather than to withhold them. While the White House has been very responsive when we ask them whether specific names are the people we think they are, it would be more helpful if they were identified initially.

Empire Page: With its announcement that it will begin charging some visitors to read its online editions in 2011 the New York Times has put charging for content back on the agenda. In New York Newsday is charging $5/week, the Daily Gazette has started charging again and other papers are considering it. What's your view of this issue?

J.S.: While I still believe there is a future for newspapers -- as Ben Bradlee said at the National Press Club, you can't take a computer into the bathroom -- we need to applaud any effort to find new sources of revenue to replace the classifieds and other advertisements that have migrated to the Web. Newspapers also have to be satisfied with profit margins that still would make supermarkets envious rather than the 25 percent returns they had as monopolies. My 12-year-old son has become an avid comics reader, the first step toward becoming a regular newspaper reader. But the papers are shrinking and cutting comics.

Empire Page: Any final comments for your friends back in Albany?

J.S.: Albany is one of the great places to work and New York government and politics remains one of the best beats in journalism. Even two decades later, I still have fond memories of my time there. And I hope the LCA softball team finally beats the governor's office.

Roundtable on Governor's Budget

2010-01-26T20:06:00Z

Overview: On January 19, Governor Paterson laid out an ambitious plan to close a projected $7.4 billion 2010-11 budget shortfall and address what he called a $60+ billion "structural imbalance" in NYS's finances. The Governor has done what he is constitutionally obliged to do -- submit a balanced budget. He and his staff deserve a lot of credit for taking their responsibilities seriously. That said, let's examine the major pieces of his plan. I've asked some of the Empire Page's exclusive columnists as well as some other folks to tell us what they like, where they see problems, identify what else might he have done and speculate on how the Legislature is likely to respond.

Doug Boettner: Let me start out by stating that I am grateful that it was not I and my team responsible for preparing an Executive Budget for 2010-2011 -- a budget that must address a myriad of issues and controversial problems the people of the once great state of New York are facing.

Don’t get me wrong, I love challenges and have never backed away from one my entire life, and I have the scars to prove it, including resigning from a high level position with New York State for political reasons and finishing my career with a new agency.

Anyone submitting a budget, whether they are a Democrat, Republican or Independent, would be facing the same monumental hills and roadblocks this governor is facing right now. The problem is that very difficult decisions need to be made, decisions that are going to require cuts in funding and service levels. Some people will applaud these decisions and some people will criticize. Some will be happy and some will be furious.

The fact of the matter is we have a governor who was chosen by the people of this state to be where he is. People claim this is not the case because he was not elected, and this is true, but he was elected as Lieutenant Governor with the full knowledge that if the elected governor could not serve he would be named to serve as our governor. The next time we New Yorkers go to the polls to vote we might want to pay closer attention to who the gubernatorial candidates choose as their respective running mates -- one of whom could become our next governor.

Another issue is that we are a society that expects instant gratification. We are facing a projected $7+ billion budget shortfall, or better yet a potential $60 billion shortfall over the next five years, and many of us are saying "Mr. Governor, go ahead and fix the problem, and could you do it within a 6 to 8 month window." President Obama is facing this exact same scenario at the national level. The truth of the matter is these problems and issues are extremely deep-rooted and systemic in both New York and on the national stage. It is going to take multiple years not multiple months to fix them.

So here’s how I see what’s happening. Governor Paterson unexpectedly finds himself governor. He puts together his cabinet and his “inner team” of advisors and sets out to fix the ills of New York State. Realizing it is not something they can't fix in the short-term, they develop a multi-faceted plan that will need to be implemented in stages over the next three to five years. But the people, fueled by an antagonistic Republican leadership in the Legislature, grow restless with the lack of progress, and we saw what that can lead to during the last session. Nothing gets accomplished. This budget is simply part of the long-term plan to get New York State back on track. Given Governor Paterson’s dismal popularity ratings and lack of support among Democratic Party leaders, there is little hope for this budget being enacted as it has been presented to the Legislature.

I suggest that you may want to read my last entry on my Blog “Keeping It Real” here on the Empire Page to gain more insight into my opinion on the governor’s State of the State address. I will be chiming back in later in this Roundtable with more specific comments on specific pieces of the Executive Budget including, things I like and dislike about the budget and where I see problems with specific items, and whatever else the governor could have proposed.

Lise Bang Jensen: Governor David Paterson wants state employees to defer four percent raises and five days of salary until they retire or quit their jobs. Haven't we seen this movie before?

What makes Paterson think the outcome will be any different than when public employee unions rejected similar proposals last year?

Here's what Paterson is proposing this year:

Salary Deferral. Personal service savings could be achieved through deferring salary payments in 2010-11 until an employee leaves State service. At such time, employees would be entitled to a lump sum payment based upon the rate of basic annual salary in effect at that time. In no event would the lump sum payment be less than the amount of salary originally deferred. A five-day salary deferral was previously implemented during the 1990-91 fiscal crisis.

Delay or Reduction of the April 1, 2010 Four Percent General Salary Increase. A number of bargaining units representing State employees are currently scheduled to receive a four percent salary increase in the 2010-11 fiscal year. The Governor is rescinding, for the second consecutive year, the general salary increase for the State's non-unionized Management/Confidential employees ($28 million in 2010-11).

This year's plan is targeted to save $250 million in the first year and $125 million in the second. Of course, those are temporary savings, because the state eventually would have to repay workers when they leave their jobs.

And here's last year's failed plan:

Implement Salary Deferral. Defer 5 days of salary payments in 2009-10 until an employee leaves state service or the fiscal crisis is declared to be ended (whichever comes first). At such time, employees will be entitled to a lump sum payment based upon the rate of basic annual salary then in effect. In no event will the lump sum payment be less than the amount of salary originally withheld. A 5-day salary deferral was previously implemented during the 1990-91 fiscal crisis. (2009-10 Savings: $121 million; 2010-11 savings: $0)

Eliminate Scheduled 2009-10 Salary Increases. Eliminate salary increases scheduled for 2009-10. These increases were negotiated during better fiscal times. Even after this action, over the four-year life of their contract most workers would still receive a salary increase of 10 percent (3 percent in 2007-08, 3 percent in 2008-09, 4 percent in 2010-11). (2009-10 Savings: $180 million; 2010-11 Savings: $180 million)

The unions called last year's plan dead on arrival when Paterson proposed it in late 2008. Then last March 24--a week before the budget passage deadline--Paterson issued a belated threat: if the unions didn't agree to his plan, he'd lay off 8,900 state workers.

The threats went unheeded.

Instead, Paterson agreed in June to let up to 4,500 employees collect $20,000 in severance buy outs if they agreed not to oppose creating a Tier 5, which turned out to be a tepid "reform" of the pension system.

It later came out that Paterson tied his hands by agreeing not to lay off state workers before December 31, 2010. Lawyers may disagree on how solid the no-layoff clause is.

Having appeared to surrender his biggest bargaining chip--threatened layoffs--Paterson may have doomed his odds of persuading the unions to defer pay raises and five days of pay.

This first appeared January 20, 2010 on NY Public Payroll Watch.

Mike Elmendorf: To be fair, Governor Paterson’s proposed 2010-2011 Executive Budget represents a significant improvement over last year’s enacted budget--which we rightly called the “worst budget ever.” Unlike that budget, which increased state spending by a record amount, it increases spending by less than one percent, below the rate of inflation. That budget also increased taxes by more than $8 billion--the biggest tax hike in New York’s history. This year, the Governor proposes “only” about $1 billion in new or increased taxes and fees.

That said, this proposal represents a missed opportunity. If ever there was a time for the state to actually decrease spending, it is now. That is exactly what small business owners throughout New York have been forced to do as they have seen their revenues decline. Why can’t the state do the same, especially in light of the runaway spending increases of the last several years? Although the increased taxes and fees proposed in this budget are much more targeted than what was proposed last year, New York should be reducing its tax burden and growing its economy, not making our worst in the nation tax burden even more onerous. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: New York’s problem is not lack of revenue, it is too much spending.

There are specific proposals in the budget that are of particular concern to small business on which we will comment in more detail at the appropriate time. Among these are revenue actions that will increase the cost of healthcare--and as a result health insurance. The Executive Budget would continue the raid of funds appropriated to offset the cost of the “Timothy’s Law” mandate on small business, further increasing the cost of health insurance for small employers already struggling to afford it. It would subject small business to sales tax audits based on “statistical sampling,” rather than the actual records they keep. This budget proposal also relies on a fiscal gimmick in the form of a proposal that would allow the sale of wine in grocery stores. We believe this ill-advised idea will not only not produce the anticipated revenues, but would negatively impact the state and decrease revenue by shuttering nearly half the state’s wine and liquor stores and killing more than 4,000 jobs statewide.

Although this Executive Budget proposal represents a much better starting point than last year’s, NFIB/New York will be working with the Legislature to hopefully improve it and will continue to stand in strong opposition to the inevitable push from New York’s powerful and predictable spending lobby--who remain in complete denial about our economy and fiscal condition--for even more taxing and spending.

Mike Elmendorf is New York State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business.

--------

Brian Sampson: While headlines on New York’s proposed Executive Budget have pointed out some positive steps and modest spending cuts, our analysis of the budget finds that it falls way short of the real reform needed to safeguard New York’s fiscal future.

The budget does include important economic development initiatives and several cuts and savings measures, including agency consolidations, facility closures, and long overdue mandate relief. However, the increased spending and new taxes and fees will ultimately cancel out any good because the financial burden is simply too much for taxpayers in New York state to sustain. State spending has increased a staggering 12-percent increase over the past two years…during a terrible recession.

In the past decade alone, lawmakers have allowed the state budget to grow by $60 billion. While this budget attempts to address the current deficit, New York still faces an even uglier budget deficit that could grow to more than $50 billion in three years unless the governor and Legislature begin making significant, yet necessary cuts. Adding to an already complicated issue, New York’s debt level also continues to rise. According to the state comptroller, debt increased from $39 billion in 2002-03 to $51 billion in 2006-07and could rise to $63.7 billion in 2011-12.

We are calling on the governor and the Legislature – as it works through this budget process – to aggressively seek ways to cut spending to bring this budget in line, just as taxpayers must do in their own households when money is tight. The governor and Legislature must reduce debt and adopt massive statewide fiscal reform.

To further that goal, we will continue to offer solutions. We have proposed a five-year plan to right-size the budget to a more sustainable $109 billion by 2015. This initiative proposes returning the state budget to the level it was in 2000 - $77.5 billion and then be adjusted according to the consumer price index to reach $109 billion. To get the process started, the coalition is developing a list of more than $12 billion in proposed cuts to the 2010-11 budget, a plan Unshackle Upstate expects to release soon.

It remains unclear to many of us if this elected body understands the financial realities facing New York state and, more importantly, its residents. But what is abundantly clear is that taxpayers have had enough, and they intend to hold elected officials accountable. Their message to the Legislature: Reject the notion of raising taxes and spending of any kind, and start exercising some cost-cutting discipline. This is a monumental year in New York politics, with the governor running for election and all 212 members of the Legislature seeking re-election. Our elected officials should know that the public is watching them and grading them, and there could be ramifications for any elected official who supports increased taxes and spending.

Brian Sampson is executive director of Unshackle Upstate.

---

Ken Brynien:

Every time there is a budget deficit the knee-jerk response is to take it out on the state work force by cutting positions, wages or benefits. As public employees we are cognizant of the fiscal crisis the state is facing. What few people know is that since March 2008 the state work force under the governor’s control has been reduced by 4,500 positions, an average of 105 every work week; there has been zero growth in state agency budgets including the cost of state employee salaries and benefits; and, over the last decade state agency budgets have grown at a lower rate than any other part of the state budget (a growth rate is equal to the growth in personal income in the state). Additionally, on top of the billions of cuts over the past two years the governor’s budget proposes another $1.2 billion cut.

Taxpayer advocates insist state agencies and the state work force are huge contributors to the state’s fiscal woes. Yet when you look at the numbers it is clearly untrue.

Is there fat and waste in state government? Yes. PEF is the first to point out the waste in state agencies. We have been pointing it out for over a decade. The state wastes hundreds of millions of dollars a year on costly contract consultants.

It’s time for real change and to start cutting where true savings can be realized. The governor, to his credit, has made an effort to not only recognize the problem but to attempt a solution as well. The problem is it is not nearly aggressive enough. These are desperate times, it is time to take on the consultants that are draining agency budgets. PEF has put forth a plan that will save the state $375 million annually by 2012-13. Phased in over three years this plan will save the state $656 million over that time period. This should be part of the fundamental reform we are all looking for.

Ken Brynien is President, NYS Public Employees Federation.

Interview with Dan Lynch, talk radio host

2010-01-14T02:09:00Z

Dan Lynch is somewhat of a renaissance man -- novelist, former newspaper columnist and editor and talk show host. A decade ago he came close to being elected to the NYS Assembly. We wanted to know what Dan and his listeners think about the current political scene in Albany and NYS.

Empire Page: You've been doing talk radio for quite a while now and you often talk about NYS issues. Judging from the calls you get on NYS government what's the mood of the public today versus 10 or 15 years ago? Are people paying more attention and are they getting angrier?

Lynch: My listeners -- most of whom are conservatives and not terribly fond of government to begin with -- are vastly more hostile to the state's political establishment than they used to be. As far as they're concerned, chickens are coming home to roost and all the listeners' worst fears are being realized. They expect service cuts and tax increases. They're appalled at the conduct of all the state legislators of both parties -- especially by the venality and irresponsibility of the State Senate Democrats. The polls show that sentiments along those lines have permeated the entire citizenry in New York, regardless of political orientation. There's a ferocious anti-incumbent mood in the air. New Yorkers always have displayed what to me is a disturbingly high level of appreciation for the extenuating circumstance when it comes to the politicians of this state. For the moment, anyway, that seems to have changed.

Empire Page: In the past anger at politicians has dissapated at election time in part because voters don't perceive their local legislator or Congress member as being the problem. In some cases incumbents run without opposition or have been gerrymandered into districts where they have a huge enrollment edge. Come November 10, 2010 do you think we'll see a very different set of people in charge in Albany?

Lynch: Given the one-sided nature of the enrollment in most districts and the low turnout in the one-sided, urban districts in particular, probably not. Bear in mind, however, that state legislators are used to a 98 percent re-election rate. A dip in that rate to even as lofty a level as 85 per cent would unnerve them and, possibly, spark some long overdue reform. A decade ago, I ran against an incumbent Assemblyman who had a 2-1 enrollment edge. In the end, I got 47 per cent against a three-term incumbent -- a fairly good showing despite opposition from powerful people even in the party I ran for -- even though I'd never run for anything before. That happened because voters were beginning to figure out that the guy they had in that seat was a conspicuous part of the problem. In the next comparable election, he was thrown out. Voters can be disturbingly partisan and inattentive, but they're not really as stupid as the professional politicians would like to believe.

Empire Page: I agree, but that said, if you could tell voters across the state one thing that you wish they understood better about New York's political system, what would that be?

Lynch: This state would be a better place in which to live and make a living if the average citizen understood the following:

Political parties are less important than the quality and character of people who hold office.
The system under which government in this state operates -- i.e., the state constitution -- needs drastic revision.
Politicians respond to pressure groups because the pressure groups are interested enough to involve themselves in the process, whereas ordinary citizens are more interested in the NFL or "Desperate Housewives," and everybody pays for that generalized lack of attention to the process and the people in it.

All the problems of democracy could be solved by more citizen involvement in that democracy. No better example of that exists than New York State, a hotbed of corruption and political venality quite literally for centuries now. My best advice to people fed up with the way things work or don't work here -- get off your ass.

Empire Page: If you were setting the agenda for a constitutional convention, what would be the three changes you'd most like to see made?

Lynch: My top three changes would be:

Placing reapportionment responsibilities in the hands of an independent redistricting commission that would draw legislative and congressional districts without regard to party considerations. Such a commission would be constitutionally obligated to focus on congruity and district cohesion rather on party enrollment.
Merit selection of state court judges rather than election. Voters have no reasonable way to determine a candidate's fitness for the bench, but a Missouri-style independent judicial commission would.
For my third priority I'm torn between a constitutional requirement that would provide citizens with total, detailed disclosure of all outside income by legislators and key members of the executive branch, a recall provision for all elected officials and some limited form of initiative and referendum that would give voters direct say over key public policy matters.

Empire Page: Ethics reform was one of the three topics highlighted by Gov. Paterson in his state of the state. His "Reform Albany Act" would, if passed, bring about major changes including establishing term limits for members of the Legislature. What do you think of terms limits and comment if you like on any of the other measures in the Governor's proposal.

Lynch: The governor's plan goes too far and, at the same time, not far enough. Term limits are antidemocratic. Voters should have the right to decide who they want to represent them. What voters are entitled to, however, are public, quarterly reports from statewide elected officials, legislators and high-level executive branch appointees on who pays them outside income, how much and for what. Anyone unwilling to comply for any reason -- lawyers, for instance -- would be barred from serving.

Empire Page: The Governor also set forth in his state of the state his plan to bring back the state's economy, which includes re-purposing abandoned industrial facilities to try to revive manufacturing in the state, a major focus on "clean energy" and creating an "Excelsior Jobs Program" which he promises will do a better job than the Empire Zone Program of monitoring the job creation of businesses that get tax credits. What's your assessment of the governor's plan?

Lynch: It can't hurt. The state's major problem in attracting new manufacturing facilities and in retaining the ones already here is high taxation and high electricity costs. Absent real targeted tax incentives and a legitimate program to lower electricity costs -- giving electricity producers a break on property taxes on generating facilities, for instance -- all New York can really count on is an educated work force that puts other states to shame.

Empire Page: Final question: If the economic and fiscal situation in NYS is more dire today than any other time since the Great Depression, what is it going to take to get us moving forward? Where will the leadership that's needed come from?

Lynch: Leadership emerges when the public demands it and becomes willing to pay the price that reform demands. Ultimately, as is always the case in any democracy, power rests with the people. Only when voters make themselves more important in the process than the pressure groups will solutions geared to the general population, rather than to mere segments of it, emerge. The immediate solution is clear -- painful spending cuts and, in some cases, equally painful tax increases in some combination. The long-term solution will involve consolidation of outdated and duplicative local government institutions, stronger public participation in the process and sweeping structural changes to the way the system works on the state level.

Interview with author Francis S. Barry

2009-12-27T18:26:00Z

Francis S. Barry's The Scandal of Reform (Rutgers U. Press, 2009) is a major re-evaluation of the impact of reform organizations in New York City politics. Today Frank Barry is Senior Policy and Communications Advisor to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. We talked to Barry about his book and related issues.

Q#1: What prompted you to write "The Scandal of Reform"?

A: The history of political reform in New York, and today's reform groups, are both poorly understood - and if we're ever going to fix an election system that I consider badly broken, we need to understand that is reform laws that got us into the mess, and it is reformers themselves who are now are standing in the way of fixing it.

I wrote the book in hopes that it would lead people to step back and re-consider election reforms generally, and one reform in particular: nonpartisan elections. I worked on a Charter Revision Commission that Mayor Bloomberg appointed in 2003, which proposed a nonpartisan system that would put all candidates, regardless of party, on the same primary ballot, and all voters, regardless of party, would be eligibe to vote. And then the top two finishers would advance to the runoff. The reform was designed to address a few fundamental problems in New York City elections, especially the fact that nearly all elections for nearly all offices (except mayor) are decided in the Democratic primary, when turnout is very low among Democrats, and independents (and others) are prohibited from participating. So, the idea was: rather than choose winners in low-turnout elections open to some, why not choose them in higher-turnout elections open to all? Parties would still play a role and would be free to nominate candidates, but the government would no longer pay for elections for them to do so.

Nearly the entire political establishment lined up against the proposal, including the good-government groups. Unraveling the reasons for this required unraveling the history of reform, separating myth from reality - and I found it to be a fascinating story.

Q#2: In "The Scandal of Reform," you provide a new framework for how we look at reform organizations -- new at least to most people who are used to "good government" groups being treated by the news media as the prince charmings of the political universe. How have those groups reacted to the book?

A: I haven't heard much from them. I don't expect them to love the book, but I do hope it causes some internal conversations within their offices. In fact, the conclusion of the book challenges them to live up to their claims of nonpartisanship by committing to a real balance on their boards and committees between Democrats and Republicans. And it challenges them to practice what they preach in terms of transparency by disclosing that balance, perhaps by putting it on their web sites. No group has taken me up on that challenge yet, but I hope they all do. (After all, you can't have nonpartisanship without first achieving, or at least striving for, broad-based bi-partisanship. And right now, by and large, they don't have that.)

It's funny, the old party machines used to disguise their structures to conceal the fact that a few people at the top were calling all the shots. Now, it's the good-government groups who seem reluctant to reveal the party breakdown of their boards, presumably to conceal the fact that those calling the shots are nearly all Democrats.

But I have two reasons for optimism: First, I have been encouraged by my conversations with Dick Dadey, excutive director of Citizens Union. He came to the organization after the 2003 referendum debate on nonpartisan elections, which Citizens Union opposed, and he recognizes the problems with the current system. And second, I'm friendly with some of the leaders of these groups and they're very good people who are very dedicated to public service. I have great respect for their earnest desire for reform - I just think it's time for them to take a dose of their own medicine.

Q#3: When the energy association lobbies on behalf of the utilities or the healthcare association lobbies on behalf of hospitals, there's no attempt to disguise who they speak for. With the so-called good government groups, however, there's no attempt to disclose who they represent. Instead, they claim to be acting for the common good, by which they mean anything they support. Further, by definition anyone who has a different view is a "special interest." Isn't that a deeper problem than getting the groups to add a few Republicans to their boards?

A: It's a good point - and I think the problems are related.

The power of good-government groups has always been rooted in the public perception that they are the white knights of politics, and it is a perception that is reinforced when they appear in news stories as the arbiters of political morality, as they regularly do. But the reality is, good-government groups have always been and will always be special interests themselves.

The good-government groups of old advocated for many good ideas (e.g., better management of cities) and many terrible ideas (e.g., disenfrancising the masses). But what made them distinctive was their pragmatic, nonpartisan, non-ideological approach and the diversity of their membership. Today, that's no longer the case. Adding Republican balance to the boards and membership of today's groups won't change the fact that they're still a special interest, but it will help to restore some legitimacy to the notion that they put partisanship aside in favor of "the common good." The "common good" is by definition a subjective term, but traditionally, groups that claimed to speak for it at least worked hard to find common ideas and and common policies and common approaches that members of both major parties could support. They may not have always been right - and often they weren't. But they represented something different. Today's good-government groups generally represent traditional liberal interest group positions. But becuse of their reputation, and because reporters often seek arbiters of right and wrong, they've held onto their public position as white knights.

Q#4: I'm sure you paid attention to our "constitutional crisis" this past summer when the lack of a procedure to fill the lieutenant governor vacancy tied up the Legislature for more than a month. At the time some people, including former Governor Cuomo, called for a constitutional convention. What would be on your list of reforms that you'd like to see a convention consider if one were held in the near future?

A: I believe the 1997 referendum on a constitutional convention was a real missed opportunity, but if we were to have one in the future, I would put nonpartisan redistricting near the top of the list. The practice of using sophisticated computer programs to draw district lines tailored around incumbents, with the lines snaking in and out of streets and neighborhoods, is bad for democratic competition at elections and bad for democratic representation in government. Today we joke that voters don't pick legislators; legislators pick voters. But unfortunately, there's a lot of truth to that.

I think the State would also benefit from writing into its constitution some of the fiscal reforms that it wisely imposed on the City in the 1970s but has never adopted for itself. Basic reforms such as using generally accepted accounting principles and restrictions on fiscal gimmicks. But there's no shortage of other issues that deserve a close look, including ethics, judicial, and campaign finance reform, as well as ensuring there are mechanisms for breaking the kind of constitutional deadlock we saw last summer, and possibly even looking at ways to consolidate the many layers of local government, which help put upward pressure on local property taxes.

Q#5: From your research and analysis what are the conditions under which communities should consider switching to non-partisan municipal elections?

A: Every community is different, and while I think nonpartisan elections can work well in any community, they are an especially good fit in places where one party is dominant - including Albany. When was the last time Albany elected a Republican mayor? (Was it James Watt, elected in 1918?) And how many Republican mayoral candidates have presented more than token opposition? The idea behind nonpartisan elections is: allow the strongest two candidates, no matter which party they belong to, to face off in a general election rather than a primary - giving all voters, including independents, a real choice. And, for cities with long-serving mayors, nonpartisan elections make it easier for outsiders to mount a challenge, becuse closed party primaries create substantial advantages for the party organization's candidates.

We forget, but northeastern cities used to have the most competitive and dynamic general elections in the world! But Progressive era election laws have forced all competition into closed primaries, leaving general election voters very little in the way of choice.

Last Q: Where is the pressure going to come from to advance reforms that would democratize New York's election laws given that the Democratic Party has reaped the benefits of the current structure and the so-called good government groups and much of academia have sold their souls to the Democrats left-wing?

A: Traditionally, pressure for reform has followed scandal, but scandal is more likely to drive ethics or campaign finance reform than a more fundamental restructuring of elections.

Pressure could come from an electoral coalition - something Tom Suozzi bravely attempted in his 2004 "Fix Albany" campaign. Perhaps he was just ahead of his time, but one of the reasons it failed was that so few groups - including good-government groups - joined him.

Pressure could come if the Republican party fails to nominate a mayoral candidate. When this happened in Jacksonville, Florida, it was something of a civic scandal, because voters felt that elections shouldn't be decided in a Democratic primary. Voters demanded reform and the city adopted a nopartisan system.

Pressure could come from the growing ranks of independent voters, who have the most to gain from a reform that opens up the process, and who are the fastest growing bloc of voters. At some point, a tipping point may be reached where a system that excludes them is no longer sustainable. But we could be years away from that point.

In short, there are no easy answers, but I think part of the process starts with Democrats (of which I am one) acknowledging the problems and talking about solutions.

Interview with Jonathan Tasini, candidate for U.S. Senate

2009-12-19T20:20:00Z

In keeping with our goal of providing in-depth interviews with those running for statewide, office, we wanted to find out who Jonathan Tasini is and why he plans to run against incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

Q#1: Why are you running for the U.S. Senate seat currently being held by Kirsten Gilligrand? Since you've never held elective office, why not run for a seat in the House of Representatives or the NYS Legislature, for example?

A: This election will be about one issue: change can’t wait. There is a deep well of desire to change our country—which led to the election of Barack Obama. At the same time, change can be unsettling and scary to people. To embrace change, I believe the voters, across the political spectrum, want someone whose principles and values they can trust to bring about real changes in the rules of the economy and the direction of our global policies. I believe my opponent will be the weakest candidate for our party in the general election because the voters will simply not trust the appointed Senator, who has been an avowed advocate of the National Rifle Association, someone who has been anti-immigrant, an aggressive defender of Big Tobacco and, now, wants voters to believe she holds a whole set of new principles and values.

But, I believe the appointed Senator is not the issue. In these troubled times, I still believe that the values of our country embodied in our Constitution—equal justice under the law, promoting the general welfare, securing liberty, and providing for the common defense—are the right ideals upon which we build a decent society. But, to fulfill those ideals, we—people of all political backgrounds—need individuals who speak for the people, not insiders who come from a dysfunctional political system and speak for the Wall Street financiers, banks, and pharmaceutical companies. If voters are able to hear the voice of our campaign (very subtle hint for people to invest in our campaign in whatever way they can afford), I think we will win the race. If voters believe that change can’t wait, the choice will be clear.

Finally, there are many examples of people who were elected to the U.S. Senate as their first office. The first, and best example, is Paul Wellstone, one of my political heroes. If we had a majority of Senators in the Wellstone model—meaning, people who actually had principles they believed in, as opposed to principles adopted just to get elected, and who spoke for the people, not the banks, Wall Street, the gun lobby--the country would be a far better place.

Q#2: Earlier this year White House discouraged other Democrats from challenging Gillibrand. Further, she is likely to have the support of the state party with its army of county chairmen and committeemen. What kind of organization will you have to put together in order to compete and how much of that organization do you have in place today?

A: We are putting together an organization that we feel comfortable will be successful. We certainly respect our party activists and leaders who can actually translate their support into voters going to the polls. However, voters turn out to the polls for reasons beyond the work and encouragement of the existing party machine. If we are correct about the moment in time and what the issues will be in 2010, we think that we have a plan that will win the primary.

Q#3: Will you seek the nominations of any of the state's other parties? In particular will you ask for the nomiantion of the Working Families Party, the Independence Party and the Green Party?

A: I will seek the Working Families Party nomination.

Q#4: Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton as New York's "junior" Senator less than a year ago. Grade her on her performance thus far. What has she done -- if anything -- that you agree with and what has she done that you disagree with?

A: I was glad to see her rally with other supporters of womens rights against the House language in the health care bill which undercut the rights to privacy and access to safe abortions (the so-called Stupack amendment)--but I, and other advocates for womens rights, were concerned that she did not make an unwavering commitment to vote against a final health care bill that retained any language that undercut long-established womens rights. I also applaud her for switching her position and finally coming out earlier this year for marriage equality, joining many of us who have been fighting that battle for “equal justice under the law” for a number of years—we need every ally to win.

To reiterate, the issue is not a particular position. My opponent represents a dysfunctional system, a system which encourages the election of people who have no core principles and who will simply adopt any positions as long as those positions translate into more individual power. Voters are fed up with that system.

Q#5: On your website you make several recommendations concerning the Federal Reserve including "End the myth that the Fed should be an 'independent' agency to keep "politics" out of monetary decisions." How is that a myth? To the extent the Fed is independent it is so because that's how Congress set it up, and while making the Fed more susceptible to political influence might sound good to you when the Democrats are in the majority in Congress, but are you sure you would want it to work that way when the day comes that the Republicans are in the majority?

A: Congress has enormous power of oversight of the Federal Reserve Board—yet does not exercise that power. For example, by statute, the Fed has twin responsibilities—price stability AND full employment. Yet, when was the last time you can find a Fed chairman mentioning full employment as its goal? Congress has the authority to require the Fed to pursue that goal but it does not. And this is a bi-partisan problem—the abdication of responsibility to the Fed has been the product of laziness and neglect on the part of both parties.

And this isn’t about Republican versus Democrat. It’s really about being vigilant and having some common-sense. The abdication resulted in the financial crisis: Ben Bernanke, ever since he joined the Fed in 2002, should have been aware that his predecessors and colleagues essentially sat by, and even encouraged the housing bubble with cheap money (which created $8 trillion in housing equity. And the failure by Congress to exercise strong oversight of the Fed allowed the bubble to rage—and as a result we now have double-digit unemployment.

Q#6: You say on your website that "Our campaign is fighting for an economy for the people, not one favoring abusive corporations who choose a low-road economy: competition based on price which leads to insecurity, rising inequality, poisonous labor relations, no commitment to our communities, environmental damage." If the US government is going to control corporate decisions on pricing, hiring, etc. how is that different from they way Chinese Communism operates? Is that the model you're offering Americans?

A: No, the model is a model of rules, not rhetoric, that builds a path for sustainable communities.

Q#7: On your website you say "the moment we walk through the doors of our workplace, we enter into a world that strips away all our basic rights. Within the walls of the workplace, the whim of the corporation is more powerful than the U.S. Constitution." In truth, people who work for corporations in the US today have more protections, more rights and enjoy a higher living standard and a longer life than any time in human history. Further thousands of people in America are forced to pay union dues against their will. So, if you truly support "freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association," do you support the right of workers not to belong to a union in all unionized workplaces?

A: Everyone should have the right to choose to be in a union.

Q#8: Last question: If you are unable to get enough signatures to primary Senator Gillibrand, will you attempt to get on the ballot on a third party line?

A: We will easily qualify for the ballot. In 2006, my campaign collected almost three times the number of signatures to get on the ballot. We will collect a far higher number this time.

Rountable on NYS Economy

2009-12-16T01:25:00Z

Overview: This is the third Empire Page roundtable. The question I've asked my four in-house columnists to discuss is: What do we need to do to build a stronger economy in NYS?

After each sets forth an initial statement, we'll invite some other folks to chime in as well. You can comment at any time in the comment box below...or if you have a full-thought out statement of betweeen 500 and 1500 words that you'd like to contribute, please send it to us.

Larry Hirsch, Democratic Party State Committeeman:

There are a number of things that need to be done, all in the name of diversifying our economic base. For the past two-three decades, we have relied on the financial and other service sectors of the economies, while our manufacturing base has dwindled. Some of this is due to companies moving to where they can pay lower wages both in other areas of the country though much was due to policies that did not favor retaining them. Our idea of economic development downstate was to rely on Wall Street and upstate it has been to wait fot the economic savior of casino gambling. This seemingly worked well while money was easy and Wall Street was booming, but the shorsightedness has been shown over the past year.

Now we must diversify our economy. We must recruit companies that will employ people to produce things and pay them living wages. I know this is classic Keynesian economics, but money multiplies in the economy. People do not do as well with low wage service jobs and therefore less money flows through the economy. Many of these jobs are in the "green economy," but it is not only developing wind farms but getting the factories to produce them or electric cars. We should also look to other productive industries that we can get to locate in New York.

We also need housing for workers so they can live where they work. Housing development can and should be part of economic development. It will create jobs and provide needed housing for New Yorkers.

FInally, our tax policy must incentivize the creation of good jobs, not reducing income taxes for the wealthy. A progressive tax policy that rewards employers for creating good paying jobs, not paying out year end cash bonuses,

Much of what I have discussed is happening in a limited way, but needs to be expanded to provide a strong diverse economic base for New York.

Doug Boettner, Former Staffer in Office of the State Comptroller:

Let’s try to figure this out logically. A healthy economy is one where the supply and demand for goods and services work in harmony. That is goods are produced and services are provided at reasonable costs and that reasonable and competitive costs will trigger robust sales. Robust sales will generate profits and a low unemployment rate means people will be making enough money to afford housing, food and other living expenses in addition to having disposal income for the purchase of non-essential goods and services.

Further, when the unemployment rate is low, NYS will receive state income taxes in an amount that should be sufficient to fund the operation of NYS government without experiencing annual deficits. A hardy demand for goods and services usually means that the stock markets are experiencing growth and since NYS receives about 20 percent of all its income tax revenues from Wall Street this would ensure that the NYS coffers remain full.

Okay, that being said, what went wrong with the NYS economy and what is currently wrong? These answers should provide a roadmap as to how to fix the problem.

New York State taxes the @#$J#! out of its businesses, property owners and individuals. This may be the single biggest factor in resolving the problem. Taxes need to be lowered or frozen, at a minimum.

Higher taxes on businesses requires them to charge more for their goods and services, which in turn can hurt sales, which in turn can increase unemployment, which in turn results in less tax revenue and the additional pay out of unemployment insurance and assistance payments. None of this being good for the economy.

In order for business and income taxes to be lowered, the cost of providing government services needs to be lowered. This can be accomplished by cutting expenses and/or by consolidating services. It also can be accomplished by eliminating major entitlement programs that were created in a time when the State was flush with money. The time has come to “tighten our belt” and take a long, hard look at each and every one of these programs and at the operational expenses of each and every State agency. Being a former high-level career State official I am painfully aware of the excesses that are prevalent in each and every State agency. I am confident the number of state employees could be selectively trimmed back by at least 1 percent, and maybe more, without any diminution of services. There’s that much fat in the system.

As far as reducing property taxes, municipalities need to consolidate their services through regionalization. Counties, towns and villages need to consolidate standard services to reduce their expenses. NYS needs to stop saddling municipalities, mostly counties, with unfunded mandates. If NYS doesn’t have the money to fund a program directly the cost should not be transferred to the counties without the requisite funding following the mandate. Municipalities also need to take a long hard look at cutting their operational costs, including trimming the fat from their payrolls.

None of these are popular concepts or choices for governmental agencies or more importantly for elected representatives, but they must be done at some point. In my opinion the solutions are basic. Just as in your household, you can’t continue to live beyond your means for extended periods of time without filing bankruptcy. At some point you need to cut your household expenses, cut out unnecessary disposable income expenses (luxuries), stop borrowing to pay for your living expenses, or you need to increase your income in some manner. The budget must be balanced.

Let me summarize. NYS has to create a business friendly, tax friendly environment. It is already at a disadvantage to other states in terms of our adverse climate, they should not heap on an excessive tax burden to further eliminate any competitive edge to NYS at all.

When business comes back to NYS, or at least stops leaving, regardless of the industry, most of the ills of the current economy will disappear.

Okay, roll up your sleeves and let’s get started.

Paul M. Bray, Esq: Road to economic revival:

The mantra I have heard from the proponents of economic development for decades has been simple: cut back regulations and cut taxes. Nationally, they got to remove regulation when it came to the financial services sector and for that we got the Great Recession we are struggling through. Bush 2 cut taxes and we could debate whether that started us on the road to the deficits we have now.

I am of another school when it comes to economic development and moving to prosperity. It is based on being entrepreneurial and competitive with your assets including strategic investment in public assets.

The irony I see in New York is we have bountiful and diverse economic assets. In fact, it is remarkable we are not able to realize as great a benefit as there should be.

Look at some of our assets as reported recently by the Governor’s Task Force on Diversifying the New York State Economy through Industry-Higher Education Partnerships.

New York has more than 300 colleges and universities of higher education with more than $4 billion in research and development spending, second only to California, a much more populated state.
Approximately 32% of State residents hold Bachelors or more advanced degrees, 8^th most in the nation.
Despite being home to Wall Street, New York attracts only 4% of the nation’s venture capital investment while California gets 47%.

Name the assets and we have them including an educated and diverse workforce, brains for the industries of the mind, a quality environment including abundant water, a world class city, a strong agriculture sector, major financial, cultural and communication sectors and so on and so forth.

Yet, as exemplified when it comes to attracting venture capital goes, we are not regionally in the northeast, nationally or globally competitive. I don’t know the reason. Perhaps it is complacency or intra-competitiveness rather that getting our act together to compete on the world stage.

What we do not have and have not had since the days of former Governor Nelson Rockefeller, is state planning and a state vision to be the best we can be from having pure water to having a first class state university system.

How can we chart a course for competitiveness in our economic sectors without overall planning and investment in all our assets? We also don’t have much in the way of regional planning. Our politicians call for inter-governmental collaboration for greater service efficiency. With so many cities, towns, villages and counties, service efficiency would be great. But what we really need, as regionalist David Rusk has pointed out in many speeches across the State, is inter-governmental collaboration for greater “regional effectiveness” for regional infrastructure planning and development, regional and unified economic development programs and regional tax-base sharing.

As I pointed out in an Eye column when I wrote about the divide between downstate and upstate, we are one state, stupid, or, at least we have to see and act like we are one state if we are to be competitive. Downstate’s strengths complement upstate’s assets. By planning and working together, the end result is significant economic competitiveness.

Mike Elmendorf, New York State Director, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB):

What do we need to do to build a stronger economy in New York? Without question, it starts with lowering taxes and spending, which will lead to a lower cost of doing business, more investment, more jobs and more opportunities--and a stronger tax base.

New York State government is at the brink of financial ruin, collapsing under its own weight after years of unsustainable spending and a devastating tax burden to support it. As a result, our economy is in shambles, and people, jobs and opportunities are fleeing our state at a breakneck pace. The numbers are as stark as they should be startling:

New York’s state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation, 60% above the national average.[1]

New York’s 2009 business tax climate ranks 49^th, which includes a combination of corporate taxes, individual income taxes, sales taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and taxes on property.[2]

New York’s cost of doing business is the 2^nd highest in the nation. Only Hawaii--out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean--is a more expensive state in which to do business.[3]

Per capita state and local spending in New York is 2^nd highest in the nation, trailing only Alaska, which is a unique state.[4]

New York lost 2 million people to other states between 1998 and 2007--the nation’s largest net domestic migration outflow in that time.[5]

As if all those figures are not troubling enough, this year New York’s taxpayers and employers were hit with the biggest tax increase in state history--more than $8 billion, in a budget that also contained the largest increase in spending in state history. And, did we mention that this coincided with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? Is it any wonder our economy is on the ropes? Higher taxes mean fewer jobs. These backward tax and spending policies continue to drive job creators and opportunities from our state, increase costs on virtually every man, woman, child and business in New York, and make it all that more difficult for small businesses to survive.

Small business owners make tough choices every day to keep their businesses running and their employees working. They also know they cannot spend more than they take in. State government must do the same. That means cutting spending, avoiding the usual fiscal gimmickry and one-shots, and enacting reforms that will bring the cost of government down over time, such as a spending cap and property tax cap. And it means saying no to job-killing proposals that would increase costs on employers, such as a paid family leave mandate.

New York’s small business owners are the backbone of our economy. Small business is responsible for most of the new job creation in our economy, and it is small business that will grow New York out of its economic slump--that is, if government will get out of their way and out of their pockets to allow them to do so.

[1] U.S. Census Bureau Data

[2] Tax Foundation

[3] Milken Institute 2007 Cost of Doing Business Index

[4] U.S. Census Bureau Data

[5] American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

Randy Credico, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate

2009-11-29T20:09:00Z

With 2010 stacking up to be a major election year in New York, the Empire Page seeks to interview all candidates for statewide office. We started with interviewing Rick Lazio, Republican candidate for governor. Next up is Randy Credico, who has declared his intent on challenging incumbent Charles Schumer for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

Q#1: You've announced that you're running for Chuck Schumer's US Senate seat. What motivated that decision?

A: Where to start? There are so many reasons to oppose Chuck Schumer. First of all, Schumer represents just about everything wrong with the current state of the Democratic Party. I am sickened by his legislative record and his politics, and how he has gone unchallenged for all these years. I suppose it should come as no surprise, because Democrats in New York are more timid than a flock of sheep.

The fact that Schumer believes that neither he nor his protegee, Kristin Gillibrand, should face a party primary challenge is the most anti-democratic bunkum that I have ever witnessed. Charles Schumer is becoming a de facto New York State dictator like a the South American caudillos of yesteryear. I could go on forever about Schumer’s anti-democratic dictatorial tendencies, but let's move on.

Schumer is the ultimate insider and opportunist. He is underwritten by Wall Street dough, so he can make slick, expensive ads to bamboozle Main Street voters so he can deliver to his Wall Street puppeteers. It’s alarming that much of the public still has yet to connect the dots of his complicity in starting the current economic meltdown by repealing key elements and protections of the Glass-Steagall Act. The profoundly destructive consequences for ordinary citizens of Schumer’s financial recklessness are extremely disconcerting.

I am also running because I am completely frustrated with the direction of this country’s domestic policies. One of the most compelling issues for me is the nation’s criminal justice system. It is interesting that, despite one person of color occupying the Oval Office, there are a record three million more occupying the “big house”.

I have spent 12 years mired in the trenches of our unfair, racist and Kafka-esque criminal justice system. Schumer’s legislative record facilitated the unconscionable growth of the current “prison industrial complex”. He can also take credit for the Robespierre like pace of executions within the prison system, and the untold number of fellow Americans , both innocent and guilty, spiritually wasting away on unfair prosecutions or on death row. Those poor souls are now being denied appeals, courtesy of the various omnibus crime bills Chuck demagoged into law back when he was a U.S. Representative. More to his shame, Chuck Schumer probably shoved these laws through, not on ideological grounds, but based on a focus group study of suburban white voters.

Like all Democratic hacks, Charlie only speaks to the diminishing middle class (which he somehow thinks is still a monolithic group) and never speaks to the homeless, the unemployed, the disenfranchised or soon-to-be-bankrupt, much less prisoners. A vast number of those now in the middle class are rapidly joining those in those lower ranks, and will soon be singing “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”.

Someone has to give them a voice. It won't be Chuck. I am that person.

Then there’s Schumer’s foreign policy, just as wretched as his domestic tyranny. From the outset, Schumer has been an enthusiastic supporter of both the bloody Afghan and both Iraqi wars – as well as that quiet South American intervention known as “Plan Colombia,” a military component of the failed phony “drug war”. Chuck loves to send our young men and women into harms way and , like Dick Cheney, he has never worn a military uniform never mind seen combat.

Schumer is also a backer of the anti patriotic Constitution-killer known as the “Patriot Act.” He encourages the use of torture and other regressive policies that turn the stomachs of lawyers and human rights workers, and progressive Democrats like me.

I can’t imagine that it could have been any worse if the reactionary Republican Alphonse D’Amato had kept his Senate seat – instead of the reactionary Democrat, Chuck Schumer.

And yet, not one well-known Democrat lawmaker will be challenging Chuck. The reason is obvious: They, like Schumer, just “go along to get along.” They are a pathetic crew of feckless will o’ the wisps. Since none of the Democratic establishmentarians will go to bat for the average person, I find it important, even mandatory that I challenge Schumer, and all that he so smugly represents. The fact is that Schumer has degraded this lofty office that was once occupied by the likes of visionaries and abolitionists such as DeWitt Clinton, William Seward and Roscoe Conkling.

“Schumerism” is a political pathology, and I hope I can shine a big bright light on it and encourage others to join me and run and challenge every other Schumeristic Democrat in next year’s primaries – and “throw the bums out,” just like voters did in Massachusetts in 1854 when the Know Nothings swept into nearly every elective office, and went on to pass the most progressive legislation in the nation’s history.

Perhaps I can be a catalyst for progressive reform in New York. People are burnt out with Schumer. I don’t know one Democrat who likes him, yet I don’t know one Democrat with the integrity or the courage to take him on.

That’s why I’m running.

Q#2: If "Democrats in NY are worse than a flock of sheep," what makes you think you'll get a single vote even if you are able to get your name on the ballot?

A: When I say flock of sheep I am talking about most elected officials and not the rank and file. There are those like Andrew Cuomo who march to the beat of their drum (as he did in 2002 when the hacks didn’t want him to run against the chosen inside party hack Carl McCall). Cuomo I believe is the most reform minded so-called establishment politico I have ever met.

I will get my name on the ballot and I will get a surprisingly sizable percentage of the primary vote because people are fed up with the current arcane process and its lack of diversity in terms of ballot choices. On primary day it is a fact that the most conservative Republicans and the most progressive Democrats make it a point to go to the polls. By the time September rolls along I am going to be a well known and vetted alternative to Mr. Schumer. I believe those die hard dems are going to conclude that Chuck is out of touch with progressive dems--he is our Lieberman. Progressives, ultimately will side with my politics after getting to know my backgrond. Also, I am not a hack politician. I am a political comedian, a social activist and a community organizer. Schumer is a dyed-in-the-wool hack politician. He has been in office for 3 decades and has done nothing else professionally that I can remember.

Enough already. I think the public is so damned bored with the the uncharismatic senior senator (who couldn't pact a toll booth if he passed out gold coins) that the novelty of my candidacy will be a very tempting alternative. I am going to run an extremely interesting and creative I am the anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-drug war, anti-torture candidate. He is just the opposite. People have a choice now. Hence, I am in it to win it.

I think conservative dems will like much of what I have to offer. I am a fiscal conservative. I also am a very strong supporter of the 2nd amendment unlike the focus group directed Charlie boy. Once you tinker with one amendment then the rest fall like dominos. The Bill of Rights has been watered down enough--particularly 1st, 4th and 5th and 6th amendments.

Q#3: Getting on the ballot in New York is not that easy. It requires a statewide organization plus legal help in defeating likely petition challenges. That and running a statewide campaign costs money. Have you started putting together an organization and how much money do you estimate you'll need just to get on the ballot?

A: I am in the process of tying together a statewide organization for the petition drive. If the establishment of the Democratic Party trys to keep me off the ballot I can assure it would back bounce against them. I would make comparisons the Iranian, Iraq and Afghan electoral process.... I have tons of volunteers who are excited by the prospect of an opponent to Schumer and the bankrupt politics of schemers. I will go on a hunger strike -- an art in which I am well practiced. I believe $300,000 will be enough to cross the threshold. With internet, twitter and other new free media outlets I believe I will be competitive. For every dollar I spend I will get 10 dollars of value. For every dollar Schumer spends he will get 10 cents in value. I know his consultants. They charge a lot for outmoded and cliché media methods. People like an underdog. I plan on doing a statewide bus tour to as many cities and towns as possible. Mine will be an interesting and entertaining campaign. Schumer will run a boring campaign...

Q#4: In a poll of registered voters conducted earlier this month by Siena College's Research Institute, 60 percent of those polled said they would vote for Schumer if he runs in 2010. His lowest ever favorable rating is 60%. Apparently the electorate has a very high opinion of Senator Schumer and of the job he's doing and, they plan on re-electing him next year. Are you running a symbolic campaign or do you really think you have a chance to win?

No one thought David could beat Goliath. Nobody thought the Jets could win in '69 against the Baltimore Colts. The amazing Mets were written off. Cigar, couldn't be beaten. Seward had the Republican nomination in the bag in 1860 and lost to Lincoln. Jefferson beat the incumbent Adams. Nations continue to bet against Afghanistan and they remain undefeated at home. A young Cassius Clay routed the 7 to 1 favorite Sonny Liston in the early 60s. And, of course, my favorite, Giuseppe Garibaldi’s 1000 that liberated the two Sicilys and went on to unite Italy. I could go on forever. The vast majority of those polled who support Schumer don’t realize what he really represents. I will lay out the history of Schumer in the coming months and I guarantee that his numbers will undergo a tremendous meltdown. And by the way, Schumer wasn't even on the radar when he entered the '98 primary race against the 2 front-runners Green and Ferraro. The tortoise is patient. The hare is self-satisfied and he can be beaten because he has no magic, no charisma, and few priniciples . He beat a broken down D’Amato in 98 and faced an unknown in 2004. If he were invincible he wouldn't need $14 million to run his campaign.

Q#5: On your website you list a number of issues that you intend to campaign on. Give us your platform in priority order...In other words what issue will resonate most with the voters in 2010? What will be the second most important issue?

A: Obviously the economy is the main issue to New Yorkers--it is always the economy. If there hadn't been a severe economic crisis in France in the summer of 1788, then the convocation of the Estates General would not have happened and the revolution would have never passed. The pan-European depression and draughts of 1848 precipitated the revolutionary movements across the continent. Obviously people are concerned with their own well being first and foremost.

The economy is not improving. I believe that we are at the zenith of the recovery and that is not good news. The only people not suffering are those who, by and large, own Chuck Schumer, which is Wall Street and banking interests. Schumer’s support of the repeal of Glass-Steagall will be crystallized in the public's conscience in the coming months.

Schemer's enthusiastic supporl wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have resulted in the deaths of more than a million of god's children will haunt his campaign. His knee-jerk support of watering down the 2nd Amendment will be made clear to voters who cherish their constitutional freedoms. His support of putting millions of people of color behind bars and denying innocent people on death row a chance to prove their innocence through the federal judicial system will be something he will have to answer for when I am finished furnishing this info to communities of color over and over again. His support of the Patriot Act will be one the subject of my daily diatribes against this opportunist, anti-democratic Democrat. I have a copy of a video in which has Chuck supporting torture. So he has to answer why he supports violating the Geneva conventions. The list goes on.

Q#6: Why did you decide to run against Chuck Schumer instead of Kristen Gillibrand? Gillibrand is much less well known and would be an easier target.

A: My buddy John Tasini is already running against Gillibrand and politically we are pretty much on the same page. I support his candidacy 100 per cent. Plus if I ran against Gillibrand and won I would have to be in the same chamber with Schumer for the next 6 years.That would be a real drag. Gillibrand is a Schumer creation. His arm twisting and whatever else of Gov. Paterson to select Gillibrand to replace Clinton is just another one of his weaknesses in the coming debate. Why her and not Andrew Cuomo? Schumer destroyed any chance of Paterson being elected to a full term. I think this is another reason why African Americans will eventually wise up to Schumer and support my maverick candidacy. Schumer needs to be exposed for what he is which is a self serving, hackish, establishment career pol who has done nothing to improve the lives of the middle class, the poor, the disenfranchised and the disaffected. If we can bring him down or weaken his stature it will be a most successful venture. Many people, including elected officials despise Schumer and they have encouraged me to make the challenge.

Q#7: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've never run for elected public office, much less won an election in the past. That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't try, but won't your campaign just make the people you claim to oppose -- traditional Democrats -- seem that much more invincible when you get crushed?

A: I am a registered Democrat. I am not opposed to traditional Democrats...I am opposed to the machine and its wily mechanics who are shamelessly anti-democratic in nature. (They should stop using the word "democrat" for the party until they learn what democracy is all about.) The rank and file Dems are frustrated by the lack of diversity on the ballot and having no option other than to hold their noses with a pair of industrial pincers and pull the lever for someone like Wall Street Chuck.

There are 10 months remaining before the primary and a year before the general election. If it looks like the career party hacks like Denny Farrell are going to deny me access to the ballot to challenge Chuck in the primary then I will bypass the primary process altogether and make a stink of it and then run on another line in the general election. Or, perhaps I will do something different altogether.

I will try to get a new ballot line for perhaps the Green Party by changing course altogether and running for governor although I am a strong supporter of my good friend and reformer Andrew Cuomo. The latter is an unlikely option but I do have a lot of arrows in my political quiver.

Right now I am concentrating on Schumer, as I said, when the average person makes the connection that he is a Wall Street concubine that has been cheating on Main Street, his numbers will go down. He has 30 percent negative ratings. I think that will easily go to 50 when people get hip to his BS.

And finally, my older brother Richard Credico asked me to run against Schumer earlier this year and I told him that I would. He died suddenly a few weeks later (April 29). Out of my love and devotion for him, I have decided to do this and be guided by the winds of his great spirit. This is for you Ricky.

Also, my father did 8 years in prison before I was born. I know first hand the mental and emotional effects of the American prison system. I have worked with prisoners and ex-prisoner for the past 12 years as the director of the William Moses Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice; (Kunstler along with Thomas Paine, Fredrick Douglass, E.B Dubois, the author Richard Hildreth, Rev. Theodore Parker, John Brown. and the civil rights attorneys Margaret Ratner and Elizabeth Fink have had the most influence on my enlightenment on the race issue.)

Chuck Schumer wrote bills that resulted in excessively long term incarceration of people like my father in our out of control and barbaric prison system. Schumer doesn’t care for the unfortunate people behind the razor wire. I can’t stress enough how big a motivating factor all of this is on my campaign. My father was a big Jolson fan so let me close by saying "You ain’t heard or seen nothing yet." I am just getting warmed up!!!

Interview with Chris Edes, chairman, NYS Libertarian Party

2009-11-23T20:08:00Z

Background: Continuing our series of interviews with leaders of New York's political parties, we spoke with Chris Edes, who is currently chairman of the NYS Libertarian Party.

Q#1: From your point of view what's the biggest problem facing New York State and how would the Libertarian Party solve that problem?

A: The biggest problem facing New York State is dysfunctional government. One could fill a book with the whys and hows, but the root cause is our two-party system of government. The "right side/wrong side" mentality inherent in the system privileges power over public service. Tactics of doubtful moral or ethical virtue are often employed to retain this power, and defeating the other team is given higher priority than real outcomes for New York's citizens. Civic engagement suffers when issues are oversimplified, so that one side's position can be presented as "right" and the other "wrong".

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party. We're committed to providing a real alternative on your local ballot. Unlike most "third parties" in our State, cross-endorsement of Democrats and Republicans is the exception for us, rather than the norm. For the Libertarian Party, independence is a way of life, not a party label.

If we really want to shake up Albany, we have to vote both major parties out. By consistently providing a real alternative, we strive to offer New York voters a way out of our dysfunction dilemma.

Q#2: Is the Libertarian Party making any headway in NYS? I'll grant you that your presidential candidate in 2008 received almost three times more votes (19,596) than your 2000 candidate (7,649), but you came in 7th statewide behind the Conservative, Working Families and Independence Parties, each of which received more than 150,000 votes. Even Ralph Nadar more than doubled your party's turnout. What is going to change that will make the Libertarian Party a factor in NYS and how long will it take?

A: One problem is ballot access. The constituted "third parties" in NY (Conservative, Independence, Working Families) often endorse Democrats and/or Republicans, avoiding the "lesser of two evils" problem by endorsing one of them.

This happens almost without exception in the race for Governor, and for good reason. That way constituents can vote for their party without risking that the greater evil might win. Thus the party can get at least 50,000 votes on its line for Governor, which gives them constituted status in NY, making ballot access much easier.

Since the Libertarian Party insists on providing an alternative candidate, we fall short of this goal. As a result, it's more difficult for us to put local candidates on the ballot, which is vital to building a support base. We're not the only party in NY facing this problem. Most other states have higher levels of third party participation.

Another problem is that "third parties" tend to over-intellectualize. We need to focus on finding concrete solutions to local problems. To some extent this means stepping outside ideological boundaries. The fiscal conservative/social liberal emphasis of the Libertarian Party appeals to most Americans, but has not been actuated to best effect by our party.

Over time we're seeing this situation improve. Recent polls agree that support for our party is strongest among young adults. Fresh thinking and optimism will bring the change we need, without compromising our integrity in the gubernatorial process.

Question #3: Speaking of New York's elections laws, legislation was introduced this past year that would reduce the number of signatures required to get on the ballot (Assembly 4161), reduce the ability of challengers to disqualify opponents' signatures (Senate 355) and remove certain language from nominating petitions that can discourage voters from signing them (Senate 1366/Assembly 4959). How does the Libertarian Party feel about these bills and about New York's election laws in general?

A: This is all needed legislation. I'm pleased that S1366/A4959 was signed into law, fixing the unconstitutional language in election law, with regard to independent nominating petitions. A4161 will go far toward bringing NYS more in line with national standards for ballot access, and reduce the importance of the gubernatorial race by making it easier for independent candidates to qualify.

S355 addresses the serious problem of ballot disqualification for obscure technical reasons. The rules and regulations of the State Board of Elections already include a similar provision in Section 6215.6(a), but the county Boards of Elections are not required to comply. While admirable in intent, I fear that old habits die hard, and S355 would be ignored, much as the State Board of Elections has ignored 6215.6(a) when under political pressure.

I cite as an example the State BoE's ruling regarding the Libertarian petition in this year's special election for Congress in the 20th C.D. The BoE disqualified a large number of signatures on our petition, because the witness wrote his village, instead of his town, in the "Witness Identification Information". The State's interest in identifying the witness is to allow him or her to be subpoenaed, if necessary. Given that the full address of the witness is also supplied on the petition, it's hard to understand the reasoning by which the use of village instead of town can fail the "substantial compliance" test.

If there was one improvement I could make to New York's election law, it would be none of these. I would make all elections below the State level non-partisan. 27 states have some non-partisan county level elections, and in 8 states all county elections are non-partisan. Most California cities and all Texas cities have non-partisan elections. 41 of the 50 largest cities in the U.S. with an elected mayor hold non-partisan elections.

This is not a new or radical idea. Non-partisan local elections ensure that local issues are not obscured by party politics, as is too often the case in our state, where demographic patterns often result in de facto one-party rule.

Q#4: We live in an era of professional politicians some of whom earn high salaries plus "consulting fees" from would-be contractors -- vide: Anthony Seminario and Joe Bruno. John Faso, the 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate, would have us go back to the days of part-time legislators by reducing legislative salaries, perks and staff. How do you feel about that concept? Do you have any other suggestions to clean up New York's "ethics" problems?

A: In New Hampshire, legislators are paid $100 per year (technically, $200 every two years), and the state seems to get along just fine. Part of this is due to the wisdom of their legislators, in keeping the size and scope of government small enough to manage on a part-time basis.

In New York, the big ethics problem is the unequal distribution of salaries, staff and perks. The distribution favors the majority party, and is usually controlled by the leadership, allowing them to exert pressure against rank and file members, who might otherwise act in the interest of their constituents at the expense of party leaders.

I favor eliminating extra compensation for committee chairmanships, as it encourages such positions to be awarded as favors, rather than on the basis of personal talents. Pension plans should be eliminated entirely. Legislators need some staff to keep track of matters which impact legislative decisions, but every legislator should have the same budget for hiring.

Base pay should be halved, and any increase thereof should require a statewide referendum on the November ballot. I can't vote to increase my salary, I have to ask my employer. The same should apply to our public servants.

In addition, we should have term limits for all partisan public offices in New York. I also favor non-partisan elections on the local level, which would give counties and municipalities the freedom to set their own rules regarding term limits.

Q#5: Non-partisan local elections sounds like a good idea until you remember that legislative bodies need to elect officers, appoint people to committee chairs, etc. in order to function. Without party affiliations as a means of organizing themsleves, wouldn't it be hard for non-partisan legislative bodies to operate efficiently to conduct the people's business?

A: Organizations like the Rotary Club and Kiwanis have familiarized people with Robert's Rules for centuries. There are thousands of philanthropic and advocacy organizations which offer the requisite experience in parliamentary organization and procedure. Participation in civic organizations is an excellent way to establish a reputation and base of support in the community. Those most likely to be elected to non-partisan office are those who have gained experience in this field.

No doubt the political class in this country believes themselves indispensable. This has been the case throughout recorded history, for good or (all too often) ill. Participation in civic and community service organizations produces people who focus on the good of their community. The party political process produces people who focus on acquiring power. The former unifies the community, the latter divides it into factions.

In my home city of Rochester, the Democratic Party has held an absolute power monopoly for over 30 years. They recruit their candidates from civic organizations. These candidates already possess organizational skills, and are perfectly capable of running on their own merits. Why should they require the imprimatur of party bosses? That extra step may profit a few, but contributes nothing to the community.

Over larger territories, it's more difficult to gain a personal reputation. In that case, it does make sense to outsource the identification of agreeable candidates to political parties. On the local level, however, political party involvement does little good, and encourages party politics to outweigh community concerns.

Q#6: Rightly or wrongly many people associate the Libertarian Party with certain issues -- such as legalizing marijuana and opposition to laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. What image would you like people to have of the Libertarian Party? Why should people consider voting for your candidates or becoming a member of your party?

A: The Libertarian Party believes that you own yourself, and have the right to make your own decisions. If an adult does not want to wear his or her seatbelt (or helmet), we're fine with that. If you want to smoke marijuana, that should be your right. The American Medical Association and American Bar Association, medical and legal experts, support the legalization of marijuana. The Libertarian Party is proud to stand with the experts and base our positions on fact. The question I ask is, why do our politicians do otherwise?

People should consider voting for us, and joining our party, because we stand up for their rights. We believe America's greatness derives from our strong respect for the freedom of the individual. If people want politicians to tell them what to do, and take more of their hard-earned money, they should vote for some other party. That's their prerogative. The Libertarian Party will continue to stand for the dignity and integrity of the individual.

Interview with Jonathan Gradess, Exec. Dir., NYS Defenders Association

2009-10-27T23:35:00Z

When the public sector is hurting for funds programs that aid the poor often suffer. To find out if that was the case for poor people accused of crimes we talked to Jonathan E. Gradess, executive director of the NYS Defenders Association.

Q#1: What year was the New York State Defenders Association founded and what led to its formation?

NYSDA was formed in 1967 in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright in which the Court said no one should be hauled into court without counsel simply because they couldn’t afford a lawyer. The lawyers hired to run the newly created state defender offices and assigned counsel programs and the heads of legal aid societies contracting in the counties thought there needed to be a centralized organization devoted to the improvement of the nascent system. They formed NYSDA.