Empire Page - Improving New York

Roundtable on the Social Contract

2011-10-18T16:09:00Z

Background: Recently, Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor, former Obama regulator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Massachusetts Senate seat formerly held by Edward Kennedy, sparked a national debate by positing that people who are successful in business owe that success to a large extent because of the state's contributions in the form of schooling, public utilities, police and fire protection, and thus the state should be able to take as large a share of their wealth as it needs in order to provide such services as it deems necessary.

George F. Will, writing in the Washington Post, argues that Warren's social contract is "antithetical to America's premise, which is: Government – including such public goods as roads, schools and police – is instituted to faciliate individual striving, a.k.a., the pursuit of happiness." This debate encapsulates the differences between the two national political parties and thus may play a role in the outcome of the 2012 election. Who is right -- Warren and Occupy Wall Street or WIll and the Tea Party, or is there a third view?

The Empire Page invited a number of trusted commentators for their views on this topic. Their initial statements are found below. If you'd like to participate in the discussion, you may comment at the end of the piece or if you have a longer statement that you'd like us to consider please email it to editor@empirepage.com.

Dan Lynch, former Managing Editor, Albany Times Union: One of American cinema’s most memorable characters is Humphrey Bogart’s Rick Blaine in “Casablanca.” World-weary and proudly cynical as war looms between the United States and Hitler’s Germany, saloon owner Blaine early in the film describes his nationality as “drunkard.” The only cause that interests him, he proclaims early in the movie, is him.

By film’s end, though, Rick has undergone a striking change of heart. At Casablanca’s airport, he tells his girlfriend, Ilsa, that she must go off with her Czech freedom fighter husband and support him in his noble task of battling the Nazis. She can’t run off with Rick and spend the rest of her life with him, as they’d planned. Rick, too, plans to fight the Nazis.

Ilsa is shocked at Rick’s sudden flip-flop. She says, “But what about us? …I said I would never leave you.”

Rick then tells her, “And you never will. But I've got a job to do, too. Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do, you can't be any part of. Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world…”

The America of 1942, a nation of rugged individualists if ever there was one, loved that movie. It got the Oscar. Its theme was self-sacrifice – the subjugation of individual self-interest to the welfare of the larger community in time of crisis. Yeah, sure, everybody understood and sympathized with Rick’s early self-focus in a difficult, dangerous and treacherous world, but that film hit the screen during an era when Americans, regardless of their political views, understood that in time of national crisis we’re all in this together – and that we all need one another for most of us to succeed in the long run.

That, ultimately, is what civilization is about. That’s why human beings got together in the first place. That’s essentially Elizabeth Warren’s point when she maintains that people who succeed conspicuously in this society owe a big portion of that success to the benefits that civilized society provides. George Will condemns that view as an example of “the collectivist agenda.” I don’t know if he would similarly characterize public sewerage systems, but that’s the logical extension of his point of view.

Will’s argument is that government’s sole purpose is to “facilitate individual striving.” That’s certainly one purpose of the government created by Madison, Franklin, et al, but hardly the only purpose. The best indication of what the Framers had in mind as government’s proper role is to be found in what they wrote about that role.

The purpose of the federal government, they wrote in the Constitution’s preamble, is to “… establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty …”

Justice is like beauty; it exists in the eye of the beholder. That whole domestic tranquility thing suffered a bit of a setback in 1861. It’s clear, however, that the Framers were at least as concerned with the general welfare as they were with individual liberty. Quite clearly, what they were after was a fair and rational balancing of those interests when they come into conflict, as will often occur in discussions of taxation and government power.

It’s absurd, however, for anybody to argue seriously that the creators of this nation did not expect some sacrifice on the part of some citizens for the benefit of all citizens. The Framers were exceedingly smart guys. If that’s what they’d meant, that’s what they would have written; they didn’t.

That doesn’t mean that the general citizenry should enjoy a bottomless entitlement to the wealth accumulated by productive people, and only a tiny percentage of Americans believe that it should. It also does not mean that productive people can claim all the credit for their success for themselves. Herman Cain, who proclaimed the other day that if you’re not rich it’s your own fault, is a classic example. He’s clearly a bright, purposeful, energetic guy, but would Herman Cain have become Herman Cain without the Civil Rights Act, without the Voting Rights Act, without the actions taken by the federal government to clear the path to success for African Americans?

The fact is that Herman Cain might well have become Herman Cain without those government actions, but the odds would have been longer for him – considerably longer, actually. It says something not terribly complimentary about Herman Cain that he lacks either the character or the self-awareness to acknowledge that.

This battle over what America really stands for has raged on since long before I drew my first breath. It’s essentially a battle between people who respect the obligation of membership in a larger community and people whose general mindset is, “Screw everybody but me.”

That’s why the Americans of 1942 fell in love with Rick Blaine’s epiphany that life in the real world involved something more than his own desires. At the time, Americans faced a common enemy whose danger to all was obvious even to the most dim-witted among us. Today, this country has 25 million people looking for fulltime jobs – one out of five of us in the workforce. Yet a disturbingly high number of the four out of five people who still have jobs and income don’t grasp how that situation can adversely affect them.

They lack the knowledge of history to understand how corrosive and universally devastating large-scale, long-term unemployment can be to a society. They don’t grasp the dangers of immense disparities in wealth – of people at the top of the heap getting richer and richer over decades while the masses grow ever poorer, day by grinding day. They know nothing about the forces that gave birth to the French Revolution or to the Nazis a century and a half later. They simply don’t see how somebody else’s enormous economic problem is their problem, too.

So, while loudly annunciating their fervent love of country, they hide behind utterly false interpretations of this nation’s founding principles. They ignore words meticulously chosen by the Framers, and they cling to the totally fallacious view that success involves only effort, drive and individual commitment. To them, there’s no such thing as luck, no such thing as disadvantage, no virtue in community, no universal benefit to be derived from a public support system designed with the goal of giving everybody an equal chance.

“Casablanca” was fiction – great fiction that celebrated the concepts of altruism and mutual obligation. The mindset that I’ve just described is also fiction.

But it’s hardly reassuring as a window on human nature.

Paul M. Bray, Esq.: In the late 1970s I was the bill drafter for Assemblyman Dan Haley, an anomaly who was a Democrat from the North Country. One of his interests was the work of Louis Kelso, a believer that various forces like increased productivity are going to make significant cuts in available jobs. Kelso’s solution was Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP). It would enable working people without savings to buy stock in their employer company and pay for it out of future dividend yield. He saw employees supporting themselves and their families by become share holder rather than hourly employees.

In other words, the plight of today’s unemployed has been envisioned for decades even if the today’s multimillion-dollar incomes with lower rates of taxes than the middle-class families weren’t. Do you remember when a billion dollars was real money at the time the billion dollar Empire State Plaza was constructed?

We have a real problem in the USA as the rich get much richer and more tax adverse while incomes of the poor and middle classes continue to decline and unemployment rates increase. This is the background or explanation to the fact that our public goods like roads, schools, libraries, transit, parks and police are in decline.

George F. Will is right that such public goods can and should facilitate individual striving, a.k.a., the pursuit of happiness. But that isn’t the end of the story. We are also a national community with hundreds of thousands of local communities with public goods like schools and roads that make it possible for these communities and the residents therein to have their happiness. How can any individual striver that becomes a million or billionaire and fails to carry his or her weight for the common good succeed in a decayed world?

As Louis Kelso anticipated, we are facing a structural inadequacy of employment that may lead to what Jim Clifton calls in his new book “The Coming Jobs War” and it will be bad for all, rich or poor, if the richest amongst us fail to pay “the price of civilization” as Jeffrey Sachs entitled his new book. We have serious problems in maintaining our public goods and we don’t need a political party dedicated to protecting the rich from paying their fair share of taxes.

Peter G. Pollak, Publisher & Editor, The Empire Page: We Americans are in danger of losing another chunk of our liberty. Americans have enjoyed greater liberty than other peoples for so long that we’ve come to take it for granted. As a result we are slow to see the threats.

Liberty is that combination of individual rights that is sufficient to enable each person to pursue personal happiness as s/he sees fit. In the U.S., it began as freedom from Great Britain, the right to self-governance. It was extended in the form of the Bill of Rights, 10 provisions that were added to the Constitution largely to protect the individual against government. Why did we need a Bill of Rights? Because the people who founded our country knew from experience that governments do not hesitate to deny rights to individual citizens in order to achieve their goals.

Liberty was extended in the 19th to people who came to this country as slaves. Later women were granted equal rights to men. Other rights before the law have been gained as a result often of long difficult struggles.

Today liberty is under attack from two sources. Technology has made it harder for the individual to remain anonymous. Employers can check out your Facebook page to find out what you did this past weekend. Emails you wrote in anger can be uncovered and private phone conversations can be overheard. Most Americans are nervous about such developments, as they should be, but most of us are willing to trade a certain amount of loss of privacy in return for the advantages technology can deliver as long as protections are included with the package. The bottom line is that each American’s liberty is diminished to the extent that government officials, one’s employer or one’s neighbor can use information gained through technology to censure legal behavior, including legal speech. Cases of bullying that have led to suicides are an example of the evil that can result.

An equal, if not greater, threat to liberty is the emergence of coercive government – a government that uses its powers to censure legal behavior.

Dan Lynch’s defense of personal sacrifice is well argued, but it misses the point of the present debate. It’s one thing to coerce sacrifice in a time of war, which in essence is what the military draft represents, but it’s another thing to coerce personal sacrifice in the market place. Lynch argues that the well-being of society as a whole is at stake, but there’s no objective standard in place that tells us when it’s okay to impose an economic draft. Rather, what determines how far government may go is the political process. What we decide in the voting booth is the final arbiter … until the next election.

I would argue that Elizabeth Warren and Occupy Wall Street represent a threat to individual liberty that extends far beyond the need of government to protect its citizens in a time of economic crisis.

We take progressive tax rates – the idea that the more you earn, the higher percentage of what you earn can be taken from you – as a given. That’s not the problem. The problem is the basis for setting those rates – is it truly social needs or ideological in nature? When those who fall into the 35% tax bracket are asked to pay even more because of their supposed personal greed, we’ve stepped over the line.

To define individual success in the marketplace as greed borders on the scapegoating policies of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. We should recognize the tactic: define certain groups – capitalists in Russia and Jews in Germany –as evil to justify confiscating their property. When wealth gained through lawful means is defined as anti-social behavior, we’re violating the social contract as originally intended by the founders; we’re saying as Wills points out that to protect the individual’s right to the pursue personal happiness is no longer government’s top priority.

Warren argues that economic success is a benefit dependent on government’s providing certain services, including public schooling, roads, police and fire protection and so forth.

No one is saying that taxes should not be raised to pay for basic public goods. The problem comes when people are taxed so that elected officials can loan money to people who donated to their campaigns or when government determines where a business should be located to benefit a special interest group, as in the case of Boeing’s attempt to open a plant in South Carolina being blocked to aid certain labor unions.

The case of Solyndra is instructive. The Obama administration, having determined that solar power was the wave of the future, loaned money to a company that existed largely to take advantage of government largesse. Backing individual companies is not the right way to support alternative energy.

Government can stimulate innovation, which in turn can boost the economy, but picking individual winners and losers is the worst of many options. Preferable are awards to academic institutions where peer review – not government officials – determine which research projects deserve financial support. Those research projects which meet market needs will then have no trouble getting loans and investment support from the private sector.

Another way government can help the economy without allowing political objectives to interfere is through loan guarantees to companies chosen by bank officers whose careers are on the line if they pick losers. When I started Empire Information Services in 1986, I borrowed $100,000 from Key Bank. Key took advantage of a small business loan guarantee program to help reduce its risk, but a Key Bank loan officer, not a government official, made the decision to back my company. 25 years later that company (in its second incarnation as readMedia) still exists.

A major flaw in Warren’s argument (and the protestors’ focus on Wall Street) is the notion that successful businesses have not paid their fair share of the cost of the public utilities they consume. Businesses are more heavily taxed in the U.S. than almost every country in the developed world; then their owners and shareholders are taxed on the salaries, bonuses and dividends they distribute.

Like President Obama, Warren is intentionally vague on who ought to be considered wealthy and what share of the cost of public goods wealthy Americans ought to pay. Is it $250,000? $1,000,000? A recent proposal that a surtax be added to Americans who earn $1 million or more was rejected by the Washington Post on the grounds that it leaves in place special tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and is “purely political.”

The real danger of Warren’s position, however, is the assumption that government has a “right” to punish a specific class of citizens for lawful behavior. That makes government something apart from the people – a model that the communists of the Soviet Union could not make work and that the Chinese are having to abandon in fact if not yet in theory.

When a coercive government is allowed to define groups within a society as greedy, to claim their gains are not legitimate, then the liberty of all individuals is diminished.

But what about our economic problems? There are other solutions on the table, including removing obstacles to private sector growth. As I’ve stated in past columns, job growth in the past 20 years has come largely through new technology. Companies large (Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.) and small (EIS/readMedia, etc.) create jobs when given the opportunity to do so. Other companies (IBM, Intel, Boeing, Caterpillar, etc.) continue to grow because their managers make winning decisions without being influenced by government pressure about what products to bring to market.

Unemployment will go down when government restricts its involvement in the private sector, allowing winners and losers to be chosen by customers rather than by bureaucrats. Steve Jobs didn’t apply for unemployment when fired by Apple. He started Next and Pixar, both of which produced social value, jobs and personal wealth. The people need a social contract that allows future Steve Jobs to thrive, not regret having done well.

What's Next For NYS Roundtable

2011-08-17T15:44:00Z

Background: Most people agree that New York State under Andrew Cuomo's leadership made progress in addressing the imbalance between the cost of our public sector and taxpayers' ability to pay the freight. The question is what more can be accomplished given the state of the national economy? Two years into the recovery, the national economy is clearly weak and in danger of being dragged back into negative growth numbers by a combination of factors including debt crises in Europe and at home. Where does NYS go from here to boost economic growth, reverse the outmigration of businesses and middle class taxpayers while still meeting the needs of our citizens for police and fire protection, safe roads, good schools and other public goods?

Mark Alesse: The most obvious answer is that New York is going to suffer more acutely from a continuation of the national and world economic crises, and will remain mired in slow or no-growth much longer than states that had not been so poorly managed nor serially plagued by corrupt and intellectually-dishonest politicians.

I'm not sanguine about the future of New York for several reasons. First, its political history and culture are stuck in the last century. During my tenure at the helm of NFIB I watched when good economic times rolled how NYS spent every nickel it could lay its hands on. And when bad economic times hit, New York raised money by borrowing and raising taxes, and spent every nickel it could lay its hands on. Nothing about this idiocy troubled the political elites, nor the social-welfare lobby, but it drove the business community to distraction. We sounded the alarm as best we could, but were derided for bringing Cassandra to the banquet table.

So businesses just left. Year-by-year those that could packed up and moved to North Carolina and other states whose costs of doing business weren't ruinous. Those that couldn't move, stayed and went broke, the monumental consequence of which is that ambitious New Yorkers, mostly young people, packed up and left too.

EJ McMahan recently released the numbers on this out-migration. This is the most significant sociological event in the state's history, and it has gotten far too little coverage. Consider this; how could New York have hoped to recover from the terrorist attack on 9/11 if it had resulted in a million and a half people dead, instead of 3,000?

Well, that's what's happened and is happening to New York now, albeit in slow-motion. One and a half million people disappeared; gone and no longer contributing to the life and economy of New York. And these were people with a desire to get ahead and whose ambitions were being frustrated by New York. The very sort of people a growing and vibrant society must have. What's left? Take a stroll in downtown Buffalo, Rochester, Schenectady, Albany, or Syracuse after sundown to see what's left. Boarded-up retail space, high commercial vacancy rates, homeless people, the unemployed, some retired people and government offices. There is nothing of the private sector worth mentioning. These cities are a dead-zone.

If you ask me whether it can change, I think the answer is yes. But, if you ask me, will it change? I think that it is unlikely. The politically powerful groups that brought us to this pass are still in Albany, they are still powerful, and they are completely unrepentant, if not completely ignorant, of the role they played in ruining the business climate, bankrupting the state, and driving ambitious people away.

Governor Cuomo apparently sees the big picture and understands much of this. Remarkably, he has accomplished a few important reforms and has the corrupt and dysfunctional Albany establishment back on its heels, but the challenges that remain are Sysipheon.

What are they? In my view every state program that doesn't have to do with the protection of life and preservation of civil order has to be cut in order to dramatically reduce the size of government. After that, the highest priority must be to promote a growing economy. It is axiomatic; people need work above all else save life and security. The only way to have an economy that can create jobs is to reduce the costs of doing business; all of them. That means reforming the tax law, the unemployment insurance and workers' compensation, tort law, commercial liability insurance, commercial property taxes and group health insurance. (Notably, if not predictably, at a meeting of business leaders in Buffalo, new ESD chief Ken Adams mentioned not one of these. It was, however, reported that he is "focused" on the upstate economy.)

Anything less than reducing the costs of doing business to the average of the states with growing economies will not do. So, am I hopeful? Not really. Certainly not in the near term. The future is unknowable and could hold some unforeseen developments, but absent the reforms I've suggested, New York will not be capable of enjoying the full potential of even a global economic turnaround (unlikely in any event) and will just muddle along as it has, with no bright future and just a dimming memory of past glory. (contact Mark at mark.alese@gmail.com)

Mark Bitz: Mark Alesse’s comments are spot on!

They address what my 2005 book, Creating a Prosperous New York State, was all about. Not long after researching and writing it, I concluded that the Medicaid, union, and pro-big government special interests not only controlled all three branches of government in Albany, but represented a majority of the state’s population. This population, the entitlement culture, and the state’s overhead make it impossible for most businesses in NYS to successfully compete in the long run with businesses located in states without these drags. Thus, in 2007, I sold a 6 generation business, employing 300 people, doing $40 million in sales, and growing 20% a year, because I knew the niche market advantages that we worked so hard to create were temporary and transferring it to the 7^th generation would be far more of a curse than a blessing to them. Within 9 months of selling our company, the purchasing company moved it to Pennsylvania. They indicated to me that they had intended to keep our business in NYS, but found the costs too high to earn a satisfactory return for the shareholders of a publically traded company. Within two years of moving it, they doubled its sales and increased its profitability five times.

I have encouraged both of my hardworking and able boys to leave the state. The 24 year old has, and I believe the 18 old will upon completing college. My wife and I will be leaving the state in 2012. Over the years I have made numerous business owner and CEO friends, who for the most part have similar sentiments. They more often than not have or will sell family businesses for the same reason and have advised their children to leave the state as I have.

Years of paying the freight(NYS taxes) for 50 plus other families didn’t really bother me until I realized that most of the taxes were enabling entitled lives. Moreover, I realized, taxes that enable entitled lives, disable purposeful lives. Having little interest in doing this, I now think about ways to minimize the taxes I pay to governments that enable entitled lives, and maximize my donations to charities that enable purposeful lives.

Robert W. Schwartz: Both Mark A's and Mark B's responses are typical rehash of the terrible history of the last 30 years of bad policy by our NYS government. Neither offer solutions. Here are four modest proposals to improve our business climate:

1. Give each employer a 5 year holiday on state unemployment taxes for new incremental hires.

2. Eliminate NYS capital gains taxes for investments in NYS companies when investments are held for a minimum of five years.

3. Cut SUNY free from legislative tuition control.

4. Pass term limits for ALL elected position at state, county and municipal levels.

Let's collect more ideas for change and stop dealing with history. Let all the historians move to other states or countries and invite the "doers" into the Empire State.

Richard Ottalagano, Supervisor, Fulton County: I'm going to step out of line on this. I don't have praises for Governor Cuomo. He promised a property tax cap along with mandate relief. What we got was a tax cap, and same sex marriages! Local governments will reduce services to a point that will cause more businesses to leave the state. In my eyes the biggest problem the state has is too many agencies and authorities not answerable to any elected body.

I read term limits for all levels of government as a solution, and I wish the writer luck with that, as there is very little interest in running for local positions. I'd rather see minimum requirements for offices, courses and tests given before one can run for office. The average person would be shocked how little newly elected people know of their position, OJT is a very poor option.

Brian Sampson, Executive Director, Unshackle Upstate: Today in New York we are certainly better off than we were 12 months ago. We have a leader in the Executive Mansion that is doing what he proposed to do on the campaign trail…reducing the size of government and lowering spending and taxation levels. He has been joined by the Senate Majority as well as many members of the Assembly that reside in Upstate New York. All signs are pointing to the positive. But we cannot rest there. We need to continue to push for more reductions if the economy is to recover fully.

So how can a state lowering spending and taxes without jeopardizing the core services that its residents have come to depend on? The answer is clear…it is all about mandate relief. Simply put, there are laws in the state of New York that drive up local government spending and as a result increase our taxes. Yet, with a little help from the legislature, we can repeal/reform these laws. The end will result is that the current level of taxation can be spent more wisely and efficiently…it can be targeted to support economic growth.

Earlier this year Unshackle Upstate proposed 9 ideas that will take the necessary first step for mandate relief. That list includes:

· Enact the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

· Limit the ability of the state to impose future unfunded mandates

· Authorize local governments to “opt-out” of certain unfunded mandates

· Require all local government and school district employees and retirees to make minimum contributions to their health insurance

· Create a new defined contribution pension tier for all state and local employees;

· End the state’s “project labor agreement” mandate;

· Raise competitive bidding thresholds for local governments (GML 103) and

· Expand Court of Claims jurisdiction to include claims against local governments

The concept of mandate relief is not new but it can be uncomfortable. In fact, some of what we proposed above are political hot potato’s because they take away some critical leverage of the public employee union leadership. And that creates issues for some within the legislative body that rely on the unions for contributions and support.

But if you asked the average New York resident if they would support a plan that allows for the state to continue to provide critical services without raising spending or taxes, they would overwhelming support it. It is time for our 212 elected officials to join the Governor, local governments and the taxpayers and finally support and pass meaningful mandate relief. We can’t nibble around the edges anymore. Our future is bright…but just how bright will depend on the Senate and Assembly.

Doug Boettner, Empire Page Columnist: First of all unwarranted spending by State agencies on operations has to cease. Zero-based budget reviews need to be done for each major state agency and only expenses critical to their mission both legislative and regulatory requirements should continue.

The same holds true for municipalities and school districts. A comprehensive review of operations and costs need to be performed and costs cut accordingly. In addition, consolidation of both municipalities and school districts should be made mandatory by the state legislature.

All of these actions over time will serve to reduce the tax burden on both businesses and individuals and homeowners. The exodus of New Yorkers has to be stopped if the economy is to rebound.

Secondly, borrowing by New York State and public authorities to meet operational expense must cease. Borrowing should only be allowed for fund capital construction and large capital acquisitions, and for projects that are backed by a solid revenue source. Pyramiding of debt is a sure way to collapse any organization.

One needs to keep in mind that substantial downsizing of governments across the board will hurt the economy from the standpoint that unemployment of government workers will rise substantially and less good and services will be procured. However, once businesses realize that NYS is becoming more tax-friendly, more businesses will locate and relocate to New York and that will serve to reverse the unemployment figures and the purchase of goods and services from those very businesses. One will fuel the other.

Finally, the State Legislature needs to recognize they are a major part of the problem. They have overtaxed and over-regulated businesses in this state for decades and now we see the results: a mass exodus. Hopefully they are seeing it also and are realizing something needs to be done. They need to reform the laws to make New York State a business-friendly state. We as taxpayers need to enforce our concern with them on this issue.

My feeling is Governor Cuomo gets it and he will continue to move New York State in the direction outlined above. Capping property taxes is a start. Getting concessions from the public employee unions also is a good start. Working with local communities to identify opportunities for bettering their local economy is another good measure. There is much more work to be done, but the word needs to go out to the business community…there’s a new sheriff in town and he is going to make New York State a good place to do business.

Paul Bray, Empire Page Columnist: In February 2000 I wrote a column entitled, “Upstate: Replacing a culture of blame with a culture of building”. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What I wrote in 2000 was:

“Everyone knows the rap on upstate. The weather stinks, the tax burden and energy costs are high and regulations stringent, manufacturing has fled leaving a plague of brownfields, population relative to the nation’s population is declining and with it the State’s power on the national scene and we have a medieval State government. From the weather to government, there is a lot to blame.

The recently organized alliance of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo business organizations called Advance Upstate New York has the answers. Its agenda is simple. Cut taxes and energy costs, reform Workers Compensation and repeal the Wicks Law and the upstate economy, unshackled, will take off.

At first their agenda sounds good. It won’t improve the weather, but who is against lower taxes and costs. If only economic revivals were so easy. Look closer at these business leaders and you see for the most part that they represent the remains of the traditional upstate economy trying to hold on in a fundamentally changed economic world.

The authors of Grassroots Leaders for a New Economy, an analysis of how places like Austin, Texas and Silicon Valley created thriving economies, would call what is going on in upstate New York an example of a self defeating culture of blame. It happens when existing business leaders control the political agenda sending out negative messages to support policies needed to maintain decade old ways. The business agenda is less an answer to economic plight than a drag to economic revival.

Look again at upstate and you can see the germination of a new economic revival in information technologies based on the vast areas educational, transportation, urban and environmental assets. The economic answer is inside the regions of upstate based on emerging collaborative economies.

Upstate has the right fundamentals for a vital 21st century economy with its industries of the mind like bio technology, software, micro electronics, telecommunications and the environment. It will be based around major university centers in Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Binghamton, Cornell and Buffalo supported by colleges, community colleges and professional schools.”

Each university center will be the engine of competitive regions linked by world class high tech/transportation corridors like the Thruway and recreationways/heritage corridors. From these university engines with their technology, research capacity, tech transfer infrastructure and business partnerships will come new products and a new generation of manufacturing jobs.”

Simply restated, cutting government spending, cutting taxes, removing regulations and so on and so forth aren’t going to take us to a better economic future. Instead, the road to a better future depends on greater competitiveness, entrepreneurial spirit and greater effectiveness. We need to put our educational, environmental, heritage, civic, urban and social capital assets to work with a real sense of belief in our assets backing up our progress.

Instead of more tax cutting we need that millionaires’ tax to finance maintenance of our existing infrastructure and development of new infrastructure for the 21^st century. Instead of concentrating on cutting governmental spending, we need to focus on reconstituting the first class state planning New York State was known for up until the end of the 1960s. State planning would help us see the big picture, form a positive vision and connect the many dots that make up our communities and regions. It would give us direction and attract investment as investors would see where we were going. I could also foster the creation of multi-stakeholder mega communities to solve our problems and achieve our goals. The European Union’s “Concert” program would be a good model for us to follow.

Finally, let me highlight what regionalist David Rusk proposed after spending time in New York State. He called for “intergovernmental collaboration for greater regional effectiveness thru:

-regional, anti-sprawl, pro-core land use, transportation and other infrastructure planning;

-regional, unified economic development programs;

-regional, “fair share” workforce housing policies/programs; and

-regional tax-base sharing.”

Greater leadership and belief in our future should get us to a culture of building sooner than later, but probably not until we get rid of the culture of blame.

Linda Petzold, Small Business Owner, Bainbridge, NY: How to Get Our State and Federal Government to Help:

1. Press for education on all levels. Strive for excellence in the classroom not mediocrity. All children do not learn the same and all children will not go to college. There is a need for trade schools. There will always be a need for plumbers and carpenters and electricians and chefs. There can be higher education in these areas.

2. Make it attractive for our best and brightest to stay here. Improve the infrastructure. Work on a mass transit system to provide the means to get to the cities where most of the work is, from the rural areas that are losing more and more jobs.

3. Our education and business mandates need to be looked at and adjusted to what is practical. We do not need more administrators in schools we need more teachers.

4. Our politicians need to look to themselves the benefits and perks that they are receiving come from the tax payers. Both State and Federal. Are they earning it and there should be a private review (NOT Politicians) to look into this.

There are many things we could do with some will. Unfortunately most do not have the will. They only want to blame each other.

Greg Hitchcock, Empire Page Editor: Southern politicians are right. Historically, they have been proponents of states’ rights against the encroachments of national power. Today, we need a Jefferson rather than a Lincoln.

Virginia-born Thomas Jefferson believed in states’ rights fearing an overly centralized federal government. In fact, he believed that a revolution against government was a good thing from time to time, something that was natural in the writer of the Declaration of Independence.

Illinois politician Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, was the Civil War president that upheld national authority in the north’s mission of preserving the Union. At that time in our history, federal authority was a necessary evil – Congress abolished slavery, promoted and built our transportation network of rails and roads, and sold cheap Western land to farmers in order to populate the frontier.

Today, we must insist upon going backwards in order to move forward, allowing the individual states to develop internally what we depended upon the nation to resolve. Northern states are beginning to realize the necessity of this Southern strategy.

New York State under the leadership of Gov. Andrew Cuomo is seeking ways to do just that, restructuring state government to make it more responsive to the needs of its own citizens. It is not looking to Washington to solve its problems, but to New Yorkers themselves. Gov. Cuomo’s initiatives are looking for new ways to solve age-old problems.

It is crucial to count on ourselves more than ever especially considering the state of our global and national economies. I am not promoting the fragmentation of the nation, but rather the strengthening of it from the grassroots, to the states, all the way to the White House.

It is time to stop asking the nation to bail out the states; the states must bail out the nation.

John Droz, Jr., consumer advocate, physicist, and environmentalist: Two years ago I wrote an expose titled "NYS Dirty Dozen" (<<http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/NYSDirtyDozen.pdf>>). I submitted it to some thirty NYS major newspapers to publish. Not one did — and that is a part of our problem. The key points I made were —

We need to genuinely fix the conditions that make job growth naturally happen. In other words, what economic reasons would an employer pick NYS as a place that he and his employees would find attractive? Put yourself in that perspective and carefully consider the following facts about NYS:

1- State & Local Income Taxes (per capita): 49 states are lower;

2- State & Local Sales Taxes: 47 states are lower;

3- Property Taxes: 46 states have lower;

4- Education Cost per Pupil: 48 states are lower;

5- Composite SAT Score: 46 states are better;

6- Cost of Housing: 44 states are lower cost;

7- Cost of Electricity (KWH rate): 47 states are lower cost;

8- Cost of Gasoline (tax per gallon): 47 states are lower cost;

9- Cost of Food: 43 states are lower cost;

10- Cost of Everyday Healthcare (per capita): 47 states are lower cost;

11- Cost of Longterm Healthcare: 47 states are lower cost;

12- State & Local Employees as a % of Total Workforce: 44 states have lower.

Has Governor Cuomo or our legislators genuinely addressed these fundamental barriers to economic growth? Absolutely not! In fact, they continue to make them worse.

A prime example is the Power NY Act of 2011, aka Article X. Despite all the flowery unsubstantiated euphemisms freely strewn about by our politicians and the beneficiaries of this draconian legislation, two facts remain: 1) this is a retraction of Home Rule right of NYS citizens, and 2) the real objective here is to implement more expensive, less efficient electricity (like wind energy).

Such measures translate to talk is cheap, and there is business as usual in what used to be the great state of NY.

Interview with John Durso, New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance

2011-04-17T17:01:00Z

Background: Last month Attorney General Schneiderman petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to amend its regulations with regard to relicensing nuclear power plants and followed that up by petitioning the NRC to take action against the Indian Point Nuclear Facility for failing to comply with fire safety regulations. Both Scheiderman and Governor Andrew Cuomo have been critical of Indian Point in the past. The Empire Page sought to learn more about the Indian Point facility, which its owner, Entergry Corp. is seeking to have relicensed by talking to John Durso, Jr, executive director of New York Affordable Reliable Electricty Alliance (AREA-Alliance).

Empire Page: John. Let's get down to brass tacks. The public's level of concern about nuclear energy has been heightened by what happened in Japan. Are they right to be concerned about Indian Point? Could what happened in Japan happen here?

John Durso: I would begin by assuring your readers that Indian Point was, is and will continue to be a safe facility. Period.

Indian Point has received the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s highest safety rating – green - for the past six years due to the facility’s commitment to safety and security. The federal regulators and independent experts have both recommended that Indian Point be relicensed for an additional 20 years due to the facility’s superior culture of safety. Additionally, the owners of Indian Point – Entergy – are in the midst of investing more than that half of a billion dollars to ensure that Indian Point’s operations and infrastructure are world class.

The tragedy in Japan and the ensuing investigation will undoubtedly result in new lessons that the nuclear industry will implement, making nuclear facilities across the nation even safer. However, it is important to also note that in more than 50 years of commercial nuclear plant operation, not one person has died as a result of radiological exposure. In fact, a Columbia University study of 53,000 workers in the nuclear power industry found they live longer and have lower cancer rates than the rest of us.

Finally, it is important to note that the tragedy in Japan was not caused by the earthquake itself, but by the ensuing tsunami disabling the facility’s back-up generators. The differences between Fukushima and Indian Point are profound. Fukushima is located on the ocean; Indian Point is more than 30 miles inland and on a river. Fukushima was located on the coast; Indian Point is on bedrock more than 30 feet above the Hudson River. Fukushima’s backup generation was not prepared to withstand flooding. Indian Point is located more than 15 feet above the maximum flood stage of the Hudson River, and protected against weather-related catastrophes.

So the bottom line is Indian Point is safe today and will be even safer in the future.”

Empire Page: Martin Virgilio, the NRC's deputy executive director for reactor and preparedness programs, recently told members of a House committee that the NRC is considering expanding the evacuation zone for Indian Point. Explain the implications were the evacuation zone to be expanded and does your organization support a change from the current zone?

John Durso: Comparisons between Indian Point and Fukushima are apples and oranges. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is already on record noting that there is no nuclear facility in America which is the size of Fukushima and subject to an evacuation zone even remotely similar to what we have seen in Japan.

As Japan continues to recover, lessons will undoubtedly be learned in a multitude of areas. As part of a culture that is continuously learning and improving itself, the United States nuclear industry will continue to successfully enhance the safety of its facilities, employees and the communities they serve.

There is sound science for the current 10 mile zone, which resulted from the interagency federal panel following Three Mile Island. Emergency planners continue to be in touch with the NRC, FEMA and other key regulators on a daily basis to ensure that the surrounding communities are completely protected.

On the issue of Indian Point specifically, I’d note that their re-licensing process is the most exhaustive in NRC history, and that federal regulators have recommended that the facility be relicensed based on their extensive safety review.

In 2009, the NRC devoted more than 11,000 hours to inspection and related activities at Indian Point. Federal regulators are also permanently assigned to the site, responsible for investigating and reporting any issue of any size that may occur at the site. And despite this unprecedented scrutiny, Indian Point continues to earn the highest marks from safety offered by the federal government.

Many of New York AREA’s members are proud members of organized labor. Those who have worked at the plant and later oversaw teams who worked there have told me time and time again that if they ever even suspected an issue related to safety, they would never allowed their union brothers and sisters to report to work.

Safety assessments and questions related to a very unlikely evacuation should be left to regulators and public safety experts – and not to politicians.

Empire Page: Attorney General Schneiderman is raising an alarm about the issue of storage of spent nuclear fuel on the site as a safety issue. Shouldn't that be dealt with prior to relicensing of the plant?

John Durso: Indian Point’s spent fuel pools and dry cask storage are safe and will be continuously and intently scrutinized until they move to a permanent federal repository.

To ensure the day to day safety operations of nuclear power plants in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has permanent, on-site personnel at each of the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants to inspect and verify the safe operation of nuclear power plants. Every year, nuclear power plants are evaluated by the NRC, providing a regular public assessment of the facility. Ongoing review includes the storage of spent fuel at the plant facility.

It is important that the public know that in addition the exhaustive relicensing review, the operational integrity and safety of spent fuel storage is a matter for annual review by the NRC.

Further, dry cask storage is a state-of-the-art technology which will soon be in use by approximately half of all nuclear facilities across the U.S. Each dry cask weighs over 180 tons and these large, air tight and steel-reinforced containers have been tested and remained completely intact even after missile explosions. They allow for previously-cooled spent fuel to be securely stored on site for decades, and are closely monitored 24/7.

All of that said, federal leadership is needed to implement a reasonable, long-term solution for the spent fuel already stored on-site at nuclear facilities across the nation. Federal law previously required the U.S. Department of Energy to remove spent fuel from their current sites more than a decade ago, but the lack of a permanent repository impeded this effort – and led to greater use of on-site, dry cask technology.

Prospects for long-term storage continue to remain unclear. Politics led to the demise of Yucca Mountain, eliminating a workable, long-term solution. As a result, we are back to square one. Following the French model and implementing a national reprocessing effort may be one such future option should Yucca fail to be revived in the future.

While facilities such as Indian Point can continue to store spent fuel on-site in a safe and highly secure manner for decades to come, the reality is that federal leadership is crucial for implementing a long-term solution.“

Empire Page: Attorney General Schneiderman is also focusing on the issue of storage of spent nuclear fuel on the site as a safety issue. Shouldn't that be dealt with prior to relicensing of the plant?

John Durso: Indian Point’s spent fuel pools and dry cask storage are safe and will be continuously and intently scrutinized until they move to a permanent federal repository.

It is important that the public know that in addition the exhaustive relicensing review, the operational integrity and safety of spent fuel storage is a matter for annual review by the NRC.

Empire Page: AG Schneiderman specifically states Indian Point 'has not installed required fire detectors or fire suppression systems," "has not strengthened electrical cables to withstand fire damage" and is relying on having employees "perform series of complex manual actions" rather than install "automatic response systems". Has the NRC been lax in requiring Indian Point to address these issues?

John Durso: I’d emphasize that Indian Point is already the most scrutinized nuclear facility in the nation, with more than 11,000 hours of federal inspection having already taking place at the facility as part of Indian Point’s current license renewal application.

Federal inspectors are permanently assigned to the facility, responsible for investigating any complaint, issue or concern immediately. And if that wasn’t – or isn’t enough, in 2008 a panel of highly renowned, independent experts also evaluated 64 safety issues at Indian Point, and reaffirmed that the plant is safe.

Make no mistake about it, Indian Point was, is and will continue to be a safe facility.

Empire Page: One of the issues many business raise across New York State these days is the cost of energy. What would happen to energy supply and prices if Indian Point's license was not renewed?

John Durso: It’s hard not to overstate the impact of Indian Point on New York’s power supply – and New York’s economy.

In terms of supply, let’s start with the basics. The more than 2,000 megawatts of clean, safe, baseload power produced by Indian Point accounts for 12% of New York State’s total electricity supply. It also powers up to a quarter of the total electricity consumed by downstate New York, and up to a third of the power consumed in New York City alone.

With no viable replacement option available to replace Indian Point and no power plant siting law on the books in New York, no wonder why the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO), the operator of New York’s grid, has repeatedly issued terse warnings against the closure of Indian Point. As they state, such an action would degrade the grid while leading to a violation of reliability standards.

If this isn’t bad enough, let’s also look at the impact Indian Point has on the downstate economy. In 2008, the Westchester Business Alliance conducted a study on the economic impact of Indian Point. They found that that Indian Point alone is responsible for more than 11,000 regional jobs, more than $2 billion in annual wages and more than $5 billion in annual economic impact.

And for small businesses trying to keep their businesses afloat and working families as they continue to try and make ends meet, they would be dismayed to learn that the same study found that closing Indian Point would raise electric rates as much as 150% in the Lower Hudson Valley, while impacting rates statewide as well.

Roundtable on a New Approach to Governance

2011-03-23T13:10:00Z

Background: Arguing in the Wall Street Journal that cities and states "need a new approach to governance . . . that has less job-killing red tape, and that fosters a more productive work force," Stephen Goldsmith, deputy mayor of New York City seeks to shift the debate over public employee unions and the problems public entities face paying the bills. Goldsmith traces the source of today's problems to the progressive era when the implementation of bureacratic procedures and work rules was necessary to combat corruption and favoritism. Those rules, however, have become the source of today's problems. For example, New York City has to mange more than 100 collective-bargaining agreements some of which prevent rewards for outstanding performance and make dismissing bad apples "all but impossible." The Empire Page has asked a number of people to read and comment on Goldsmith's article. Their responses are posted in the order in which they were received.

Frank Mauro, Fiscal Policy Institute: In his recent Op Ed, NYC Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith implies that the need that Progressive Era reformers saw for targeting "corruption among Boss Tweed-type contracts for city work" no longer exists. But he doesn't even try to reconcile his rhetoric with the December 2010 and subsequent revelations regarding the patently corrupt CityTime contract. Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez wrote about this boondoggle for years, but the Bloomberg Administration stonewalled and denied any problems until they finally acknowledged what was going on and belatedly (at the same time that the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges) cancelled the contract and got rid of the city officials who had authorized the contract and its numerous extensions and price increases.

Here's the link to the press release that the US Attorney issued on December 15, 2010: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/December10/citytimearrestspr.pdf

Here are the headlines and the opening paragraph from that release:

"MANHATTAN U.S. ATTORNEY ANNOUNCES FRAUD AND MONEY LAUNDERING CHARGES RELATING TO $80 MILLION SCHEME TO DEFRAUD NEW YORK CITY

"Massive Fraud Relating To New York City’s CityTime Project Involved Use Of Shell Corporations And False Time sheets

"PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and ROSE GILL HEARN, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation ("DOI"), announced today charges against four consultants to the New York City Office of Payroll Administration ("OPA") –- MARK MAZER, DMITRY ARONSHTEIN, VICTOR NATANZON, and SCOTT BERGER –- for operating a fraudulent scheme that led to the misappropriation of more than $80 million in New York City funds allocated for an information technology project known as "CityTime." MAZER, ARONSHTEIN, and NATANZON are also charged -along with MARK MAZER’s wife, SVETLANA MAZER, and his mother, LARISA MEDZON -- with using a network of shell corporations to launder the proceeds of the fraud. Each of the defendants was arrested this morning. They are expected to be presented in Manhattan federal court later today."

Two weeks later, in a good review of what had happened, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics "Risk Factor" blog reported that "The executive director of OPA (the Office of Payroll Administration which was the contracting agency), Joel Bondy, was then suspended without pay but shortly thereafter resigned his position. Mr. Bondy wrote glowing letters about the quality assurance work of Spherion, where he once worked. He also supposedly had ties to at least one of the consultants charged."

"In March, OPA General Counsel Valerie Himelewski said that accusations at the time of flawed CityTime contract oversight were "completely false" - I wonder how much crow she ate for her holiday dinner this past weekend."

Less than a month later, in a report to city officials, KPMG indicated that the City might have to keep paying the main CityTime contractor for years to come or write off all the money spent on the project over the years and start over. Here's a link to the Daily News article on that follow-up report which was entitled CityTime's 700M scandal gets worse: Accounting firm says only contractor has knowledge to run it.

The 1989 New York City Charter Revision Commission (for which I was the Director of Research) proposed and the voters adopted reforms (based on the American Bar Association's Model Procurement Code) that gave the Mayor unprecedented authority over contracts and relied on significant increases in transparency as the check on that Mayoral power. http://www.nyc.gov/html/charter/downloads/pdf/1989_final_post-election_report.pdf / http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=PC500500

I think that Goldsmith is spouting conservative dogma or wishful thinking or both when he writes that "Simpler, less prescriptive processes with greater transparency would produce better, faster and cheaper results, minimize political favoritism, increase competition among contractors, and improve the quality of work done on the taxpayer's dime." And maybe those "less prescriptive processes" would also cure the common cold.

Paul Bray, Empire Page Columnist: Deputy Mayor Goldsmith offers a blueprint for oligarchy

Stephen Goldsmith is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Goldstein writes that, “A hundred years ago, progressives envisioned a highly professional public-sector work force reining in exploitative corporate interests. They saw those on the margin being victimized by corrupt government and business interests.”

This sounds familiar to conditions in the current era when free market finance created our Great Recession with its housing collapse, middle income collapse and high unemployment. Meanwhile sky rocketing corporate CEO salaries and huge bonuses in the financial sector all supported with Republican anti-tax and anti-regulation dogma continues. The Supreme Court opened the door to unlimited corporate contributions in political campaigns. And so on and so forth.

This is not enough for the billionaire Koch brothers, the Republican party and the Governor of Wisconsin amongst others going in for the kill against labor unions and public employees, environmental regulation, social security, Medicaid, progressive taxation and the nasty “Obama care” that at least put us on the track toward universal health care.

Collective bargaining and civil service can be cumbersome. Reform may be called for as well as perhaps better management by some Deputy Mayors. But Goldsmith apparently would find it much easier to hire out from private firms like Halliburton. I have never heard that out sourced employees are known for their creativity. As a former public employee, I like to think that I was both creative and hard working and I know many fellow public employees who also pulled a lot more than their weight. Of course when it comes to contracting out, there is the added benefit for the political party in power to be able to hit up the company providing the out sourced employees for political contributions.

Let us take a look at seniority rules as that seems to greatly bother Goldsmith. I once worked in the legislature where civil service and seniority rules don’t apply to staff. My office had a major shake up because the leadership of the office messed up the financial books of the office. A number of employees were fired including some of the hardest workers with the most experience. Why were the best workers fired and some of the most recent hires kept? One had to look no further than the fact that the best workers with their 20 years or more of experience who were fired made twice as much salary as the new hires. A significant number of the younger staff that was not fired didn’t stay long because the work and hours were too demanding for them and more money could be made in the private sector.

The ease to which Goldsmith writes off “progressivity” for the tax system is pure Mayor Bloomberg whose billionaire friends like the hedge fund managers paying at the capital gains rate rather than the income tax rate probably piss and moan endlessly about the relatively modest amount of tax they pay. Let the billionaires not forget where they make their wealth.

The best thing about Goldsmith’s column is that it highlights how many our progressive values and protections are under seize and threatened. Goldsmith doesn’t offer proposals for reform. Instead he longs for oligarchy and that is very distressing.

Assembly Minority Leader Brian M. Kolb (R,I,C-Canandaigua): NEW YORK NEEDS A 21^stCENTURY STATE GOVERNMENT THAT IS LEANER, SMARTER AND LESS COSTLY

If America can lay claim to a management “guru,” then Peter Drucker would definitely fit the bill. Drucker, considered by many as the “father” of modern management theory, said: “So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for people to work.” Nowhere are Drucker’s words more evident than here in New York, where state government’s arcane practices combine with cumbersome workplace rules to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for workers to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. Too many hard-working public employees are trapped within a 20^th Century bureaucracy that’s failed to successfully manage change in a rapidly evolving 21^st Century world.

New York City Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith makes this point in his recent Wall Street Journal article (“Progressive Government Is Obsolete”) outlining a clear and compelling case of the need for a “new approach” to government. Having spent most of my life working in the private sector where I started and ran successful manufacturing companies, I know Goldsmith speaks the truth. The old model of public sector management – doing things a certain way because that’s how it’s always been done – doesn’t need tinkering; it needs wholesale transformation.

We need to reinvent, reevaluate and ultimately rethink state government. It begins by adopting a private sector business model that puts customers (i.e., taxpayers) first by focusing on measurable results, not bureaucratic red tape. In my travels as Assembly Minority Leader, I’ve heard from countless business leaders, local elected officials and individuals in the non-profit community that State Agencies are unresponsive, slow and sluggish in responding to identified needs. We need a top-to-bottom review of every State Agency to find out if they are meeting customer demands and, if not, identify and fix the problems. That’s how it’s done in the private sector and that’s how it should be done in state government.

Additionally, we must dramatically accelerate the transition to electronic records so government can run more efficiently with a smaller environmental footprint. Employing the latest information technology will, over the long-term, reduce costs, improve customer service and ensure greater public sector transparency.

Transforming government won’t be achieved by demonizing public employees, the vast majority of whom work hard and want to do their jobs well. Instead, empower front line managers so they have the ability to recognize and reward top performers based on merit, and remove employees who are unable or unwilling to get the job done. This means reforming our state labor laws to ensure endless rounds of costly and time-consuming litigation are not required before a manager can remove a problem employee who is the exception, not the rule. This will also require public sector unions showing increased flexibility so managers can actually manage.

A leaner, smarter, less costly state government that exceeds customer expectations isn’t a pipedream. It’s within our grasp if we are willing to embrace the real change necessary to transform New York’s public sector and finally break the mold that was cast back in the 20^th Century.

Brian M. Kolb serves as Leader of the New York State Assembly Minority Conference, and is the only Legislative Leader in state government who lives in, works in and represents upstate. Leader Kolb represents the 129^th Assembly District, which includes parts of Cayuga, Cortland, Onondaga, Ontario, and Seneca counties.

Doug Boettner: Empire Page Columnist: I have been opining for some time in many of the posts in my Empire Page column Keeping It Real, that public employee unions are dinosaurs and are no longer needed as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. The evolution of the workforce and the way government conducts business has changed. In order to keep up with the fast changing economy and the global explosion of intergovernmental business and commerce, the people responsible for making government run efficiently and effectively need more flexibility in the hiring, firing and compensation of its workforce. A certain amount of creativity is warranted. Necessity is the mother of all invention. The tough economic times in New York State and around the country, demands that new approaches be devised to bring budgets back into alignment.

Managers must be able to reward outstanding employees and fire non-productive employees. The antiquated changes made in the past do not allow this to happen easily. There is no easy way to “thin the herd”. The length of service should not be the only factor in what to compensate an employee. It should be based on performance and qualifications. I mean NYC has over 300,000 with more than 100 separate collective bargaining agreements with the City? Really? Is this really necessary?

If the public employees unions are going to survive and really serve a purpose and their members, they need to form a more perfect union with the governor. When the boat is taking on water and sinking…..wouldn’t it be better for everyone if everyone grabbed a bucket and started bailing water rather than the union people saying “I can’t bail water…it’s not in my contract”……….glub…..glub…..glub.

Greg Hitchcock: Empire Page Editor: I most certainly agree with New York City Dep. Mayor Stephen Goldsmith’s opinion on promoting the message of Progressivism through different means. My opinion is based on historical precedent, i.e. what worked and did not work in the past.

Goldsmith referred to Tammany Hall. Tammany Hall (also known as the Society of St. Tammany, the Sons of St. Tammany, or the Columbian Order), was a mixed blessing. It helped immigrants, who were often discriminated against in their adopted country, to find jobs and social support as they stepped off the boats. However, due to the nature of this relationship, Tammany became ever more politically dominant. And the adage holds true – Power in the hands of unbridled individuals is often followed by corruption.

According to Goldsmith, things started to change in response to “the cronyism and corruption of Tammany Hall”, as the modern Progressive Movement took shape under the likes of both Republicans and Democrats (Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson come to mind).

Politicians and the public alike believed that with government intervention, all of our social, economic, and political ills would be remedied.

According to the well-known Conservative commentator Glenn Beck, the U.S. Constitution, which insures our individual liberties, was disregarded in favor of having government step up to solve every conceivable human problem.

This well-meaning political philosophy had unfortunate consequences.

Goldsmith stated that these special-interest interventions ultimately lead to socially regressive results.

I agree with his analysis of our present day predicament.

Today, we are faced with many problems, running a full gamut from the great upheaval of our global economic recession, global war and terrorism, to deadly environmental catastrophes. It seems to many that these huge issues can only be solved through our governmental leaders.

For example, the platform of the Progressive Democrats of America is the commitment for supporting policies for economic recovery through public investment in job creation. Their belief is that this helps build a sustainable economy and renders economic justice.

Nice sentiment, wrong strategy!

Government intervention by itself only breeds, what Goldsmith called “American loss of faith in their government”. I believe we should turn back the clock, trust in American individualism and freedom to solve problems within their families and communities, since they alone know what is best for them, and stop relying on top-down help.

In conclusion, my personal philosophy is rooted in the cradle of Western Democracy itself. Ancient Athens had a government that was a direct, not a representative democracy. In other words, any adult male citizen of age could take part, and it was a duty to do so.

It may be unwieldy to have our citizens representing themselves with our present population of over 307 million, but the basic concept is the same. Citizens should be responsible for directing their own lives.

Interview with Heather Briccetti, Acting-President & CEO, The Business Council of New York State, Inc.

2011-03-15T03:49:00Z

Background: With the nomination in late January of Kenneth Adams as President and CEO of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the Business Council of NYS, was without a leader. The same day Heather Briccetti was named acting-president and CEO. With a new governor in Albany and the state in the midst of a tenuous recession while facing a huge budget deficit, her appointment represented a strong vote of confidence. The Empire Page felt our readers should learn more about Briccetti and her views.

EP: Tell the Empire Page a little about yourself. What did you do before you joined the Business Council? What positions have you held at the Business Council? What are your strengths as a leader?

HB: I joined The Business Council as Vice President of Government Affairs in December of 2007. I came here from the lobbying firm Powers and Company, and had previously served as an assistant counsel to the State Senate Majority, working on a range of issues, including economic development, budget reform, taxation, and consumer protection. I also worked for the Assembly majority for several years, serving as a legislative aide and Counsel to the committee on Racing and Wagering.

In addition to my legislative and lobbying experience, I was Special Counsel in the office of the State Attorney General, where I handled a very diverse variety of issues, including work on the collection of cigarette taxes from Native American retailers, handling interstate subpoenas in the Lewis Lent murder prosecution, and I acted as Counsel to the Governor’s Commission on Child Abuse and Neglect. I have also served as the Chief of the Public Defender’s Office in Rensselaer County and worked during law school in the Albany County District Attorney’s Office.

I think that the diversity of my experience has been very helpful to me in leading the Business Council. Having worked on a wide variety of issues, many of which impact employers, has given me a broad knowledge base to draw on when advocating for the business community. I also think that my background in criminal practice, both prosecuting and defending, has been very helpful to me in understanding the viewpoint of your adversary, and how to find a successful resolution of sometimes seemingly unsolvable differences.

EP: You have become active president & CEO of the Business Council in the middle of one of the most critical times in NYS history. What is the Business Council's outlook for NYS in the near future?

HB: New York has become uncompetitive, and the consequences have been felt throughout the state. For example, The Tax Foundation has ranked New York as the “worst business tax climate” in the nation. New York experienced an outmigration of more than 1.5 million people from 2000 to 2008, nearly 8 percent of our population. This population decline has been felt especially in upstate New York, due in part to the decline in high paying traditional manufacturing jobs in that region.

When I joined the Business Council I thought it would be helpful to read board minutes from meetings going back to the 1980’s, and what I discovered is that the fiscal reform agenda that we have been pressing is one that we have been advancing for many, many years. The difference is that for the first time in recent history, the message is starting to resonate. While the change in receptivity to fiscal reform concepts, like pension reform and property tax caps, may have been born out of the dire financial condition of the state, the change is welcome. Gov. Cuomo is seeking to restructure the state’s spending and move the state in the right direction. We agree with the Governor that New York is at a crossroads and the decisions made in this year’s budget will have a dramatic impact for years to come. If some of these reforms are adopted, the benefits will be felt over the long term, and it will send a positive message to the employer community that New York is a better place to invest than it has been in recent years.

EP: What are the Business Council's primary objectives for 2011?

HB: Our core fiscal reform agenda is the implementation of a property tax cap, a state spending cap, public employee pension reform, a reduced tax burden and the elimination of borrowing for operating purposes. Not all of these will happen in 2011, but the Governor’s budget provides a good start. The property tax cap and state spending cap are on the top of the list. But, we have a broad membership and there are many other issues important to certain sectors. A permanent economic development power program is very important to us. We support the Recharge NY proposal, which has already passed the State Senate, as has the property tax cap legislation.

EP: When I first became active in NYS politics 30 years ago, the Business Council had a reputation for representing the state's largest companies and doing so largely behind the scenes. Has that changed in the past 30 years, and if so, how?

HB: I was hired to re-establish our Government Affairs advocacy and to implement a different political strategy for The Business Council. While years ago it may have been possible to influence the legislature with a few quiet phone calls and a few strong relationships, the climate has changed and the strategy needed to change. All of our lobbyists are expected to not only know our members’ issues inside-out, they are expected to be present in the Capitol during session, meet with committee members (not just leadership) and communicate our position publicly so there is no doubt as to where we stand on issues that concern our members. We created an on-line voters’ guide to let people know how their legislators vote on key issues to business, and last year, for the first time, we endorsed candidates in key legislative races and in the Governor’s race. As a result I believe that the profile of The Business Council has been enhanced as we have become more proactive and vocal on the issues facing our economy. While many of our members are the state’s largest companies, The Business Council represents businesses of all sizes, in all economic sectors and throughout the state.

EP: It seems that decisions made in Washington will play a major role in how effectively and how quickly New York State addresses its economic problems. What kind of presence does the Business Council have in Washington and what is your outlook for 2011?

HB: We track federal issues important to our members and work in close partnership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In fact, our “Fix New York” website was named by the U.S. Chamber as one of the 10 most active partners in their “Vote for Business” program. The “Fix New York” site has been used to generate member response on both state and federal issues, including health care reform and the card check issue. We also use our strong relationships with national organizations such as the Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and others to make a difference on federal issues such as financial services reform, environmental policy and tort reform.

Interview with Carole Kraus, NYS Property Tax Reform Coalition

2011-02-23T21:23:00Z

Background: One group making noise in the hotly contested debate over how to reform property taxes is the NYS Property Tax Reform Coalition. We asked co-founder Carole Kraus about her group's orgins and positions on this vital topic.

Empire Page: Tell the Empire Page readers a little about yourself. What's your background and how did you become co-founder of the NYS Property Tax Reform Coalition?

Kraus: I'm self-employed for 20 years in what's called art advising. I advise private individuals, corporations and architects/designers in the selection and purchase of art. After purchase we frame, restore, install and curate the collections, as is appropriate.

In about 2004 when I moved from NYC to Ulster County, I attended a community meeting organized by the then-Marbletown supervisor. The question for attendees was "What is your biggest concern in the community?" I was affected by those who spoke about devastating property taxes. In particular, by one single mother who'd successfully supported herself and children, who'd bought a house for under $50,000 much earlier which was now assessed at $125,000. Property taxes in Marbletown had increased 65% in the preceding 5 years. She was bound to lose her home, despite careful planning, post-graduate studies to improve her professional earning and so forth. I've never forgotten her. She was neither a whiner, nor someone who didn't plan or who lived beyond her means. To the contrary.

A number of us signed up to start Marbletown's "Property Tax Reform Task Force." After a few years we joined loosely with other taxpayer groups around the state to form the NYS Property Tax Reform Coalition, probably the largest taxpayer group in the state working for relief and reform.

I became head of the group incidentally. Many others work or have worked in the group. Now, two of us split leadership functions.

EP: Tell us about your organization. When was it formed and what's your mission?

Kraus: Formed in Albany in 2007, we're composed of over 50 local property tax reform groups representing thousands of homeowners across the state. We're volunteers and entirely self-funded.

Our mission is two-fold: 1) immediate relief for homeowners paying unsustainable portions of their income in property taxes (school, municipal, county); followed by 2) school and municipal funding reform.

EP: Given that most everyone believes that property taxes in NYS are too high, what's your organization's solution?

Kraus: The New York State Property Tax Reform Coalition supports the Omnibus Circuit Breaker legislation for immediate property tax relief for those most burdened - and for reform of a regressive, confiscatory tax.

We're working for passage of these specific bills in the New York State legislature:

NYS Senate bill #S912 (in the 2011 legislative session)
NYS Assembly bill #8707 (in the 2010 legislative session; 2011 bill #TBD)

An effective circuit breaker like the Omnibus Circuit Breaker is the only option before the legislature that will provide property tax relief for the individual homeowner.

EP: Why does your group favor a "circuit breaker" as opposed to the 2% cap concept that Governor Cuomo seems to favor?

Kraus: The cap doesn't accomplish our goal of relief and reform.

The tax levy cap doesn't lessen the burden of property taxes on homeowners. It doesn't cut or even CAP individual property taxes. In fact, it virtually guarantees yearly increases that will mean larger than 2% increases to the individual. When someone is paying 20, 30, 48% of their income in property taxes today, guaranteed increases promises imminent doom. If people can't afford their taxes now, they won't be able to afford the increases. Remember, a tax levy cap isn't the same as a cap on individual property tax bills. Not even close.

What's more, we're supportive of education in the state. The cap among other things will serve to institutionalize the gap between so-called "rich" and "poor" school districts. It's the history of tax levy caps that "rich" districts often override the cap and the "poor" aren't likely too.

The circuit breaker ties the property tax burden to the individual's income which is the definition of progressive taxation. While the homeowner must pay the entire tax bill, s/he will be refunded or credited via the state income tax according to the percentage that bill represents of their income. The cap doesn't address the fundamental inequity in tax laws. The circuit breaker is a "holding mechanism," that is a mechanism to hold people in their homes in the face of confiscatory taxation. To keep them in their homes until reform can be made in school, municipal and county funding.

For example, did you know that Sullivan, Orange and Ulster Counties in the Mid-Hudson Valley project nearly $1,000,000 in uncollectible school taxes in 2011? The counties must make the schools "whole." In Marbletown, when last I heard, 1 of 7 homeowners was in property tax arrears. Ulster County is #1 in the STATE in receipt of pre-foreclosure letters (90 days before foreclosure). The Bronx is #2. (So much for property taxes being "a stable source" of school and local funding!)

Did you know when the county forecloses on a home, whether or not the home has a mortgage (i.e., the homeowner may own the home outright), the county keeps the proceeds? The county may begin foreclosure after 2 consecutive years of a homeowner not paying property tax, no matter what the total owed. It could be $2000, $5000. The homeowner walks away empty handed. One of our PTR Advocates was a first-responder on 9/11. His home in the Lower Hudson Valley is nearing foreclosure, he told me. Why? It's paid for, but his wife became seriously ill and between her medical bills and their now sizable property tax bills, they're likely to lose their house. Did they over-buy? No. They've lived in their home many years, raised a family there. The area, somewhat close to NYC, became desirable especially since 9/11, ironically, and with consequent assessments and re-valuations, he's in trouble.

EP: I don't think anyone disagrees that property taxes are causing hardships. The question is what is the best solution. Those who advocate the property tax cap recognize that any solution must be combined with mandate relief. Their objection to the circuit breaker concept is that it is not "property tax reform" in the sense that it doesn't help bring spending under control. Do you disagree that New York localities and school districts are not doing a good job either controlling costs or getting the most out of the monies they do spend?

Kraus: First, let's not confuse property tax relief and subsequent reform with cost savings/spending control. Urgent pursuits, they are not one and the same. If my house is burning, please put out the fire. Then let's talk about consolidation of fire departments, updated firefighter training and fuel efficient trucks. The homeowner hasn't caused cost increases. In fact, in my school district, enrollment is woefully down - 32% in 10 years, families are leaving - yet property taxes go up and up.

I care but cannot judge what kind of job school districts are doing in educating children, controlling costs or getting the most out of expenditures. I attend school board meetings and ask questions. However, I don't have the professional or experiential background to evaluate.

Those who voice reluctance about the circuit breaker usually state two chief objections: First, that the public will quiet down after the circuit breaker is passed, having won relief. Well, the circuit breaker isn't that enriching. Plus, the homeowner must initially pay their full property tax bill which, even in the circuit breaker period, is based on local tax levies, assessments, re-valuations and other quirky features of this antiquated system.

Also with the CB there's a substantial co-pay. The taxpayer is refunded only a portion of their tax payment. Example: If I pay 25% of my income in property taxes and earn less than $100,000, I still pay my full tax bill when due. Then when I file my state income taxes, I fill out the line asking what my property tax bill was. The state deducts that sum from my state income tax filing and either credits my state tax or refunds me if I owe less state income tax. But they only refund me 70% of the part of my bill which is over 6% of my income. After the state credit or refund, I will have paid the portion of my property tax which represents 6% of my income PLUS a 30% co-pay. (This is a bit complicated. Good news for readers: We have a "Circuit Breaker Calculator" at www.nyspropertytaxreform.org. Visitors to the site can punch in their own particulars, let the calculator do the math and see what their relief will be.)

While the circuit breaker won't reduce spending it won't cause spending to escalate like the STAR program did. With STAR, schools knew the amount of relief going to the community and spending spiked in part thanks to STAR. With the CB, schools will have no idea what relief taxpayers are getting because taxes will be paid in full, as usual.

I often wonder if people understand the extensiveness of the property tax hardship. Just over 1 of 5 New York State homeowners pay between 8-48% of their income in property taxes. That's hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. Among the most painfully affected are residents of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In fact the tip of Long Island would receive the lion's share of relief dollars from our Omnibus Property Tax Relief and Reform legislation. Credible estimates show that 46% of Long Island homeowners with family incomes up to $250,000 would benefit from the circuit breaker and that 42% of the benefits statewide would go to Long Island homeowners.

Second objection, as you point out, is that the CB alone isn't reform. That's correct. It is the first humane step toward comprehensive school and local funding reform which I speak to just below.
The circuit breaker is emergency relief to people losing their homes.

The second part of the Omnibus legislation IS reform. In it we propose adoption of a long-term means-tested approach to moving a significant amount of school, municipal and county costs from the local to the state levels to achieve true tax reform. The bill provides for the creation of a tax reform study commission, with members to be appointed by the Governor and all four parties in the legislature. It also provides for the establishment of a statutory requirement for both a periodic study of the incidence of the overall state-local tax system and analyses of the distributional impact of the proposed tax legislation. These are essential steps if New Yorkers are to have real tax reform.

Specifically, the bill proposes to significantly decrease the pressure placed on the local property tax base (municipal, school, county) by gradually shifting $10 billion of costs from the local level to the state level. This shift from the local to the state would represent a shift from the regressive local tax base to more progressive state taxes based on ability to pay. This shift would cover $6 billion in school costs, $1 billion in local Medicaid costs and $3 billion in the cost of basic municipal services. (Details at www.omnibustaxsolution.org)

Another objection we hear is property taxation is a more stable source of funding than the volatile income tax. That's an outmoded mindset as I illustrated earlier.

The antiquated property tax system is a notion based on conditions this country lived in 200 years ago. Then, land produced income. Land was virtually synonymous with business. We will look back at these years, our lifetime, and wonder how we were ever so ignorant and slow to conform to the times. Why on earth should I pay 43% of my income in property taxes? Why should my neighbor who lives in a mobile home with children in school pay next to no property - school - taxes? Why should my neighbor further down the street pay property taxes on her home based on an assessed value of $560,000? Sadly, when she went to a nursing facility her home sold for $295,000. The couple who bought her home now pay a fraction of taxes on the same property. Property taxation to support the growing costs of education, medicaid, pensions, benefits is outmoded - senseless and defenseless - public policy.

An important assumption in turning over school funding to the state is that the state will be forced to confront many of the mandates, federal and state, imposed on school districts and local governments. With greater accountability for the costs, the state will have a real incentive to control its mandates and other cost drivers -- an incentive largely lacking under the current shared funding system.

Summarizing, the relief and reform we advocate proposes that the burden of educating our children and supporting our municipalities be shared among all New Yorkers equitably. That responsibility now falls disproportionately on homeowners. Debate over budgets and spending levels is a critical element of our democracy. However, as property tax reformers, our main focus is to promote more equitable taxation -- which is essential regardless of spending levels. There is no 'good tax', but some are worse than others, and for most homeowners the property tax is the least equitable and most burdensome of the lot.

Roundtable on Governor Andrew Cuomo's State of the State

2011-01-05T19:59:00Z

Introduction: Governor Andrew Cuomo delivered his first state of the state on Wednesday January 5, 2011 afterAssembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos were given a chance to address the audience of 2,000 attendees. This was the first state of the state address in 80+ years not held in the Assembly chambers and Gov. Cuomo spoke about the symbolic significance of moving the location of the address as representing an example of the change in Albany that he feels is desperately needed.

The Empire Page has invited a number of people to comment on the state of the state. We will present them unedited (assuming the authors keep their comments to our length requirement of under 500 words) in the order that they are received. Readers may submit their own comments to be included in two ways -- there is space at the bottom of this page for comments or you may submit comments to the editor who will decide whether to include them or not on the basis of whether that point of view has or has not been expressed and on the quality of your argument. (photos courtesy of Dave Feiden)

Peter G. Pollak, Publisher & Editor: There was much that was unique about Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State – from the location, the fact that he allowed the leaders of the Assembly and Senate to speak first, and from his use of power point slides. But what was most unusual to me was his style.

Andrew was much more informal than any governor I’ve ever heard and I’ve been listening to New York states of the state since Hugh Carey. His informality yielded positive and not so positive consequences. On the positive side it allowed him to talk off the cuff and from the heart. I loved how angry he became in talking about juvenile justice, attacking those who would perpetuate a system that is failing on so many levels just to protect state jobs. However, being informal also meant he sometimes failed to impart sufficient emphasis to a point. An example was when he talked about a wage freeze. It came across almost as an after-thought when in fact it is a key item on his agenda.

I also thought his use of the slides hampered his speech at times. By relying on the slides that were seen by his live audience, he didn’t at times speak to his radio audience.

Another aspect of his style was his tendency to lecture. Although he wisely did not spend much time placing blame for past mistakes, he couldn’t avoid talking down to his audience at times. It was as if he was saying how could you have made such a mess of things. He may be right on that, but gains little for saying so.

At the end he tried to patch that up by talking about how the NYS legislature was going to return to its glory days when people in other parts of the country looked up to New York, to make New York “bigger and better than ever before.” We’ll soon see how cooperative the Legislature is going to be when specific bills are brought to it from the second floor.

One brilliant aspect of the entire event was asking Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos to talk first. In effect Cuomo co-opted the two men whose cooperation he needs in order to achieve his agenda. Both responded in their own way. Silver tried to steal a little of Andrew’s thunder by announcing his support for various programs; Skelos talked more about how the Senate has been on Cuomo’s page all along.

Overall I’d give Andrew an A- on the speech. In the future, I’d rely less on slides, I’d be a little more formal and I’d try to avoid even a hint of lecturing.

One note about the specifics: For years I’ve been saying state government needs to offer incentives for local government to consolidate. Competition and incentives was an important part of the governor’s program message. I would add the threat of cuts to go along with the incentives. Consolidation and shared services can no longer be an option. It’s a solution whose time has come.

Greg Hitchcock, Journalist & Empire Page Editor: My word! What a powerful speech we just heard today from Governor Andrew Cuomo. What he said was truly what must be said to revitalize New York state government.

The current state of affairs reminds me that we were there once before. More precisely in the mid- to late 19^th century during the age of the robber barons. Back then the state (and federal) government was responsive only to special interests, namely robber barons such as Fiske, Gould, etc., just like today’s special interest groups have tied the hands of our legislators from working directly for the people. It was a grass roots progressive movement of that time that turned things around for the better by enacting legislation such as protecting the environment and providing for the safety of workers in the workplace.

Governor Cuomo spoke about breaking the grasp of special interests so government can begin to work for the people and that trust in our leaders can be restored. I consider myself a Republican, but, that being said, I believe what Governor Cuomo had to say and I am in agreement with what progressive Republican president Theodore Roosevelt once worked for – letting government be a trust-buster by breaking up special interests and being more responsive to the larger constituency whose primary interest is in working, living, and prospering in New York state, the Empire State.

We must let the executive, legislature, judiciary, and most importantly the People of New York work cooperatively in making this state a great place to get educated, conduct business, and raise a family.

Douglas Boettner, Consultant & Empire Page Columnist: Maybe the most powerful, yet informal, State of the State speeches I have ever heard. I have listened to each one since the early 1970's. In many ways it was like the first one we heard from Governor Paterson, but he was only "The Mouse That Roared" compared to this governor, the marshal in "True Grit". This new governor speaks with authority and experience and reminds you of why we elected him over Carl Palladino and all other comers. He has the same basis style of his father, but he is even a better orator than Mario.

He is clever also. Breaking the mold is a good thing in New York State, where the "same old, same old" dysfunction has reigned supreme. I mean allowing Shelly Silver and Dean Skelos to speak? Pure genius. What could they say other than they want the best for New York State and they want to work closely with the new governor to "fix" New York State. By allowing them to be an integral part of the event, he formed an involuntary team.

From Lt Governor Duffy's opening remarks stating "We're all in this together" and "People of New York are struggling and "we" all need to work together for them", to Silver saying "we need to work together to put aside our differences", to Dean Skelos saying "we need to work jointly to make New York great again". It almost seemed like each of them were actually being sincere. Most of the time their remarks would be given after the governor's State of the State address as a critique of what he said with a political spin on it. Brilliant strategy.

Now to the actual speech. Who didn't love what he presented. He identified almost every single issue facing New York State and then proceeded to explain in some detail how his administration, along with the Legislature, is going to attack them. And he gave some specific deadlines and timelines. he named names of people who will be working on the problems and issues.

He didn't come out with a "doom and Gloom" speech. He was actually upbeat. He is going to fix New York State. It won't be easy, but he has a plan. Having kids from each county on stage was another brilliant strategy. We must fix New York State for these young adults. And he brought in 200 people to here the address and many were just common citizens and taxpayers. All the right moves.

As I left the University Club in Albany after watching the speech, I actually had a good feeling. A feeling of extreme optimism that we finally found a hero and a leader to lead us out of the darkness that New York State had become.

Roundtable on 2010 Election Results in NYS

2010-11-03T14:38:00Z

Introduction: The Empire Page asked two dozen experienced participants and observers of political life in NYS for their reactions to the Nov. 2 election results. If you'd like to participate in the roundtable, you can comment at the end of the page or if you want to send a more detailed statement, email your comment to editor@empirepage.com.

Mark Alese: The (near-term) future of New York has already been decided, notwithstanding the outcome of this election, and it will be to continue on the downside for many years to come. There are already so many better places to live than New York that it will take generations to turn this state around. The New York punditocracy and media talking heads that we rely upon for information and analysis are so parochial as to render their opinions and insights a nullity.

I have several friends who have left New York, all of them just giddy with glee over the many differences that make their lives better. They live in places where the dead hand of government doesn't lay upon the creative potential of the populace; where there is a vibrant private-sector economy which competes for the consumer's dollars and earns them by delivering excellence and low prices; and where young people are attracted to stay and start a life for themselves in business, not the civil service. These are places where people are genuinely happy with their lives, where the costs of living are low and the quality of life high, and the prevailing attitude isn't to ask what the government is going to guarantee them, save a level playing field. There are, in fact, profound cultural difference around the country which make for some really stimulating environs and societies that know nothing of our pathetic preoccupation with dysfunctional government or enduring a political class that has no class whatsoever. Politics in other states is not the greed soaked, fly-paper for scum that it is in New York. If anyone thinks that the culture of dysfunction that our political class has created and wallowed in for so many decades is going to change with Andrew Cuomo's ascendency, they are sadly deluded. New York is going to remain in the doldrums for a long, long time, and the best and brightest of its population will continue to leave for greener pastures for many more years.

Dan Lynch: As long as the legislators draw their own districts and those of members of the House of Representatives, ordinary New Yorkers have no chance of getting a fair shake from their government. Districts drawn for the benefit of one party or the other bring out the worst in those parties. We end up with lawmakers who represent not the overall interests of all their constituents but, instead, the narrow interests of the most extreme elements of their parties. That happens because those extreme elements end up deciding who gets nominated for those lawmaking positions.

The solution to this problem is an independent re-districting commission that will draw district lines without regard to the welfare of the political parties. Until we have such nonpartisan drawing of lawmaking districts ordinary New Yorkers will continue to live life condemned to government corruption, incompetence and venality regardless of which party wins dominance in any lawmaking body. It’s also worth pointing out that our current system keeps most good, independent people out of the lawmaking process in representing the legitimate interests of citizens.

Kenneth Adams, president and CEO of The Business Council of New York State, Inc.: Rebuilding New York’s economy is a huge task. But, it must be the top priority for the Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo and the new legislature. For too long Albany has taxed too much and spent too much. The result has been the loss of jobs, businesses and population.

There has been damage across the state, but upstate New York has been especially hard hit, losing much of the manufacturing base that once made New York, The Empire State.

Sadly, the non-partisan Tax Foundation recently ranked New York the most hostile business tax climate in the nation. What makes this designation worse is that New York is going in the wrong direction and states we directly compete with are going in the right direction. For example, New York fell from 49^th to 50^th, while New Jersey improved from 50^th to 48^th. Worse other competitor states improved, including, Massachusetts which went from 36^th to 32^nd, Pennsylvania which went from 27^th to 26^th. And nearby, New Hampshire remained in the top 10 at 7^th.

At The Business Council we believe that five fundamental reforms are necessary to start the rebuilding.

A property tax cap must be put in place. New York’s property taxes are 59 percent above the national average. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 10 of the highest taxed counties as a percentage of property value are in upstate New York.

Cap state spending, our current state budget would be $18 billion smaller and we would not be dealing with billions in deficits if the state had just kept spending increases to the rate of inflation for the past decade.

Reduce the tax burden, every study of tax burdens places New York at or near the bottom as a place to do business. That must change.

Reform public employee pensions must be reformed because the costs are unsustainable. There needs to be a shift to defined contribution plans, like 401Ks, for new hires.

Limit government borrowing to real capital improvements. Too long Albany has borrowed to maintain spending levels and we all pay for it in our taxes.

These five fundamental reforms are just a beginning to rebuild an economy that has been crippled by government excess. But, these are necessary steps to begin the recovery process.

Douglas Boettner, Empire Page columnist: Of course there is no surprise coming with the election of Andrew Cuomo. He has been “handled” well and has kept his once fiery emotions and “quick to anger” temper in check. Now he needs to take off his policeman’s hat and put on a “compromiser’s” hat, not dissimilar to what President Obama needs to do now that the Republicans have taken back the House of Representatives.

How well Andrew controls himself, and shows he can become the statesman his father was for most of his term as governor, should go along way and serve him well as he tries to “play nicely in the sandbox” with Shelly Silver and whomever takes control in the Senate.

If nothing else, these are interesting times, albeit frustrating times for New Yorkers. New York is no longer a good place to raise a family, own a home, run a business, or otherwise attempt to live the American dream. Our personal income, real property and business taxes are driving people out of the state in droves. There is no easy fix. Heck, we can’t even seem to get the Legislature to concentrate on any one of these three issues.

So let’s see what Andrew can do. At least he is coming in with a detailed plan to attack the issues facing New York State. Getting legislatives leaders to jump on the wagon is, and always has been the problem in New York State.

The only other race I want to comment on is the one apparently won by Thomas DiNapoli, by a very slim margin. As I have written in my column in The Empire Page, it is imperative for New York State to elect a State Comptroller who is from a different political party than who is elected governor. I had hoped the voters of New York State would be astute enough to realize it by themselves. It only makes sense. The State Comptroller’s strength and power comes from the fact that it is supposed to be a totally bi-partisan office.

The Comptroller should not be politically beholden to anyone. For DiNapoli, he was first handed the Office by a majority vote of the Legislature when Alan Hevesi was forced to resign. At that time, he was beholden to the leaders of the Legislature for instructing their respective members to vote for him. Now, after falling behind in the early results of the election, he comes back to overtake a virtual unknown challenger, with the help of Shelly Silver’s political machine in New York City. So now he is not only beholden to Silver but the head of the Democratic party, our new governor, is from the same party. This is not a good combination.

Peter G. Pollak, Publisher & Editor, The Empire Page: I provided a recap of the results and the implications for the future in a blog post dated 11/4/2010. Click here to read it now.

Paul Bray, Empire Page columnist: Two thoughts from the election on Tuesday:

1. The first thought is sadness as we flipped from the sublime to the pathetic. Against a lot of odds, two years ago the nation elects an intelligent, family oriented and caring African American as President who inspires and gives hope to many here and around the world. In the worst of times, he performs. But he is criticized for doing too much (health care reform, financial reform, saving the American auto industry, stimulus and many good things that were below the radar), all of which provided some stability and avoided what could have been a real economic crash. But he didn’t do enough. Unemployment is too high, it really is!, but that is on top of (a) the decline of the middle class including the collapse of the traditional manufacturing economy that happened over recent decades before Obama’s watch began (b)the basic fact that recovery of the job sector is never robust after a major financial collapse. So, we have mid-term elections that become a referendum on President Obama (who deserves our praise) and too many voters slap the President down by flipping the House of Representatives to the Republicans who were, at best, the party of NO during the last two years.

2. The second thought relates to New York State, our condition and our prospects. Suppose for a moment that in Governor Cuomo II’s first year the following happens (magically): business taxes are lowered, real property taxes are capped, public pension plans are replaced with defined contribution plans and Albany is cleaned up (though not its 900 vacant buildings) with more stringent ethics reform, budget reform, nonpartisan drawing of election districts and campaign finance reform.

What is the result? Will our aging infrastructure be repaired? Will 21^st century infrastructure like high speed rail appear and buss rapid transit in our cities? Will our communities be prepared for sea level rise and record storms caused by climate change? Will our economy be booming including in upstate cities? Will our public and private institutions of higher education be attracting students who will be the workforce of the 21^st century? Will our cities like Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghampton, Albany and Yonkers become green, healthy and economically strong with an inflow of residents rather than the decline that has characterized the post World War II period? Will the State’s parks, waterways, heritage areas, arts and other world class assets get the stewardship they require? And so on and so forth.

Yes, cutting taxes and governmental reform are nice, but will we really reach our potential as a great state without a powerful vision and road map for rebuilding our state’s economy, 21^st century infrastructure, innovation, an ethic of sustainability, leadership and public and private partnerships with eyes on the vision. Nothing I saw in the State election gives me much hope for this.

Pete Rinaldi, Professional Photographer: It looks as if New York is headed for a new low. With an opportunity to change the way things are done, the electorate is either to beaten down or to ignorant to realize that a message must be sent every election cycle. We have seen that our elected (non) representatives are unwilling to change the way the system works. Why? Because THEY profit from it daily. It has become clear that this is not a government of the people for the people by the people but a government consumed by greed and profit. A government that has little or no interest in the daily struggle of the common constituent. A government that has no back bone or intestinal fortitude to make choices that are right for the people. Sadly those choices are made based on what will get them reelected. All of this as well as the archaic election laws in this state have led to the dysfunction we see today. Where does this leave us? For those who can, it is time to get out of this state as soon as possible. We must also encourage our children to leave this state as soon as they can. The current tax burden cannot be sustained in this or any economy. Soon the only thing left will be the dysfunction, massive social programs and no one to pay the bill. Sadly the blind clueless bunch who are running the state (into the ground) will be looking around and saying, what happened? Let the exodus begin!

John Sheehan, Director of Communications, Adirondack Council: John's piece on the elections and the environment deserved separate placement on our guest editorial page. Click here to read it.

Danny Donohue, President, CSEA: Fairness and respect are CSEA’s guiding principles, past, present and future

The Election 2010 was the first of CSEA's second century. History gives us some good perspective as we look forward.

Over the course of 100 years CSEA has discovered that you can’t predict gubernatorial character until the person is actually in office. We've also had our ups and downs with every governor dating back to Charles Evans Hughes. That's likely to continue into the new Cuomo administration and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Debate can often produce better ideas.

Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo will have to work with CSEA not just on a political and public policy basis but also in a very practical way. The governor is the boss to the state workforce and that’s a very different relationship from what he has with any other constituency. The tone that any administration sets with its employees can dramatically affect a lot of things for better or worse.

New York State government needs a lot of improvement and it will not be easy. But CSEA knows from firsthand experience about what can be achieved when people are motivated to work together.

CSEA has changed and adapted in big and small ways since 1910 – that’s why we’re still here. But another reason we’re still around is that we have always remained true to our commitment to fairness and respect for our members as we work to make New York a better place.

That's the principle that will continue to guide us as we prepare for a new administration in Albany.

Stuart H. Brody, Empire Page columnist: Reckoning with the Whirlwind: a three part play

It must be an axiom of politics—although I can’t cite empirical data for the proposition—that it takes as long to get out of a crisis as it does to get into one By that measure we’re in for a very long haul in New York, perhaps lasting forty years. We have inherited a fiscal whirlwind by giving in to every special interest, tempting policy initiative, and passing whim without regard to a reckoning. But now we’re forced to reckon with it at a time of declining national economic fortunes. Not a pretty picture.

Naturally, then, it is tempting to propose the obligatory five, ten or twenty-five point plans in hopes of immediate results from sweeping reforms. The other commentators to this Roundtable have hit on the correct strategies. They are obvious. By saying that, I don’t mean to disparage the skill it takes to identify them, but rather to stress that coming up with good policy choices is the least of three major challenges facing a Governor. The other two are controlling the expectations of an impatient public, and dealing with self interested politicians who pass upon his programs.

Watching the collapse of the Obama Administration reveals two things about the electorate which may be instructive to the new governor: First, the deeper the problem the more impatient the electorate; second, the public appears to have great difficulty appreciating the value of long term solutions. To this difficult mix, add the current President’s suprising inability to guide the public to either patience or understanding. I believe New Yorkers are more patient, and the Governor-elect more skillful, but the key will be constant interaction with the public to remind us of the ultimate benefits of a modest and long term corrective course focusing on one or two key objectives only .

The other and perhaps more difficult challenge, is dealing with the politicians who have proved over and over that they cannot resist the opportunity to assert personal interest over good policy. Like their colleagues in major American businesses, they seem genetically programmed to seek short term gain at the expense of a long term future. The results to both our economy and political culture have been catastrophic.

Here, the starting point for the Governor-elect is not an elaborate new ethics law which, like any regulation, can be easily circumvented, but to re-incentivize elected officials generally toward the common good. This probably means taking steps to substitute the current party system with a new alignment of interest. If the Governor can find a dozen or so brave souls—undoubtedly with safe seats—to begin the process, he and they might inaugurate a refreshing new political identity, not as Democrats vs. Republicans but as proponents of sound long term solutions vs. quick rag tag fixes.

The challenges are difficult, but the promise is great because this Governor comes to Albany superbly seasoned and thoroughly aware of the problems. He has not squandered the popularity gained at the AG’s office by unrealistic campaign promises or constraining private deals. So, once again, we have reason to believe that the right thing can be done by our leaders, and that the people, by supporting them, can ennoble our beleaguered democracy.

Larry Hirsch, Democratic State Committeeman and Empire Page columnist: The message of the 2010 elections in New York is that the people want good management. It is very simplistic to state that high taxes, bloated pensions or excessive spending are to blame for New York's problems. The real problem is a system that never seems to change no matter who is in charge. This was a clarion call for government reform, good buzzwords that have rarely resulted in much change.

What the people seem to want is someone who makes sure tax money is spent wisely. Both Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino spoke of taking on special interests in Albany and ensuring that the legislature does its job in an open and repsonsible way. The voters rejected Paladino's basebalbat approach and selective scapegoating of unions in favor of Andrew Cuomo's message of bringing all parties together for reform. It can be hoped that as Governor, he will focus on goals over ideology. It is wrong as the Business Council states that cutting taxes will solve all of our problems because you can't do that and reduce the deficit without devastating service cuts that people don't want. Andrew Cuomo has pledged to reduce state spending by 20% but also laid out responsible plans to ensure that government services will be delivered but more effectively. It is important to ferret out waste. Yes union benefits need reform but doing so in a responsible way, instead of through a wholesale attack will bring people together. One thing I suggested in an earlier blog was having State and City employees contribute to their health care benefits like Federal employees do. This could save billions. So the message is find good, credible ideas that help the people and make use an open and reformed government to make them work.

I must also state that Eric Schneiderman's impressive victory also showed that a progressive reformer has a lot of appeal in New York. Eric's long record of independence and effective results propelled him to victory. There was also another message delivered to the Legislature. My fellow Democrats may have blown their majority by continuing the insider way of doing business in Albany. While they had some substantial achievements, there were too many bad headlines. For forty years the Republican Senate was even more closed off and controlled by the Party bosses. They complained when Democrats cut of their lulus and member items but Democrats were treated like second class citizens under Republican Senate rule. If indeed Republicans take over the majority, reverting to old habits will lead to their demise.

Brian Sampson, Exec. Dir., Unshackle Upstate:While taxpayers remain skeptical about Albany’s ability to tackle the state’s countless challenges, there’s reason to believe that our newly elected leaders will develop real, sustainable solutions that will greatly improve New York’s economic climate. It is paramount to our future that people get to work today.

Throughout the primaries and general election, candidates across the political spectrum pledged to reduce taxes and create private sector jobs. These messages clearly resonated with voters as they sent a strong message on election night that they will hold our newly elected and reelected leaders accountable.

One of the most urgent areas to tackle immediately to relieve the burden on taxpayers and job creators is to implement a real, sustainable property tax cap of 2.5 percent or less that includes a moratorium on unfunded mandates. Governor-elect Cuomo, along with members of the Senate and Assembly, have signaled their support for the implementation of a property tax cap. This is especially essential to residents of Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Madison, Monroe, Niagara, Onondaga, Steuben and Wayne counties as these counties have the highest property taxes in the nation as a percentage of home value. As we have done for the past several years, Unshackle Upstate will continue to advocate for a property tax cap and a review of all unfunded mandates until New Yorkers get the relief they need.

Regardless of the final outcomes of the outstanding legislative races, our elected officials must begin to address the economic challenges facing our state. It is time that all of our elected officials – long-standing incumbents and new representatives from both parties – work together to restore New York’s economic potential. If we fail to solve the challenges that are plaguing our state, our children will have no choice but to leave New York in search of real economic opportunities. We want our economy moving, not our people.

Interview with Ed Koch

2010-09-30T23:17:00Z

Background: Earlier this year a group of former elected officials headed by former NYC Mayor Ed Koch formed a group that call themselves NY Uprising. Their goal is to push for three reforms and they have made some politicians uncomfortable in the process. We interviewed the mayor to find out about his group and their objectives.

Empire Page: Mr. Mayor: What prompted you to take up the cause of reforming Albany and how is the fight going?

Ed Koch: No one else stood up over the years when everyone was complaining about the dysfunctional legislature, so I decided to do so. We are doing extremely well with all but eight of the New York Senators having signed our three pledges, including both the Majority Leader, John Sampson, and Dean Skelos, the Minority Leader. In the Assembly, 76 members have signed the three pledges. The pledges cover support for an impartial commission to draw the new Congressional and district lines; expanded ethics reform requiring full disclosure of outside income and for lawyers, a list of clients; and a balanced budget using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Empire Page: One of your redistricting reforms calls for "drawing of districts that are contiguous and do not favor or oppose any party, or candidate". I have two questions about that goal:

A) Isn't the problem of contiguous districts that it can't be pinned down? In other words, isn't it in the final analysis a subjective standard?

Ed Koch: We are using primarily the language proposed by Citizens Union. Further, contiguous can be pinned down and is not amorphous.

B) Doesn't every district by definition favor one party or the other given the fact that you can't create a district with an equal number of enrolled voters from both major parties?

Ed Koch: Favoring a party means intentionally drawing lines for the express purpose of favoring a party or to help the incumbent. Of course, New York is overwhelmingly Democratic, but the drawers must not take party affiliation into account when drawing the districts, as they currently do.

Empire Page: Many people agree that the current method of drawing legislative and congressional district lines undermines democracy, but aren't you at least a couple of years too late in launching this effort, given the fact that it will take a constitutional amendment to take the power away from the NYS Legislature? Therefore, won't the 2011 Legislature being drawing up district lines through 2021 which could only be overturned if they violated federal voting rights?

Ed Koch: We do not want to wait for the Constitutional Convention to be held, if permitted by the legislature, in 2016. We want the lines drawn fairly now. Yes, the fight will continue every ten years unless and until the Constitution is amended to insure they are drawn impartially by an independent commission.

Empire Page: You are calling for a specific set of changes to the state's budgeting process including the creation of an Independent Budget Office. You are surely familiar with the workings of New York City's IBO. How has that organization helped the city's budgeting process? What positive results has it produced?

I believe both the Mayor and City Council recognize that the office has an independence and credibility similar to the Congressional Government Accountability Office which by being there and able to comment keeps the government honest in its statistics and statements bearing on costs and the honesty and integrity of budgets.

Empire Page: Ethics reform has been a political football in Albany for quite a while now and many solutions have been bandied about. Isn't the problem here -- as is the case for creating a non-partisan redistricting commission -- that you need to find a species of human being that doesn't exist? Are there people who have no agenda yet are willing to take on the thankless task of investigating politicians?

Ed Koch: Ethics reform does not relate to the investigation of politicians. It relates to requirements imposed on public officials and employees that impose filings by them open to the public and press which can lead to fines and criminal prosecutions if those filings are false or violated. Both state and federal prosecutors have jurisdiction and can bring criminal charges against sitting legislators. The statewide elected officials are also subject to oversight by the State Commission on Public Integrity. Our pledge on ethics expansion includes support for the establishment of a single ethics commission to have jurisdiction over both the executive and legislative branches of government.

Public Corruption: Why does it persist and what needs to be done

2010-09-16T00:42:00Z

The Topic: In August the State Comptroller revealed that a former director of food services for the State Department of Correctional Services "routinely traded favors and gifts with favored businesses that were rewarded with millions of dollars in state purchases". Earlier in the month the State Inspector General's Office reported that the former director of the New York State Fair "diverted $78,000 in state funds for personal use, squandered $870,000 in state money on lavish parties, holiday cards and two daughters' weddings, and falsified or removed records". A year ago a state janitor and his supervisor were found to have set up a secret drug den in a state storage facility. Such activity does not exist solely at the state level. Here are the titles of some recent reports issued by the State Comptroller:

MTA’S “Culture of Acceptance” Enabled Overtime Abuse
Audit Finds Former Sodus Town Clerk Embezzled Approximately $50,000 Over Eight Years
State OCFS Paid for Care of Deceased Children
State Potentially Paid $883,000 Inappropriately to Defunct After-School Program

There's a lot to discuss here, but we want to focus on two issues:

Many of the above cases persisted for years despite the fact that people who worked with these officials suspected or knew about the corrupt, illegal or unethical behavior. Why don't state employees blow the whistle on these practices?
The most egregious cases are only uncovered years after the fact. Why aren't the Comptroller and Inspector General able to uncover these problems sooner?

The Empire Page welcomes your participation in this discussion. You may participate in one of two ways – either by using the comment box at the end of the roundtable document or by submitting a more substantial statement. If you wish to submit your views for inclusion in the roundtable, you must identify yourself by name and affiliation. Submissions may be rejected if they are not on point, are too wordy or for any other reason the editor deems to disquality them. Send your submissions to editor@empirepage.com.

Douglas Boettner (Empire Page Columnist and former Director of Contracts in the State Comptroller’s Office):

Issue One: Why are some state employees able to engage in corrupt practices for many, many years without being turned in by their fellow workers? There are many reasons this happens. Here are a few:

The employees fear a possible cover up and retribution from management if they were to come forward. The “whistleblower” laws just don’t work. Once you become a “rat” you are tainted and ostracized.
The employee(s) could have been hired by, or promoted by, the official and they feel a loyalty to them aka “killing the golden goose” syndrome.
The employees may be happy just having a job and they don’t want to “upset the apple cart” if you will. Their belief is to leave well enough alone, just like witnesses to an accident don’t want to get involved with testifying at a trial.

Issue Two: Why are the State Comptroller and the State Inspector General unable to uncover this corruption often until years after the fact?

Based on my many years with the Office of the State Comptroller in the capacity as a police officer over the contracts entered into and the payments made by state agencies, the sad fact of the matter is that most thefts are not detected by the police officers. It generally is a falling out among the thieves that gets them caught. Basically they “rat” on one another. Looking at individual transactions is not going to yield a pattern of abuse or corruption.

There are ways to do detailed trend analyses and I assume both of those Offices routinely perform them and occasionally come up with some findings of fraud and abuse. The many instances in the last two years calls into question, however, how good a job each of these Offices is really doing. It’s my humble opinion that the State Comptroller’s Office does not have enough qualified staff to properly investigate these trends. I cannot opine on the staff at the Inspector General’s Office.

When I was Director of Contracts in the State Comptroller’s Office, my staff uncovered their fair share of fraud and abuses, but the greatest number were always as a result of a tip or a protest being brought by someone who wasn’t getting their fair share of the loot.

Peter Pollak (Publisher & Editor, The Empire Page; whose comments are his own and not those of the Empire Page):

You might have the perception that public corruption is on the rise. (If someone has statistics on this please, let me know.) My guess is that our awareness of public corruption has been heightened in recent years in part by the state’s fiscal crisis. At a time when there’s not enough money to cover basic expenses, to learn about fraud and malfeasance by public officers gets your attention. But there’s another factor at play I believe which explains why public corruption is high and why people who see it taking place don’t report it.

Working for government at one time was considered to be a sacrifice. People who worked for government – teachers, prison guards, motor vehicle clerks, etc – knew their wages were lower than people working in the private sector. That began to change in the 1970s and 1980s as states and municipalities began to increase benefits (in lieu of comparable salaries) followed by repeated increases in public employee salaries I the ensuing decades.

I saw the change first hand twice when secretaries for my company resigned to take state jobs – one for a lower salary than I was paying her. Her husband wanted her to take the state job for the benefits she explained. At the time I paid 100% of my employees’ healthcare and had offered a SEP IRA for retirement.

Despite the increase in pay and benefits to the point where people who work in the public sector today often earn more than their private sector counterparts, the attitude that one is sacrificing still persists. To some that attitude justifies practices such as taking home office supplies, padding expense reports by staying at the most expensive hotels possible and buying the most expensive meal on the menu, taking sick days just because you have them, and engaging in personal activities while at work.

I believe there is a scale of this kind of behavior in the public sector ranging from those who are scrupulously honest to those like the Corrections Department food director and the State Fair director who openly defrauded the public to the tune on hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don’t know whether the state’s whistle-blower law ought to be amended, but if those who see another person doing something that’s clearly illegal or unethical are also engaging in questionable behavior or believe the person is entitled to extra benefits because they work for the state then they are much less likely to turn that person in.

Then there’s the question of why the Comptroller and Inspector General’s offices are not able to catch the wrong-doers sooner? Rather than too few people doing the policing, the problem is that there are too many agencies to be policed.

Corruption is another cost of living under a governmental structure built in and for the 19th century. If you read the reports issued by the Comptroller and IG carefully you will see that for every case of outright fraud, there are a dozen of cases of poor management practices and poor judgment. Too many people who are responsible for putting the tax-payers’ dollars to use are poorly trained and poorly supervised, resulting in frequent mistakes and missed opportunities achieving for better results for less.

That’s why government consolidation in New York is not something that maybe should be, could be considered if we get around to doing it, some year. It’s a must do now imperative if New York State is to avoid sinking into third-world conditions by mid-century or sooner.

If I was one of those public employees who are scrupulously honest – and I believe that covers most public employees, I’d be crying out for government consolidation. Get rid of the bad apples or watch the whole barrel turn rotten.

Interview with Howie Hawkins, Green Party candidate for Governor

2010-08-31T02:30:00Z

Background: Continuing with our series of interviews of candidates for statewide offices in 2010, we interviewed the Green Party gubernatorial candidate, Howie Hawkins.

Empire Page: Gov. Paterson was forced to cut spending and raise about $1 billion in new taxes to balance the 2010-11 NYS budget. The Comptroller reports that NYS is facing even larger deficits in 2011-12 and 2012-13. How would you balance the budget if you were elected governor?

Hawkins: I would enact progressive tax reforms that make the rich pay their fair and proper share again. The concentration of income and wealth in the top 5% and especially the top 1% is higher than it's ever been since 1928 and a big part of why we have depressed consumer demand, a stagnant economy, and persistent high unemployment.

Specifically, I would:

1. Stop rebating the Stock Transfer Tax. Enacted in 1905, but fully rebated since 1981, this tax generated $16 billion in revenues in 2009. It would have more than erased the projected $9 billion deficit. The state had the money, but gave it back to Wall Street...and then told us we had a fiscal crisis! That was politics, not economics; money-drenched politicians, not impersonal market forces. The corporate rich who fund both major parties don't want to pay higher taxes themselves to cover the deficit. They want working and middle class New Yorkers to pay for it with their taxes and with cuts to schools, transit, parks, and other public services.

2. Enact a Banker's Bonus Tax of 50% of cash bonuses. This tax would have generated $10 billion on the $20 billion Wall Street paid itself in 2009 after we bailed them out with trillions from the US Treasury and the Fed.

3. Restore the 1972 Progressive Income Tax structure. This would generate about $8 billion more a year while reducing income taxes for 95% of New York taxpayers. The progressive graduation of income tax rates has been flattened after about the 40th income percentile. The janitor at Trump Towers now pays a higher rate for state and local taxes than Trump himself.

Put these three tax reforms together and we would have about $34 billion more in revenues. Subtract the projected $9 billion deficit we had to close this year and again next year, and we have about a $25 billion annual budget surplus.

I would spend that surplus on a Green New Deal of direct public jobs and public spending with private contractors to build a sustainable green economic recovery based on renewable energy, mass transit, green retrofitting of buildings, and clean manufacturing to supply these green industries. With consumer demand and business investment now depressed, government spending is needed to get the economy moving again.

The austerity plans of Cuomo (spending freeze) and the Republicans (spending cuts) are recipes for a vicious circle of debt and depression. Without increased public spending, the economy will decline, tax revenues will shrink, and public spending will be cut again to balance the budget, sending the economy down further.

The progressive tax reforms that I propose would take some of the money with which the rich are speculating on paper financial assets instead of long-term investments in new productive assets and put it to better use though public spending on what the people need and economic recovery demands. And the rich would still be very rich.

Empire Page: Are you unconcerned about driving high income and high net worth people and corporations out of NYS?

Hawkins: No. Not from a fair, progressive state tax structure.

New York's competitive advantages stem from its relatively educated, high-productivity workforce and the quality of its infrastructure, natural resources, and public services. This tax-supported common wealth enhances the avenues of private commerce.

Fortunes can be made doing business in New York's giant market. New York's $1.1 trillion GDP ranks it 13th among the world's nations, right behind Russia.

Most of the big New York fortunes are in real estate and finance. The real estate barons can't move their properties. The Wall Street financial services aren't moving either. The New York Stock Exchange threatened to move to New Jersey when the Stock Transfer Tax was enacted in 1905, but didn't. The NYSE didn't lose business to several European exchanges that joined forces to lure in trading by dropping financial transaction taxes in 1999. The NYSE threatened to but didn't leave for New Jersey after the $1.1 billion subsidy to the New York Stock Exchange to build a new trading floor across the street fell through in 2002. The Wall Street financial district has earned its brand as "the world's financial capital," an unrivaled industry cluster of competing yet complementary firms that do business with each other and have common needs for talent, technology, and infrastructure. That synergy is priceless. They aren't moving.

I am worried that US trade policies are driving NY manufacturers overseas despite billions in state and local tax breaks, energy subsides (Power for Jobs), and other corporate welfare. It's not taxes, but pro-corporate trade policies that make it more profitable for many manufacturers to move to repressive cheap labor regimes like China and import goods back to the US.

Tax avoidance and evasion by the super-rich and giant banks and corporations is already massive. The Tax Justice Network estimates that the US capital already stashed in foreign tax havens by the super-rich and giant banks and corporations amounts to $11.5 trillion, costing the US $255 billion a year in tax revenues.

The solutions to outsourced manufacturing, capital flight, and tax avoidance and evasion are fair trade polices and international agreements to end bank secrecy and exchange tax information between governments. Those reforms are for the federal government. At the state level, we need a fair tax structure to finance the public assets and services that make a prosperous private sector possible.

Empire Page: The stated goal of your campaign is to win 50,000 votes, which according to your May 3 letter to your constituents, will enable you to “contest elections at every level as we continue to build our movement.” But the Green Party has been around for a couple of decades and has not been able to make any headway electorally. Why hasn’t the Green Party caught on and why do you believe it will be able to do better in the future?

Hawkins: We have made some headway. We've elected six village, town, and city councilors, three school board members, and four village mayors in New York State. Nationally, 141 Greens hold elected office at the moment. My votes for city council in Syracuse have grown from 3% in 1993 to 41% in 2009. Greens can win in New York.

Ballot access has been a major impediment for Greens to even contesting races. For example, to run for Congress without a ballot line, I would need to get 3500 valid signatures, which means 7000 signatures to be safe from challenge, on an independent nominating petition. With a Green ballot line, I would need 5% of the enrolled Greens in the district, or about 50 signatures. Instead of committing everything the campaign has for six weeks during the independent petitioning period in July and August to collect 7000 signatures, with a ballot line we could call a Green Party meeting in early June at the beginning of the party petitioning period and have enrolled Greens complete the petition right there.

Most of the Greens' environmental, social, and economic policies have majority support in public opinion polls. Election results don't conform to the opinion polls because the single-member-district, winner-take-all electoral system entrenches the two-party system. Many voters who support the Green platform feel compelled to vote defensively for the lesser-evil Democrats against the Republicans they fear more. That is why the Greens call for proportional representation in legislative bodies and instant runoff voting for executive offices.

But pending such electoral reforms, recent breakthroughs by the Greens in the UK and Australia give us reason to expect similar breakthoughs here. The UK and Australia also have winner-take-all electoral systems (except for the semi-proportional Australian Senate where Greens have long had seats). Like the so-called New Democrats in the US who have abandoned their New Deal legacy for pro-corporate austerity policies, New Labor in the UK and Australia has made similar moves to the Right. The Greens have won over many Labor Party voters because the Greens have taken up the traditional labor demands for economic justice as well as the environmental demands for which the Greens are known. Many traditional Labor voters in these countries voted Green this year to put the first Greens into their parliamentary houses. We are beginning to see a similar trend here. The refusal of NYSUT and CSEA to endorse Cuomo due his conservative fiscal policies and scapegoating of public employees for fiscal problems opens doors for my campaign, which is getting more organized support from rank-and-file union members than any statewide campaign the Greens have run.

Empire Page: One might expect that the country's economic woes would result in a big swing to the left, but the opposite has been the case -- witness the Glen Beck rally in DC and the emergence of the tea party movement. How do you explain the fact that more people seem to want to "restore" America than "change" it?

Hawkins: Things are not what they appear. We're not there yet. The Tea Party movement is new branding for the most conservative section of the electorate that was already there. The apparently spontaneous Tea Party movement is financed and promoted by some very big business and media interests, notably, Charles and David Koch, the principal owners of the oil and chemical conglomerate, Koch Industries; Ruport Murdoch's News Corp., particularly its Fox News Network; and Clear Channel's 1300 station radio empire, the world's largest by far, featuring right-wing talk radio. There's lots of money and media mobilizing the far right base and giving it high visibility.

The right-wing media machine has been able to spread false rumors and unfounded fears by innuendo and outright lies among distressingly high proportions of the population. President Obama's birth and religion are under question. By falsely equating Islam with the criminal terrorists of Al Qaeda, majorities have been scared into opposing the Park 51 Islamic Community Center at the cost of First Amendment's freedom of religion. The scientific consensus on global warming caused by fossil fuel burning has been put into doubt in the minds of growing numbers. On the economic policy front, however, the Right's railing against the deficits and the unconstitutionality of government regulation of the economy has so far failed to move public opinion against Social Security, Medicare, progressive taxation, unemployment insurance, or government spending to create jobs. So the impact is mixed.

The tea party doesn't represent a broad, popular swing to the Right, at least not yet. The latest Gallup poll on ideological self-identification from June shows a 1% decline of liberals and moderates and a 2% increase in conservatives this year, all within the margin of error. Even though only 20% identified as liberals in the Gallup poll, 36% viewed socialism positively in a Gallup poll last February. Even though 42% identified themselves as conservative (42%) or moderate (35%) in the Gallup poll, just 53% said capitalism was better than socialism in a Rasmussen poll last April.

"Restore" and "change" are abstractions. Who's against restoring the good and changing the bad? Glenn Beck said as much in his "non-political" speech in DC. Like abstract political labels - liberal, moderate, conservative, socialist - they don't tell us much. We can get a better sense of public opinion from polls that ask voters about specific policies. If we get beyond abstract labels, the majority is progressive.

To start with a leading issue from the "culture wars," support for same-sex marriage has grown steadily from 30% in the mid 1990s to near majorities in recent polls and a 52% majority in an August 11 CNN who agreed with the statement that "gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid."

During the health care debate over 2007-2009, polling repeatedly showed strong majorities of from 54% to 65% supporting a single payer system. But the Democratic in the White House and Congress took it "off the table," moving the whole debate inside the beltway to the Right of public opinion

On the wars, 65% oppose the Iraq war and 58% oppose Afghanistan war, according to an August 16 AP poll. Again, the Democrats in power continue the wars and pursue a policy to the Right of public opinion.

The polls show that the jobs and the economy are the top issue this year. An August 12 survey on Deficits and the Economy of probable voters by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner showed strong progressive majorities on economic policies. Probable voters were...
...68%-28% opposed cutting Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit.
...65%-33% opposed to raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70.
...60%-36% opposed to raising the age to receive Medicare to age 67.
...74%-14% for "massive public investment deficit....in roads, sewers, schools, trains, renewable energy, and other basic parts of our communities [to] create jobs, help business compete, improve our communities and generate revenues that can help pay down the budget deficit."
...64%-25% for "government investment in jobs, education, and infrastructure in the short-term while being mindful of reducing the deficit over the long-term."
...66%-25% for "build an economy on a new foundation by investing in education and training, in 21st century infrastructure, capturing a lead role in the new green industrial revolution, and balancing our trade so we make products and create jobs in America."
...62%-31% for"a tax on excessive profits made by Wall Street banks."
...67%-21% for "Restore the higher tax rates for those earning over 250 thousand dollars a year and for excessive CEO bonuses, institute a small transaction tax on stock trades, and wipe out the lobbyist-created special corporate subsidies."

Another recent Gallup poll shows New York to be the fourth most liberal state in the nation, so the progressive majorities are probably stronger in New York State.

But in defiance of these polling numbers and in deference to their Wall Street campaign funders, the Democrats move the debate to the Right of public opinion. They echo the Republican/Tea Party demands for spending cuts to reduce deficits. Cuomo calls for a state spending freeze, not a public spending stimulus, and rules out higher taxes on the rich. President Obama calls for a freeze on federal discretionary spending except military and created a Deficit Reduction Commission packed with members who want to cut Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficits. While Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts for the top 2-3% of income earners expire, clawbacks of Wall Street's bailout-funded windfall profits and bonuses, a financial transactions tax, and cuts in corporate subsidies are not on his agenda, nor is a signficant fiscal stimulus even as the economic recovery sputters. Reduced spending for deficit reduction is his priority going forward.

The progressive majority is to the Left of the Democrats on the economy. It shows in this same poll of probable voters, who disapprove of President Obama's performance as president by a 51% to 45% majority. It is clear that Obama's deference to the drug and health insurance monopolies and Wall Street on health care reform, financial regulation, and government spending to create jobs has disappointed many progressive voters.

I do see a danger of a popular swing to the Right. If the Democrats' conservative economic policies continue to reinforce the Republican/Tea Party message, that could well become a conservative conventional wisdom that a growing public accepts. More ominously, the combination of economic hard times, alienation from a government that can't solve problems, a powerful right-wing media mobilizing resentments to scapegoat immigrants, Muslims, and racial minorities, and a Democratic Party that cowers and accommodates the Right could lead to a racially divisive swing to the Right that pits a larger segment of fearful whites against the rest.

Our Green New Deal program can be an antidote to those outcomes if it gets a fair hearing. It can move New York politics and the policy debate into the mainstream of public opinion and win the enthusiastic support of what is still a progressive majority.

Interview with Thomas P. DiNapoli, NYS Comptroller

2010-08-26T15:27:00Z

Background: Continuing our interviews with candidates for statewide office in 2010, we had some questions for Tom DiNapoli who is the incumbent and the Democratic Party candidate for NYS Comptroller.

Empire Page: Your opponent Harry Wilson has attacked your proposal to allow the State and municipalities to borrow from the State pension fund. How do you reply to his criticism?

DiNapoli: The simple response is that my opponent is intentionally misleading voters. My plan is not borrowing. The facts and figures that my opponent has been spouting are completely off base and you don’t have to take my word for it. The Fiscal Policy Institute described his analysis of my plan as off by “an order of magnitude.”

Let me very clear: my plan gives localities and municipalities an option to spread pension fund costs over a period of time to smooth out peaks and valleys and provide for more consistent payments, much like a budget plan for utility customers. Local governments will need to assess whether or not it makes fiscal sense.

No money will be taken from the Common Retirement Fund and we will maintain the integrity and historic strength of the fund. In strong years, local governments that opt-in to this plan will make payments into individualized reserve accounts. In lean years, money can be drawn from these accounts, creating less volatility for taxpayers and a more consistent revenue stream for the contribution rate.

The pension fund isn’t run like a day trading firm. We are long-term investors with a perpetual investment horizon. This plan is a long-term reform for the fund.

My opponent, on the other hand, would bring a different set of values and assumptions to the job of Comptroller. He amassed his fortune working at firms that knowingly made risky bets in search of quick profits at any cost. These companies contributed to the economic collapse that devastated the savings and retirement plans of millions of New Yorkers; truly the worst of Wall Street.

He is quick to criticize my prudent fiscal policy. But the plan he has concocted to have the New York State pension fund revert back to 1980 investment strategies would raise taxes by more than $10 billion in the first year alone.

That would mean that taxes on households outside of New York City would rise by $2,500 in 2010. When paired with his support of a massive federal tax loophole that saves his former hedge fund colleagues from paying their fair share of federal income tax, his policies would deliver a truly devastating hit on the middle-class.

Empire Page: What do you feel has been the most significant accomplishment of your time as Comptroller?

DiNapoli: As Comptroller, I’ve been a strong voice for fiscal sanity in Albany. I’ve taken on my own party’s leaders in Albany, fighting for a budget that uses honest numbers and makes the tough choices that are required.

My aggressive audits of government spending have uncovered more than $1.8 billion in waste, fraud or abuse of taxpayer dollars. My office completed audits of every one of New York’s more than 700 school districts and we did it ahead of schedule.

I created a program, Open Book New York (www.openbookny.com), so taxpayers can see how their tax dollars are being spent.

While I am proud of those achievements, I believe my biggest accomplishment has been restoring public trust in the Comptroller’s office.

When I took office in 2007, I inherited a mess. Alan Hevesi left behind a legacy of abuse and unethical behavior that devastated the public’s trust. His Chief Investment Officer admitted he had committed felonious acts while working in the Comptroller’s office. We’ve seen Attorney General Andrew Cuomo find case after case of Hevesi-era fraud and abuse. It was a devastated and demoralized office.

It was my job to bring reform to this office and to restore the public’s trust in the Comptroller. An unprecedented level of distrust called for unprecedented action.

I banned the involvement of placement agents, paid intermediaries and registered lobbyists in investments with the Fund.
I banned pay-to-play practices by issuing an executive order that prohibits the Fund from doing business with any investment adviser who has made a political contribution to the State Comptroller or a candidate for State Comptroller.
I hired an independent consulting firm to conduct a compliance review of every transaction approved since I took office in 2007.
I appointed an Ethics officer and an Inspector General to help ensure ethical behavior at every level of the Comptroller's office.

Finally, I’ve increased transparency, ethics and accountability at every level of the office. These reforms have shut down opportunities for the kind of abuses that occurred under the Hevesi Administration.

At the same time, I’ve pushed for new investment strategies and better management of our investments. The Fund is strong – the Pew Center reported earlier this year that New York is one of only four fully-funded state pension funds in the nation and Governing Magazine called New York the “Nationwide pension leader” – and we’re getting stronger. Institutional Investor recently honored New York as its Large Public Plan of the Year for 2010. The Fund has consistently equaled or bettered the performance of our peers.

My goal when I took this office was to become the people’s Comptroller. I want New Yorkers to have confidence in me and in this Office and I’ve worked hard every day to achieve that goal.

Empire Page: What will you focus on over the next four years if the voters return you to office?

DiNapoli: My campaign is run on a few very simple and direct principles. I am protecting New Yorkers’ taxpayer dollars. I am rooting out fraud and waste in government. I am protecting the Common Retirement Fund for its members and for taxpayers as well.

New Yorkers need a strong, honest, independent voice in Albany. I want to continue to be that voice, identifying and ending abuses, speaking out against bad budgets and protecting the pension fund from raids.

But I also want to take an even closer look at how we do things in New York. I believe I can provide the services New Yorkers need for a much better price.

We’ve already taken steps to actively pursue cost savings and root out fraud and waste in our State’s $45 billion Medicaid system. I’ve uncovered more than $400 million in billing errors, overpayments and other problems in Medicaid audits. I am going to continue to work to recapture money lost to fraud, but I am also going to continue to examine Medicaid to identify policies that waste taxpayer money without providing additional health care services.

I have done close to two dozen audits of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. We’re looking for fraud, but we also want to change the culture of the MTA from one of acceptance to one of accountability.

Most importantly, I want to continue to push hard for budget reform. This year’s budget fiasco was typical of the dysfunction of this broken process. New York cannot continue to follow the same broken process year after year and expect different results. To put an end to this, I’ve introduced a series of budget reforms. I’m going to make sure we fix this process.

Empire Page: What do you want voters to know about you as a person?

DiNapoli: I’m the product of a middle-class household, and I’m proud of that. My father served in World War II and spent his career working as a lineman for a phone company. My mother was a clerk for the Nassau County Police department.

They both worked hard to put my brother and me through college. The values that my parents instilled in me are the values that I share with the working men and women of New York: hard work, honesty, integrity and service to others.

Those values guide me every day.

I bring a different perspective to this office. I spent 10 years working at AT&T, but I’ve been committed to public service since I was elected to the Mineola School Board at age 18. I have a balanced view of both the private and public sectors in New York. During my nearly 20 years in the state legislature, I built a reputation for bi-partisanship and dedication to protecting New Yorkers.

I’m proud of my career in public service. I am running for New York State Comptroller because I care about New York State and the people who live here and I want to make this state a better place to live, work and raise a family.

Empire Page: Andrew Cuomo came out with some strong recommendations that would among other things replace the Comptroller as the sole trustee of the NYS Retirement Fund with a 17-member board. Were you asked for input as he was developing his proposals and do you agree with his recommendations?

DiNapoli: There are advantages and disadvantages to both models. The most important aspect of the sole trustee model is the ability to protect the pension from raids on the fund. Governors have repeatedly attempted to raid the fund to balance the state budget, and the courts have repeatedly upheld the Comptroller's authority to protect it.

Unlike New Jersey, California, Illinois and other states, New York has a lengthy and strong tradition of making sure that state and local governments meet their pension fund obligations. That's why New York has been recognized by the Pew Center as one of only four fully funded state pension systems in the nation. We must preserve these protections so that we can continue to guard against the kind of fiscal shenanigans that resulted in the SEC’s recent actions against New Jersey.

I recognize that there is frustration and anger over the abuses committed under former Comptroller Alan Hevesi. That's why I've implemented reforms like banning pay-to-play and prohibiting the involvement of lobbyists and placement agents in pension fund investments. We need to remain committed to reform, and that’s what I will do in a second term as Comptroller.

But if we do move to a board, I strongly believe that it should not be a board comprised of political appointees. The attempted raids of the past should be a clear enough warning that Governors and Legislatures cannot be trusted to safeguard the fund. The Comptroller's authority to protect the fund from raids must not be diminished.

Empire Page: What issue do you feel voters should focus on in deciding which candidate for Comptroller to vote for in November?

DiNapoli: The issues of integrity and values go to the heart of the work that I do as Comptroller. New York State deserves a Comptroller who has the integrity to do what is right, even in the face of political pressure or expedience. My opponent has not shied away from the fact that he shares the values of those people that represent the worst excesses of Wall Street. Their actions directly contributed to the mortgage foreclosure crisis and drove our economy to the edge of collapse. Harry Wilson was raised in this culture, it’s how he made his fortune.

I have approached this job from a different perspective. My job description as Comptroller is simple: It’s your money, and it’s my job to protect it.

I have stood up and criticized leaders from both sides of the aisle in Albany for their failure to fix our fiscal problems. I’ve fought for a budget built on honest numbers, a budget that makes the tough choices that New York needs in today’s economic climate. I have ended the conflicts of interest that brought disrepute to the Comptroller’s office.

Having the integrity to do this job well means identifying which candidate shares the values of New York State. I’ve done the job. My record as Comptroller is evidence of where I stand and for whom I work; I’m committed to fighting for the working men and women of New York State.

Interview with Joe DioGuardi, Candidate for U.S. Senate

2010-08-11T15:43:00Z

Background: This is a continuation in a series of interviews we are conducting with people running for statewide office this fall. Joe DioGuardi served in the House of Representatives representing New York's 20th congressional district from 1985 to 1989.

Empire Page: What prompted you to run for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Kirsten Gillibrand?

DioGuardi: Washington is addicted to spending and borrowing. While Main Street suffers, Capitol Hill continues to spend money we don’t have, which forces us to borrow from countries, like China, that don’t share our values. These choices in Washington are dramatically affecting the bottom lines of all taxpayers as well as the entire Empire State economy. New York cannot afford to maintain status quo. Washington needs an experienced Certified Public Accountant to tell the truth about what is really going on, so that we can plan for the future and reduce our national debt.

Empire Page: You are one of several candidates seeking the GOP nomination. Why should Republicans choose you as their candidate in the September primary?

DioGuardi: As an experienced Certified Public Accountant, I not only know the grave problems facing this nation, but I understand how to fix them. Send me to the U.S. Senate and I will bring professional experience and fiscal responsibility to stop those who are forcing apocalyptic levels of debt on our nation. Moreover, since I am the only candidate on the Conservative Party line, I can unite the opposition to Senator Gillibrand and change the status quo this November for New York and for the American economy.

Empire Page: If you are the Republican candidate in November, what issues will you campaign on?

DioGuardi: Nearly 1 million New Yorkers are unemployed, and in June, the Empire State lost more jobs than every other state, but one. Our economy is directly impacted by the decisions made in Washington, and without reform, prosperity in New York is threatened. Senator Gillibrand has repeatedly endorsed legislation that increases debt and stifles growth, and she needs to be held accountable for those decisions.

Empire Page: You would not have supported the financial reform bill recently signed into law. What are your objections to that legislation?

DioGuardi: The 5,000-plus pages of financial reform legislation created an expanded federal bureaucracy that will crush opportunities for American prosperity. It simply creates an entangled web of red tape that slows job creation and business innovation. Meanwhile, it continues to hide the real cost of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by keeping them off the budget, and it does nothing to end Washington’s addiction to spending and borrowing.

Empire Page: Immigration reform has been a problematic topic for several administrations. What should the U.S. do about the 10+ million illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S.? How do we stop the flow of additional illegals?

DioGuardi: My parents came to this country, searching for the American dream – the opportunity to build a better life for their children, the opportunity to harness their entrepreneurial spirit and put together the life they dreamed of. Legal immigration has always been the hallmark of our opportunity-driven society, but today’s bureaucratic system has disrupted the process, allowing millions to live illegally in this country while making it extremely difficult for legal residents to gain citizenship. Our first step must be to secure our borders and to stop illegal immigration by effectively monitoring who is crossing into our country.

Empire Page: Do you agree with the stimulus and other policies the Obama Administration has employed to try to fix our economy? If not, how would you restore prosperity in NYS and the nation?

DioGuardi: The administration’s policies have produced massive spending legislation that forces us to borrow from countries that don’t share our values. Meanwhile, these policies have yet to fix the actual problems that plague this nation. If we want to put New Yorkers back to work, if we want to see economic recovery in America, expenditures on unproductive federal programs need to be cut. We need to give business the financing and infrastructure it needs to create new products and new jobs.

Empire Page: What do you want voters to know about you as a person?

DioGuardi: I believe in New York, and I have confidence in the Empire State’s undeniable spirit of innovation. Throughout the history of this country, New York has risen from economic depressions, wars and attacks – each time emerging stronger than the last. As one of New York’s two U.S. senators, I will make sure that New Yorkers have the freedom to once again climb out of a recession and grab hold of the American dream. I am so proud to see my family’s American dream unfold. My parents were immigrants; my daughter, Kara, is a prominent songwriter and a judge on “American Idol”; and I am running for the U.S. Senate. Our country is truly amazing.

Interview with Dan Donovan, Republican Party candidate for Attorney General

2010-08-04T16:43:00Z

Background: This is a continuation in a series of interviews we are conducting with people running for statewide office this fall. Dan Donovan, currently Staten Island District Attorney, is the Republican and Conservative Party nominee for Attorney General of NYS.

Empire Page: The last two NYS Attorneys General focused much of their attention on Wall Street. Is that the proper role for the NYS Attorney General and will that be your primary focus if elected?

Donovan: The two previous attorney general administrations had their own priorities. My priority will be to root out public corruption in our state government. I’ll do this by seeking original jurisdiction over all public corruption cases, so that the AG can pursue public corruption anywhere and everywhere it occurs.

Only an independent attorney general can impartially investigate matters that local authorities may be reluctant to prosecute, and only a statewide official will have the resources necessary to prosecute complex crimes of corruption and conspiracy. Moving jurisdiction to the State Attorney General would alleviate the burden from these local offices and create a more robust system for pursuing public corruption.

It’s critical that we restore integrity back in our state government and tackling public corruption is the first step. New Yorkers have lost faith in their elected officials and unfortunately, much of that is justified. As Attorney General, I’ll work to restore that confidence and get our government back on the right track.

Empire Page: On your website you talk about "Reforming Albany". What can the Attorney General do to "reform Albany"?

Donovan: Increasing transparency and accountability in Albany is critical. As Attorney General, I will make rooting out public corruption my priority. This includes implementing measures that will act as a deterrent, to prevent corruption and cheating before it even occurs. For example, we need more robust measures in place to ensure the integrity of ‘member items’ (taxpayer-funded grants) awarded by our state legislators. I’ll hold legislators accountable for their member items by requiring them to attest that they won’t personally benefit from the allocation of taxpayer money. Today, we only require this of the recipient – isn’t it fair we hold our elected officials to the same standard?

Additionally, I’ll work to vigorously pursue disclosure of legislators’ outside income. New York City has rigorous disclosure requirements for city officials, and we should hold our state officials to that same high standard.

Tackling public corruption by increasing transparency and accountability is the first step in reforming our state capitol.

Empire Page: On your website you state that if elected you will "work with localities to protect residents from never-ending property tax increases". How can the Attorney General accomplish that goal? Doesn't that require action by the Legislature?

Donovan: If elected Attorney General, I will continue to aggressively pursue Medicaid fraud in communities across our state and when monies are recovered, return local communities their fair share.

New York State has the highest Medicaid costs in the country.

Unlike other states, our local municipalities are responsible for paying a portion of the state’s burden. Forced to pay these fixed costs, our local communities raise taxes to help pay for other critical services. In today’s economic climate and given the current situation with our state budget, many communities are suffocating under this burden.

To help alleviate that burden, I believe that any money recovered from Medicaid fraud investigations should be fairly redistributed back to the local communities where it was uncovered. Today, this doesn’t happen. Local communities don’t get their fair share back and the majority of this money is returned to state coffers. If we do this, it will have a two-fold effect. It will incentivize local municipalities to be a partner in rooting out Medicaid fraud and also return much needed funding to local coffers to help lower taxes and pay for police officers, firefighters, libraries and community centers.

Empire Page: You also indicate that you want to "stem the flow of illegal guns into our state". What can you tell us about the size of this problem and are you in favor of microstamping -- the method of identifying guns so that they can be more easily trace?

Donovan: I fully support our Constitution’s Second Amendment and the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns. Criminals, however, don’t have that same right.

Alongside our local police department, I’ve worked tirelessly in Richmond County to root out illegal gun trafficking and vigorously prosecute criminals who use those guns to menace our communities. I believe that law enforcement should have every tool, every resource available to them to protect our citizens and that includes strictly enforcing our gun laws to ensure that only law-abiding citizens, not criminals, have access to guns. I’ve supported our police department’s appropriate use of the stop and frisk policy as a necessary and legitimate law enforcement tool and I’ve supported measures, like microstamping, that employ advanced technology in tracing crime guns back to their criminal owners.

Legal guns, for hunting and sport, have always been an important part of the fabric of our society. When that is distorted by criminals who use guns to kill police officers and terrorize our communities, law enforcement and prosecutors need every resource available to protect our communities.

Empire Page: Last year Attorney General Cuomo advanced a proposal to that would create a new 13-person board to manage the state's retirement fund. Today the responsibility rests solely with the NYS Comptroller. What are your views on how best to manage the state's retirement system?

Donovan: On July 29, I issued a call for common sense measures to increase the integrity of the pension fund, prevent fraud and increase transparency. The specific measures I proposed include:

Calling for the Attorney General?s office to act as the official lawyer for the public pension system to reign in pay-to-play schemes and establish strict standards under which individuals can do business with the pension fund.
Creating an office of pension litigation within the Investor Protection Bureau to work with the State Comptroller to select the outside counsel used to represent the pension fund in any class action litigation undertaken on the fund?s behalf to ensure that there?s a system of checks and balances in place, that no conflicts of interest exist and the relationship is free from any questions of pay-to-play.
Proposing that any investment manager who does business with the pension fund be prohibited from making political contributions to the State Comptroller, candidates for State Comptroller, and trustees of any pension fund in the state (who are elected officials) for a period of five years.

It's time to adopt more stringent rules to ensure that the investment managers selected to manage retirees? funds are chosen based on merit and performance, not back room deals. The state must safeguard the integrity of the pension funds to ensure that we continue to meet our obligations to retirees for generations to come.

Interview with Jay Townsend, candidate for U.S. Senate

2010-07-08T10:39:00Z

Background: In our continuing series of interviews with candidates for statewide office in New York, we interviewed Jay Townsend who is running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Chuck Schumer. Townsend received enough votes to challenge Jay Bernsten for the Republican Party nomination in the September primary. He has received the endorsement of the NYS Conservative Party.

E.P.: What motivated you to run for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Chuck Schumer?

Townsend: I am disgusted with the course of our nation and the direction of New York State. Senator Schumer supported a pork laden $800 billion dollar stimulus bill that has proven a colossal waste. Nearly one million New Yorkers are still without a job. The Senator has vowed to allow the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, which will require New Yorkers to pay even more in income, capital gains and dividend taxes, all of which will accelerate exodus of the job creators and innovators from New York. It will become even more difficult for businesses and companies that remain to invest and create new jobs. Moreover, the Senator is supporting spending policies that will drown the next generation in a tsunami of red ink--$13 trillion over the next decade--a level of borrowing and debt that will inevitably erode the value of the dollar and rob all Americans of their purchasing power.

E.P: Senator Schumer has a big advantage given that he's not only an incumbent and has lots of money, but he also has tremendous name recognition. Defeating him will be a long-shot for whomever is the GOP candidate in November. The NYS GOP endorsed Gary Berntsen for that seat. Why not support Berntsen instead of trying to force him to spend time and money on a primary?

Townsend: I defeated Mr. Berntsen by a 5-1 margin on the first ballot at the Conservative Party Convention. I will have the Conservative Party line in November. We essentially tied on the first ballot at the Republican Convention at 40% each, the only ballot that mattered. No Republican has won a statewide race without the Conservative Party line since the 1970's. I am the only candidate running for Senate or Governor who is not from Long Island, Manhattan or lower Westchester; the only one who was raised on a farm; the only one who has lived upstate who understands the culture and values of the upstate communities that are an essential part of the Republican coalition. I think is essential that the Republican Party nominate the only candidate who can win in November.

E.P.: Where do you differ from Berntsen on the issues?

Townsend: I know very little about Gary's views on anything. He has little issue material on his website, and to date has been very reluctant to appear with me on the same stage or at forums to which we have been invited. I recently read in the New York Times that he favors the execution of the detainees at Guantanamo. While I do not favor civilian trials for suspected war criminals, I do believe they are entitled a trial before a Military Tribunal.

E.P: New York is a large media-driven state. How do you plan on getting your message out to voters?

Townsend: When the message is right, the votes and the money will eventually find the candidate, as they did Scott Brown in Massachusetts. This election will be a referendum on the state of our economy and Senator Schumer's tenure in office. He will not fare well.

E.P.: You've identified New York's economic problems as a primary focus of your campaign. If you had been in the US Senate in 2008 would you have voted for the Bush administration's policies dealing with the financial crisis? Would you have voted for Obama's stimulus program?

Townsend: No and No.

I don't believe in notion of "too big to fail." And anybody who has ever taken a course in economics (I earned two college degrees in that subject) knew from the get-go that the pork laden stimulus bill would not work.

The cancer that caused the housing bubble was generated in the bowels of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two quasi government entities that have cost taxpayers billions. Politicians lined their pockets with campaign contributions from both, and then protected both entities from audits and the kind of scrutiny that could have prevented the housing crisis. The politicians complicit in this crisis should be indicted.

E.P.: Do you support the Health Reform legislation passed by Congress this Spring? If not, what would you vote to repeal?

Townsend: No. And yes, I would vote to repeal the entire thing.

We can and should pass a health insurance reform bill. We can increase access to affordable health insurance without creating a new entitlement that will force this nation to borrow trillions, increase taxes on job creators and cause the cost of health insurance premiums to skyrocket. I have proposed a detailed plan which is on my website at www.TownsendForNewYork.com.

E.P.: What do you want the voters to know about you as a person?

Townsend: I was the eldest of five children raised on a farm, and learned early some of the small town values that have served me well as a father, husband, business owner, community volunteer, entrepreneur and leader in my church.

It was at the age of nine when I learned one of life's great lessons. It was a cold and miserable day in February of 1963. Dad was gone, and I decided I did not want to do the chores in the pouring rain after school.

I was in bed that evening when I heard my mother answer the phone. She shortly appeared at the door with a message from Dad. Said she, Your father says if you have not done your chores you need to get out of bed right now and hop to.

So in the pitch black of night, drenching wet, flashlight in hand, I walked down the road to the barn to feed the livestock, water the pigs, and lay fresh straw in the pens. At the time I did not fully appreciate the lesson I was being taught---but it was this. The survival of that farm and our livelihood required that everybody do their part to keep it together. That lesson I learned about responsibility and accountability lives with me to this day.

Responsibility and accountability starts with us. This is the greatest country in the world and it is up to us to keep it. This was once the greatest state in the union and it is up to us to lift it off its knees. We live in the world's greatest democracy and it is up to us to use our God-given right at the ballot box to prove that it can work.