Empire Page - Guest Editorials

A Conservation Plan with Something for Everyone

2011-12-23T13:32:00Z

When the opportunity arose in 2007 to purchase and protect the former Finch, Pruyn & Co. lands, we knew we had to act. At 161,000 acres, the magnitude of this forest and fresh water conservation effort is significant. In addition to providing essential habitat for wildlife and featuring 16,000 acres of wetlands, 300 lakes and ponds, 90 mountain peaks, and 415 miles of rivers and streams, these lands touch people’s lives and livelihoods.

In consultation with a variety of interest groups and community leaders, The Nature Conservancy’s local Adirondack Chapter and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) have agreed to conserve and protect these lands, and the critical economic benefits they provide to local communities, as follows:

· 92,000 acres will continue to be working forests with sustainable logging;
· 65,000 acres will be transferred to the state to become part of the Forest Preserve; and
· 1,100 acres will be set aside for community purposes in three towns.

The plan does more than represent our collective commitment to clean air, clean water and healthy forests for current and future generations. It meets the needs of loggers, business owners, wildlife, and the tens of thousands of local residents and millions of visitors who use Adirondack forests for recreation.

The lands touch six counties and 27 towns in the Adirondacks, with more than 80% of the property in these five towns: North Hudson, Minerva, Newcomb, Indian Lake and Long Lake. All of the towns have already approved the state’s anticipated expenditures from the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) toward related land and conservation easement purchases. The EPF is a dedicated fund, replenished each year with money generated through an existing real estate transfer tax, for environmental programs, ranging from open space and farmland protection, to zoos and botanical gardens, to recycling programs and waterfront redevelopment programs.

More than half of the land will continue to be available for sustainable timber harvest operations. Some of it will become part of the Forest Preserve, thereby unlocking recreation and business opportunities associated with the tourism industry—an industry recognized as a vital growth sector of the upstate economy by the North Country Regional Economic Development Council. Indeed, protecting these Adirondack forests and their vast water resources adds immeasurable value to the region as a major travel and recreation destination. Ten million people visit the Adirondacks annually, supporting one out of every five jobs in the area, and visitors spend more than $1 billion at local inns, restaurants, convenience stores and outdoor outfitters.

All of the property to be transferred to the state has been closed to the public for more than a century, but will become open and available in the coming years to everyone for hunting, hiking, fishing and other recreational uses, and some new snowmobile trails will be created. Included are some of the most scenic places in the Adirondacks, such OK Slip Falls, in Indian Lake; Essex Chain of Lakes, in Minerva and Newcomb; Thousand Acre Swamp, in Edinburg; wild upper reaches of our state’s longest river, the Hudson, and key tributaries like the Cedar and Indian Rivers, in multiple towns; and Boreas Ponds, at the southern edge of the High Peaks Wilderness, in North Hudson. For the first time ever, these places will soon be accessible to you, your friends and neighbors, and everyone who finds inspiration in natural places.

The project also adds value to the timber industry. As of December 2010, the 92,000 acres of commercial timberlands, now owned by a company who bought the land as a socially responsible investment, have been protected by a land preservation agreement with the state called a conservation easement. The easement keeps the land in sustainable forestry, allows for continued recreational leasing, and secures some public access to places identified as important to local communities, including snowmobile connector trails already open for use in nearly a dozen towns. The rural town of Newcomb is already experiencing economic benefits from new snowmobile trails. Timber harvested from the easement lands continues to supply green certified pulpwood to the Finch Paper mill in Glens Falls, which employs approximately 750 workers.

We anticipate key properties to transfer to NYSDEC in the coming years. In the meantime most of the land will continue to be leased for exclusive use by about two dozen private hunt clubs. Though hunt clubs will have to relocate to privately owned forests, the plan allows for a 10-year transition, ensures members will still have these lands to hunt on, and expands recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors currently shut out of the forest.

This balanced approach to conserving the former Finch lands is an investment in people as much as it is an investment in nature. We are bolstering the economy while also protecting clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat.

For more information about this project, including video links, press releases and news clips, visit www.nature.org/heartofadirondacks.

***

Michael Carr is executive director of the Adirondack Chapter of Nature Conservancy

State Workers in NY Among Highest Paid in the Nation, Report Shows

2011-12-17T20:23:00Z

New York State employees earned $55,662 on average in 2010, coming in second on a list ranking states by how highly their workers are compensated. In first place is New Jersey, where the average state employee salary was approximately $56,179 in 2010. California ranks third, with $53,926.

The data come from an analysis of recently released U.S. Census of Governments data by Govistics, a project of the non-profit Center for Governmental Research based in Rochester. The tables show state rankings by per worker gross payroll in 2010, change in per worker payroll from 2009 to 2010, and per capita gross payroll in 2010. The full tables can be accessed by following this link.

State workers in Alaska, Maryland, and Connecticut completed the list of states with average earnings over $50,000. Of these six top-paying states, New York’s state workers saw their paychecks rise the most, up 3.4% from 2009. Only one – Connecticut – saw a reduction in average gross pay from the previous year (-5%).

Govistics also looked at state payroll cost on a per capita basis. Alaska, Hawaii and Delaware—states with smaller populations—topped that list. Florida, Arizona and Georgia had the lowest per capita costs. Between 2009 and 2010, four states—Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming and South Dakota—increased per capita state payrolls by more than 6% while 24 states actually cut per capita gross state payrolls. Four—Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware and Indiana—cut by more than 5%.

Everyone seems to want cheaper government—but as the cost of government is mostly in salaries, cheaper government only comes from cutting the number of public workers or trimming average pay. This new data release opens a window into comparative state-level cost per public employee, which is important considering the nationwide focus on public employee costs.

While combative governors put Wisconsin, Ohio and New Jersey into the national spotlight, many states face critical budgetary decisions in the coming year –New York, California, Rhode Island, Illinois and others. Budgets are just arithmetic—deficits can only be resolved by adding revenue or cutting cost. And cost cutting can’t ignore state worker payrolls.

***

Dr. Joseph Stefko is Director of Public Finance for the Center for Governmental Research (CGR).

NYS is about to Rob Taxpayers to Enrich the Wealthy

2011-12-16T15:04:00Z

New York State is participating in a scheme that funnels tax-payer dollars into the hands of the wealthy elite one percent through dubious partnerships with non-profit “green groups.” The state is getting ready to pay nearly $100 million to The Nature Conservancy for forestland that it can’t maintain nor can afford. The public needs to know where their tax dollars are going and why. Taxpayers should be outraged!

My source informs me that

"Green groups," like The Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, The World Wildlife Federation, and others, are largely funded by HIGH NET-WORTH DONORS (who are really investors). These wealthy individuals are allowed to participate in an outrageous tax dodge scheme. Their donations are tax deductible, and are typically invested into a managed portfolio enveloped within an IRS tax-beneficial Charitable Remainder Trust. The Trust usually returns 6% per year for a term of 20 years back to the donor, TAX FREE.

The bigger problem, as in the Adirondack State Park of New York State, is that the green groups rely upon the State to purchase their assets, at inflated costs, to fund their portfolios (80,000 acres of valuable forestland in the case of The Nature Conservancy's efforts there). So in essence, The State funds the tax dodge on the backs of taxpayers. A bigger problem is that these "assets" are usually then removed permanently from the economy (logging, mining, farming, and motor vehicle access are usually prohibited in perpetuity in the namesake of "saving nature").

The tax payer ends up paying THREE TIMES for this fraud: Once for the STATE'S purchase, FOREVER FOR THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT THE STATE NOW HAS TO PAY TO THE MUNICIPALITIES, AND FOREVER FOR THE LOST ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF UTILIZING THE NATURAL RESOURCES.

Estate planning tax laws like this are prejudicial and preferential, and only the wealthiest individuals qualify for participation. These laws are relatively new, written into law by the U.S. Congress, and are responsible in part for the income disparity problems we now have in our great nation. This is one of the reasons people are protesting on Wall Street right now.

Here's an advertisement for a new "Green Group" who proudly promotes this tax dodge (http://www.vitalground.org/Charitable_Gift_Annuities). This atrocity is happening in every state in our country on a scale that is nearly incomprehensible. Billions, perhaps trillions of dollars are intentionally removed from our economy in the perpetration of this fraud. Insist that your Congressman work to close this loophole!

These links verify the above claims. Here is a link to The Nature Conservancy’s information: http://www.nature.org/gift-planning/research-your-gift/index.htm

Here is a link to information on exactly how these Charitable Trusts work: http://www.charitableremaindertrust.com/crut.html

If the state does buy the 80,000 acres, the land will be taken out of production permanently, even though DEC says that every acre of productive forestland is worth over $450 to NYS’ annual GDP. This adds up to a $36 million on-going annual loss at minimum! Then add in the state’s payment of property taxes to the local towns, and the loss of revenues from private recreation, and suddenly the negative economic impact is around $50 million per year in addition to the purchase price! Is there any sensible and valid reason for the state to do this? I can’t find one. The land is perfectly well protected now as it is.

I care this because I’m a member of one of dozens of family recreational clubs that are under imminent threat of closure if the state makes the purchase. Clubs like mine contribute millions of dollars every year to the Adirondack economies. In fact, the clubs are some of the most important small businesses in the region. For the most part, the clubs want to share the land with the public. We want there to be sustainable forestry on the land, we want to see restorative economic policies, and we most definitely want to keep our clubs intact for future generations.

Our appointed officials are involved in furthering this scheme: DEC’s Commissioner, Joe Martens, helped design this deal a few years ago when he was the president of the Open Space Institute, which loaned $25 million to The Nature Conservancy. Remember when former Governor Paterson spent $30 million for conservation easements in his last week in office? I wonder if that was to help OSI get their investment back and to clear a path for Martens’ appointment.

Former DEC commissioner, Pete Grannis, is back working for the state as Assistant Comptroller. He supported the deal while at DEC and If you recall, Grannis was dismissed for insubordination. He was hired back just a year later with a $20K salary increase. Grannis worked on this deal with Martens and the Open Space Institute. Are there conflicts of interest here? Follow the money and you’ll find that a number of other very large financial firms are involved including Goldman Sachs, John Hancock and Blue Wolf Capital.

Nearly all of the towns in the Adirondacks oppose the purchase. The towns know how important the recreational clubs and forest products industry are to their local economies. The state doesn’t seem to care who objects to their plan; they are moving forward anyway. Governor Cuomo must intervene to stop this economic ripoff.

Your tax dollars are being used to make the rich richer through a state-sponsored artificial “protect nature” scheme! Speak out against this outrageous abuse of your tax dollars! Demand changes at DEC, demand transparency, and demand that Governor Cuomo stop this insane destruction of rural economies through a redistribution of your income!

****

Peter Heckman is the owner of H&S Farm LLC in Cortland, New York. He can be reached by email at peterh@comcast.net.

Tax Reform and New York's Economy

2011-12-05T20:46:00Z

New York needs to enact a bold, innovative economic plan and tax code reform to create jobs at this difficult time. To achieve that we will need bipartisan political cooperation and a plan the people of the State support.

I believe economic development, popular support, and political consensus must all be built on the same foundation: fundamental fairness.

Last year, when we were preparing the state budget, I exposed that the system was inherently biased against the taxpayer. The very definition of the State's budget deficit included statutory annual increases for individualized programs marbleized through the State's budget laws. In short, "deficit" meant the amount necessary to fund a 13 percent increase. The taxpayer didn't have a chance.

Our current tax system is also unfair.

I have posed the following question to Albany veterans, befuddling almost all: at what income level does the State's top personal income tax rate become effective? Answers range from about $100,000 to $1 million. Virtually no one guesses the correct answer: only $20,000 for an individual taxpayer; and only $40,000 for a two-earner family. So, in New York under the permanent tax code, an individual making a taxable income of only $20,000 pays the same marginal tax rate as an individual making $20 million. It's just not fair. While New York's earned income tax credit, child care credit, and high standard deduction help working poor families, New York has left the middle class with an undue burden which also hinders our economic recovery.

From a competitive point of view, New York's tax system is behind. Other states and the federal government have an income tax code that is fairer than New York's. Unlike New York, 22 states apply their highest rate to incomes higher than our $40,000 level. Also, unlike New York, where the range between its lowest rate (4%) and its highest rate (6.85%) is only 2.85%, 28 other states have larger ranges that reflect a fairer distribution of the tax burden. Even the federal system has more progressivity: a range of tax brackets that spans from 10% to 35%, and the top not kicking in until taxable income exceeds $379,000.

New York is the progressive capital of the nation yet there have been no real tax reform efforts in the state in decades, only periodic gimmicks. From 2003 to 2005, we added two new temporary surcharge brackets. In 2009 we enacted the "millionaire's tax," which expires at the end of this year. The millionaire's tax purported to shift the tax burden to the super wealthy to alleviate the burden on the middle class. But it failed on both counts. It actually raised taxes on people who were making $200,000 – hardly "millionaires." And it did absolutely nothing to lower the disproportionately high tax burden on middle class families, who continue to pay the same marginal rate whether they make $40,000 or $299,000 in taxable income.

We must reform our tax system to stimulate the economy and restore fundamental fairness.

First, we need to reform the code in a way that creates jobs and grows our economy. To do that, we need to put more money in New Yorkers pockets and inject it back in to the economy. There are also tax credits that can incentivize private sector job growth.

Second, true reform for fairness has two factors: income brackets that fairly group income levels and progressive rates increasing with income. Simply put, to me "fairness" dictates that the more you make the more you pay and the higher your income the higher your rate. Also, you should be treated the same as people with similar incomes and differently from people who make significantly more, or significantly less, than you earn. I would create multiple brackets and rates increasing on a graduated basis throughout and indexed to inflation. I would add more income brackets for the middle income and add high end brackets. The actual rate span should be several points from low to high.

Our State Legislature will need to act, swiftly and effectively.

I believe we can avoid partisan gridlock and make government work by forging a plan that is based on fundamental fairness rather than political ideology.

During these difficult times, New Yorkers will step up and do their part to create jobs and revive our economy – but the system must be fair for all. Our State deserves nothing less.

Courts Wrong on Government Subsidies

2011-12-03T16:31:00Z

Hungry for pork? The New York State Legislature may say they’re fresh out, but truly, there’s plenty to go around.

The New York State Court of Appeals recently dismissed a case that challenged the constitutionality of giving state grants to private corporations and entities. 50 plaintiffs sued the state of New York on the heels of nearly $1 billion in grants and loans being issued to a pair of private companies, citing Article 7, Section 8 of the state Constitution, which reads:

“The money of the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association, or private undertaking; nor shall the credit of the state be given or loaned to or in aid of any individual, or public or private corporation or association, or private undertaking.”

Rather than even hear the plaintiffs’ reasoning, the Court of Appeals ruled 5-2 to throw the case out. This continues a long history of the courts eviscerating New York’s constitutional ban on gifts and loans.

The problem here is multifaceted. First of all, New York allows public authorities to issue grants, or loans, to subsidies as they see fit, which comes at the taxpayer’s expense. There is no public, or even legislative, oversight of this process until a transaction has been approved. This is the kind of shadowy, closed-door policy that has caused New Yorkers to lose trust in their government.

Second of all, shuffling grants around to private companies allows the political appointees to play favorites, and put certain entities at a competitive advantage over the rest of New York’s businesses. This is not to say any individual group that has received a state grant is undeserving in the least, but rather that we are missing the forest for the trees. Do you want to jump-start New York’s economy and create jobs? Then level the playing field for everyone. Reduce taxes, eliminate the 49,000 pages of job-killing regulations, and rein in spending by eliminating this kind of shell-game pork funding.

New York needs to be committed to revitalizing our economy from top to bottom. That means the judicial system must get on board and look at the big picture, rather than preserve the status quo. We need to make across-the-board reforms and provide comprehensive incentives for job creators in New York, rather than throwing money at the problem as we have for years.

Loss of ‘Home Rule’ = Loss of self-government

2011-11-30T22:36:00Z

It was reported in the article, Maziarz sees positives in Albany (http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_d2509556-14db-11e1-8c85-001cc4c03286.html), that Senator George Maziarz says he's "optimistic" about what's been going on in Albany, and is on board with Governor Cuomo's plan of creating a "government more transparent in its dealings." Unfortunately, Senator Maziarz's actions speak louder than his political rhetoric.

As the Chairman of the NYS Senate Committee on Energy, Maziarz co-sponsored the "Energy Siting Bill" that he's so excited about with Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D). The bill is called the "Power NY Act." 'Article X', contained within the bill, has effectively removed "Home Rule" from all NYS municipalities.

The loss of "Home Rule" means the loss of self-government in our townships. The passage of this bill is a sad continuation of citizens' rights removal by an over-reaching, out-of-control government.

Contrary to Maziarz's claims of a "transparent government", the statute was shoved through basically overnight, behind closed doors, with no input at all from the public.

As a matter of fact, when the bill first came to light on the day before the vote, we (along with many other concerned citizens across NYS) called our respective elected officials to register our dismay. My district's Senator, Patrick Gallivan's office, told me they knew nothing about the bill, and not to worry about it. Yet, less than 18 hours later, Senator Gallivan voted yes on the bill.

As cited in the BDN article, Area lawmakers split over state's 'Power NY Act' (http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_7a087527-0583-58e7-aba5-da368363d83b.html), at least Genesee County's Senator, Michael Razenhoffer, had the where-with-all to understand what was hidden within this bill, and vote NO!

I had an opportunity to speak with Senator Maziarz about the issue following a speech he gave against the unconstitutional Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) tax at the Somerset coal plant. When I approached Senator Maziarz to ask if we could discuss 'Article X' and its resulting loss of "Home Rule", he ushered me out into the hallway to make sure no one else could hear our conversation.

I asked Senator Maziarz how he could support a bill that removed more of our personal freedoms, and did not allow for any input by the communities that would be affected. Senator Maziarz insisted that the newly-formed, five-person siting board would still allow local say in these decisions.

I asked Senator Maziarz again, "How does a board comprised of five (5) distant, unelected, Albany bureaucrats -- which would only "allow" two (2) local, NON-voting seats from the targeted communities to visit the table -- qualify as equal representation?"

Senator Maziarz continued to insist that even though the two (2) local representatives would NOT have a vote, they would have input. Really George??? I think NOT. Even if the two seats had a vote, 2 to 5 is anything but fair or democratic.

There are a number of Towns & Counties across NYS who have taken the bold step of speaking out against this theft of our freedoms by passing Resolutions opposing the Power NY Act and the loss of "Home Rule" -- as they rightly should. Kudos to all of them!

Citizens in every Town & County across NYS who still believe in a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, which our forefathers fought & died for us to have, should be urging their respective County Legislatures/Board of Supervisors to do the same.

Samples of Resolutions already passed, the review of the bill itself, and other problems associated with the bill that need to be rectified can be seen at the Coalition On Article X (COAX) website: http://coaxny.org.

When asked, NYS officials conducting a presentation on the Power NY Act & 'Article X' at the 11/17/11 Local Government Workshop in Batavia, told elected & appointed officials attending the meeting that the rules & regulations of the new law would not be final until somewhere between late August, 2012 - December, 2012. In fact, COAX has been informed that NYS has "fast-tracked" the writing of these regulations, with the intent of having them done near the beginning of the new year – January, 2012.

All NYS citizens, concerned groups, and Town & County Boards, can and should become engaged in this process by registering themselves as a “Stakeholder.” As a “Stakeholder” you can then register your comments and concerns with New York State (which preserves them in the official record), and remain informed & involved in this ongoing process.

The form to register as a Stakeholder with the NYS Public Service Commission is: http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/pscweb/WebsiteForms.nsf/ArticleXStakeHolder?OpenForm

We simply can NOT allow this theft of our freedoms to occur without a whimper. As English philosopher Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Mary Kay Barton
COAX - Coalition On Article X <coaxny@gmail.com>

ARTICLE X – Loss of Home Rule and the effects on growth of “Fracking" and transmission build out

2011-10-02T17:28:00Z

On August 4, 2011 municipal Home Rule was stripped away when the “Power NY Act” was signed into law. Also known as Article X, this swiftly passed law was prompted by separate bills in the Senate and Assembly. The combined bill passed with very little public input, late at night behind closed doors.

Coalition On Article X (COAX) was formed to preserve and regain our municipal Home Rule rights. New York State has always prided itself on the fact that it is a Home Rule state.

Article X allows the State to intercede on all energy production facilities of 25 mW or greater. This replaces local municipal laws and SEQRA. A committee appointed by the Public Service Commission will include five (5) Albany bureaucrats to determine the fate of all Statewide municipalities.

It is no secret that Governor Cuomo’s strong desire to close Indian Point Nuclear facility requires that other energy sources be developed and sited. He has criticized municipalities in moving slowly on several projects, slowing job development. He has placed considerable interest and State resources to allow renewable energy (wind and solar) and gas refining to be the job growth stimulator. However, looking at the bigger picture, gas refining and renewable energy have a greater cause – base load power replacement for the Indian Point nuclear facility.

The greater cause can only be realized if ‘fracking” is stimulated, while transmission line build out is debottlenecked. It should be considered no coincidence that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) and the Department of Energy (“DOE”) have placed considerable interest in interstate and intrastate transmission line build out and smart grid.

“Fracking” will produce the much needed gas required to run newer gas turbine power plants. These power plants will be sited by New York State under Article X, and the required transmission lines will be developed under Federal auspices. As a by-product Governor Cuomo would be credited with job growth stimulus and tax revenue increases for gas drilling, power plant construction and transmission line erection, all while he merely checks off a campaign promise to close Indian Point Nuclear facility.

His Departments of Conservation and Environmental Protection have been stripped and remain powerless to persevere the lands of New York State. Governor Cuomo with the sharpest tool in his box (Article X) can now place steel tubes above ground (wind turbines) and below ground (fracking wells) throughout New York State.

The future of fracking and transmission line build out is dependent on Article X’s success. The legislation passed on August 4, 2011, without public discussion, in the dead of the night, was no coincidence; it was a well-executed power grab, typical of Albany.

*****

Robert Aliasso, Jr. is a member of COAX, Coalition on Article X

Town Official Ethics, Public Integrity and Article X

2011-09-16T06:33:00Z

Comprehensive planning and land use to lay the groundwork for zoning and site plan review decisions are tenets of “home rule” that New York State towns have enjoyed for decades. Normal zoning decisions involve fairly routine subjects such as residential construction and modifications. Abnormal zoning decisions involve more complex issues such as industrial and commercial construction projects, which may, or may not, lack public support.

One such abnormal zoning issue presenting itself in New York State’s Thousand Island region and North Country, are Industrial Wind Turbine energy facilities and their associated collection lines for power distribution to the grid. Many towns are deliberating on decisions of matching their comprehensive planning and land use plan with codified zoning laws, simultaneously with issues of town official ethics and public integrity standards.

New York State has well-established standards regarding/relating to Public Integrity and Ethics of elected and appointed officials. These standards have been expounded on by the Office of the Attorney General. However, in the case of Industrial Wind Turbine energy facilities, the New York’s Attorney General Office has been slow to react, rule, or enforce these standards. Many elected/appointed town officials who are involved with zoning and site planning decisions have conflicts of interest, due to payments from the very companies for whom they intend to render favorable rulings.

Very recently, New York State has re-enacted Article X, which will be used for zoning and site plan use regarding energy generating facilities. Article X usurps “home rule” from our towns and places it with distant, unengaged bureaucrats not familiar with a Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Grassroots organizations such as Coalition on Article X (“COAX”) have been formed to resist Albany’s overruling of our “home rule.”

Municipal “home rule”, although never perfect, was implemented by people who actually live in the municipalities. Town officials are elected by these same persons and these same people approve town budgets. These checks and balances are what have made “home rule” a viable municipal management tool for decades. New York State has gone backwards by creating bigger government under the auspices of streamlining the siting of energy facilities. A town’s needs, plans and requirements will be secondary to the decisions of over-reaching, unelected Albany bureaucrats.

It is incumbent of New York State elected officials to address conflict-of-interest issues, and allow “home rule” to work in an ethical fashion, as intended -- where zoning decisions are not affected by payments from companies seeking to do business within our communities. It is most important for New York’s towns to band together, through organizations like COAX, to take back “home rule”, when it comes to monumental zoning decisions such as that of the siting of an Industrial Wind Turbine energy facility, without local municipal approval.

****

Robert E. Aliasso, Jr. is Co-Chair of The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and 1000 Islands Region.

The Governor Should Veto the School District Borrowing Bill

2011-07-12T15:30:00Z

The State Legislature has passed a fiscally dangerous bill that authorizes borrowing by school districts; after it reaches Governor Andrew Cuomo’s desk today he should veto it.

A6309/S4067 would allow school districts to borrow, in 2012 and 2013, an amount equal to 125 percent of their required 2011 pension contributions and to repay the bonds over 15 years. If enacted, it would:

1) Undermine the discipline imposed by the property tax cap.

The bill contradicts the purpose of the recent property tax cap legislation, which already took rapidly rising pension costs into account by partially exempting growth in pension contributions. By allowing the borrowings, the bill would undermine the discipline imposed by this carefully crafted provision.

2) Diminish the likelihood of a new tier by hiding the true cost of public employee pensions from taxpayers.

Employer contributions to the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System rose from $211 million in 2000 to over $925 million in 2010, a challengingly high average annual growth rate of 16 percent, and they are expected to continue to escalate exponentially in the coming years. If the tradeoffs between taxes and services required by these costs are not eminently clear to taxpayers, the calls for the long lasting reform embodied in the “tier six” proposal by Governor Cuomo will be significantly muted.

3) Push costs onto future taxpayers and students.

For each district that opts to borrow, the interest and underwriting fees associated with the bond issuance will drive up future pension costs. These added expenses will be borne by future residents and, if they force even more difficult service reductions in the classroom, by students. It is inherently unfair to preserve services today at the expense of future New Yorkers.

4) Start New York down the slippery slope of raiding its pension funds.

The funding of New York’s pension plans constitutes a bright spot on the list of indicators of fiscal health. Although local governments were permitted to amortize part of their pension payments beginning this year, few of them did because they were allowed to do so only through the Office of the State Comptroller at an interest rate higher than what they thought they would receive from the private market. Letting school districts borrow in the private market is likely to encourage local governments to press for the same option and increase the number of borrowings. Simply put, pension raiding should not be allowed to proliferate in any form.

Many school districts face difficult choices in part due to rising pension costs, and these costs are not fully under their control. However, the solution is not to kick the can down the road but to implement real and lasting changes to pension benefits that will make them sustainable over the long run. A veto of A6309/S4067 will make sure the tax cap works properly, prevent costs from being shifted to the students of tomorrow, and guarantee that a new pension tier becomes a high priority for every taxpayer and school district official in New York State.

Carol Kellerman is president of the Citizens Budget Commission.

The Facts on Tier 6

2011-06-12T20:14:00Z

Governor Cuomo has introduced a bill to create a new public pension tier. The justification for the pension change is based on distortions and one-sided information. Here is some information to provide context on this issue.

Pension costs to communities have risen because of the unprecedented drop in stock and real estate values in the 2008 and 2009 period. The shortfall is not a result of rich benefits or the failure of public employees to make their required contributions. Public employees paid on time, every time.

Historically, 85 percent of public employee pension benefits are paid by public employee payments and investment gains.

Pension costs measured from 2001 are misleading because the stock market was at a historic height. While markets soared, many cities, counties and towns were not required to make contributions because investment gains were so much higher than expected. However, employees continued to contribute during this “up-market” period. An attached chart shows the historic contributions to the retirement system from employers, showing historically low contributions from 1989 until recent market declines. Because of market fluctuations, the costs to localities have fluctuated. This fluctuation is based on market performance – not enhanced benefits or pension payouts. Because employers significantly benefited by making low contributions when the market outperformed expectations, they must now pay more as a result of the recent market decline. This is the nature of pension funding. Over time, including the recent market retrenchment, pension asset returns have far exceeded expectations, which means that pensions are a good deal for employers and taxpayers because they have made lower-than-expected pension payments during this prolonged period.

New York City Comptroller Liu recently released a report that showed that pension costs for New York City would actually decrease after 2016 because of existing reforms and the recovery of asset values. Comptroller Liu’s report shows unequivocally that pensions in New York are sustainable and resilient.

Comptroller Liu released a report about New York City’s pension program at the beginning of the month. The Tier 6 plan is designed to include New York City. Liu’s report explains that existing reforms would save the city money in the long run, and that current costs are due to poor market performance. NYCERS civilian employee pension costs are below 6 percent of payroll for new employees who enter the workforce at the age of 30, according to Comptroller Liu’s recent actuarial study. Of this amount, employees pay a little more than half, or 3 percent, for their first 10 years of service effectively reducing the city’s contributions for new workers to less than 3 percent of pay for the next 10 years. Any savings from the proposed Tier 6 would be negligible. According to Comptroller Liu, city pension costs will drop precipitously in 2016.

When Tier 5 passed under Governor Patterson, the law included provisions to restrict pension “spiking” by limiting the amount of overtime and pay raises that can be considered in pension calculations. There is no evidence of “rampant” spiking, especially since the passage of Tier 5.

The current law defines retirement benefits based on the highest average of wages earned during any three consecutive years. Earnings in any year included in the period cannot exceed the average of the previous two years by more than 20 percent. Any amount in excess of this will be excluded. Payment for unused vacation is not included in the Final Average Salary (FAS). In addition, overtime pay that exceeds 15 percent of a member’s regular annual wages cannot be used in the FAS calculation.

Current average NYERS public pension benefits are $18,300 yearly. Rank-and-file civilian employees average a yearly benefit of $17,166 from NYCERS. The average AFSCME member’s pension in New York State averages between $16,000 and $17,000 per year after a career of public service.

Current law governing private sector pensions sets a maximum of five years for vesting. New York’s pensions currently require 10 years for new workers; Cuomo now proposes 12 years.

Cuomo’s proposal would take the onerous 10 year vesting period for public pensions and extend it to 12 years. ERISA, governing pensions in the private sector, limits vesting periods to five years.

****

Steve Kreisberg is Director of Collective Bargaining and Health Care Policy with AFSCME.

New Yorkers Deserve More from State than High Wireless Taxes and Fees

2011-06-08T19:32:00Z

For those of us that have examined the details of our cell phone bill, it probably wouldn’t be surprising that New Yorkers pay the third highest combination of taxes and fees for their wireless service in the nation. In New York, state, local and federal taxes and fees for wireless service total 22.8 percent of monthly cell phone bills. The national average is 16.3 percent. Wireless service taxes and fees have climbed steadily since 2005.

Most state and local governments are desperate for revenue in our down economy and raising taxes on wireless services may seem like an easy fix, but it’s short-sighted. Heavy taxes curtail investment, which will ultimately mean fewer jobs in our state. According to the U.S Census Bureau, wireless companies invested some $25 billion in 2008 to expand and improve their networks. Roughly, an additional $2.5 billion could be generated if wireless providers were taxed at the same rate as retailers of other services. Those additional dollars could go towards driving more investments, particularly right here in New York.

Wireless investments such as network infrastructure attract entrepreneurs, stimulating them to develop “apps” and new mobile devices. This in the end boosts the productivity of businesses as well as addresses the increasingly sophisticated demands of consumers. More economic investment means more jobs, overall increased economic activity, and higher tax receipts for government. In short, lowering taxes is a great way to encourage adoption of new technology while also providing economic growth. Lawmakers in Albany and Washington must weigh the short-term benefits of increasing tax revenues via excessive taxation of wireless service against the long-term dampening effects of reduced wireless network investment.

Additionally, lawmakers should also consider the adverse effect high wireless taxes have on low-income families who spend more of their disposable income on wireless services. In a survey, the Pew Foundation found that low-income households rely more heavily on wireless communications for Internet access and voice service than their middle-income and high-income counterparts. Heavy wireless taxes are hardest on low income individuals and families, and it’s the wrong move for our state.

New York’s wireless tax is more than twice the state’s general sales tax of 8.25 percent. In efforts to not see that rate get any worse I support the Wireless Tax Fairness Act recently introduced in Congress, and encourage my colleagues in Albany to do the same. We legislators should also reform the current tax system to focus on broad-based tax sources instead of relying on taxing targeted markets. In doing so our antiquated tax structure wouldn’t hamper critical investment, such as wireless broadband. New York would then be able to attract additional wireless carriers to invest in networks here, ensuring that low-income communities throughout the state are not bearing more than their fair share of the tax burden. Ultimately, this would propel the cycle of business growth, new job creation, increased economic activity and tax revenues needed in this critical market.

***

Karim Camara (D) represents the 43rd Assembly District.

Latinos Gaining in Population But Suffering Worse Disparities

2011-06-03T18:51:00Z

On any single day, a Latino youngster in the Bronx is likely to be removed from her home by ACS caseworkers due to neglect. This young girl will have gone days without regularly attending school -- because she frequently had to care for younger siblings when family and friends were not available. Her single mother works three jobs from morning to night to support her family; yet she could not afford child care after losing access to a city-sponsored day care program.

This troubling scenario is a growing problem. Latino children account for almost 40% of all abuse and neglect reports in New York City, mostly cases of neglect. And more than 88,000 eligible Latino children in New York City do not have subsidized pre-k or early education and child care.

Yet, the Mayor has proposed a plan this year to cut city-sponsored child-care slots and child protective services staff that may directly impact many Latino families.
One reason this situation exists is that Latinos have suffered from a lack of a voice to match their size.

Given Latino population growth, budget cuts have resulted in significant per capita reductions in programs and services.

But that problem can be fixed. It depends upon the recognition of the growth of our Latino population, its needs and on what happens in the upcoming city budget.
As the latest US Census figures show, New York City is rapidly becoming more Latino, through both immigration and higher Latino birthrates.

Latinos now make up 29 percent (2.370 million) of the New York City’s population, according to the recently released 2010 census survey. Indeed, the Latino population has grown in all the city's boroughs, reaching 28 percent in Queens and 58 percent in the Bronx.

The number of Latinos is probably even higher in reality, as the Census likely missed many immigrants, who were not comfortable with being counted by a government worker.
Yet despite Latinos’ growing size and presence across the city, we suffer many disparities compared to other communities, according to our recent report on “The State of Latino Families in New York 2011”.

Latinos increasingly suffer from poor health. The obesity rate among Latino children in New York City public schools are at a staggering 26.5%.

They suffer from city schools that fail them. The high school graduation rate among Latino students (55.9%) is significantly lower than their white peers (76.5%).

Latino youth are more likely to be arrested and sent to a city juvenile correctional facility. Twenty-eight percent of youth in juvenile justice facilities are Latino, significantly higher than White youth (4%).

Why do these conditions exist?

It is because many Latinos remain anchored among New York’s poorest residents, trapped there due to low levels of education and a dearth of decent paying jobs for immigrants with limited workplace skills.

And these conditions continue to trap many more Latinos because government programs fail to adapt in providing culturally and linguistically sensitive services for Latinos.
Latinos also have limited access to comprehensive health care coverage and very often face a host of preventable health problems or illnesses.

Many first generation Latino children enter school without the language support they so critically need to succeed and go on to score far below other students in exams in K-12.
The juvenile justice and child welfare systems often treat Latinos differently as a consequence of preconceptions, stereotypes, and assumptions.

Regardless of the economic and financial constraints, the Mayor and the City Council need to think of our city’s future and refuse to accept the path of least resistance.

Preventive services should be strengthened for at-risk Latino youth and unstable families.

Investments need to be focused on education and after school programs to engage Latino youth and build human capital.

Access to preventative health services is necessary in conjunction with culturally and linguistically sensitive interventions in human services.

Failure to further invest in Latino children and families will perpetuate conditions that limit their economic mobility and stifle the development of the city’s future workforce.

As our numbers have grown, Latinos’ need to receive our fair share of the city’s services. And that means listening as well to our voices and our calls for help.

***

Elba Montalvo is the Founder and President of The Committee for Hispanic Children and Families, Inc., a human services organization founded in 1982 to serve the unmet needs of New York’s growing Latino community. This piece originally appeared in The Non-Profit Press on 5/26/2011.

It’s up to you New York!

2011-05-03T15:14:00Z

There is one simple truth about the American taxpayer; while they are not thrilled about paying taxes they are willing to pay their fair share. However, there comes a point when taxpayers say enough. According to the most recent Siena Research Institute poll, 75 percent of registered voters are in favor of a statewide property tax cap initiative that will freeze property taxes at a fixed level. While a tax cap is necessary, it cannot come without some form of mandate relief for municipalities.

New York State residents are saddled with the second highest property taxes in the nation when you combine state and local levies. It is for this reason that Governor Andrew Cuomo took the very unpopular position of cutting funding to healthcare and school programs to close a $10 billion deficit.

Governor Cuomo has introduced tax cap legislation, which passed the Senate and is awaiting action in the Assembly. The proposed legislation calls for a 2 percent cap on municipal and school district property tax levies, similar to a measure that was approved in New Jersey last year.

Under this proposed legislation 60 percent of the voters must be willing to raise taxes above 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. It does not enable localities that stay under the cap to save unused rate increases for a later date, an issue that will be a point of contention between the state and localities in the weeks to come.

The most vocal supporters of linking a tax cap and mandate relief are municipalities and school districts. Through an executive order in January, Governor Cuomo commissioned the Mandate Relief Redesign Team with the charge of developing ideas to reduce state mandates and trim costs. The state often requires local governments and school districts to follow outdated guidelines such as filling out redundant forms, and gives no assistance towards the ever-rising costs of employee health and pensions. Moreover, under the Wick’s Law, the state requires school districts to have separate contracts for plumbing, electric, carpentry and other trades for capital projects that substantially increase the cost for all projects.

Local officials argue that passing a tax cap without giving them the necessary tools to negotiate with employee unions on matters such as benefits will put them into a deeper fiscal crisis. Between 2002 and 2008, healthcare costs have risen by 8 percent per year on average for cities outside New York City, according to the New York Conference of Mayors. Currently, most government employees and retirees are not required to contribute towards their healthcare or pension benefits, unlike the private sector.

The Empire Center for New York State Policy reported pension costs would increase by 125 percent over the next five years. Government employer contribution rates for the retirement system in 2011 will increase by 39 percent for teachers, 21 percent for fire and police, and 60 percent for all other employees, according to the State Comptroller. These figures highlight the need for government workers to share in the sacrifice. In fact, 65 percent of voters overwhelmingly support requiring state and municipal employees to contribute more towards their benefits, according to a recent Siena Research poll.

The economic reality is that property taxes will continue to increase at a rate well above inflation if the state refuses to pass a tax cap accompanied by some form of mandate relief. In order to ease the financial burden on local governments the state should eliminate Wick’s law and allow school districts to bid one contract for all construction work, which would save 15 percent per project according to the Mandate Relief Team. Furthermore, public employees and retirees should contribute towards their healthcare and pensions. It is clear that these costs are rising at a rate greater than 2 percent and someone will have to pay for those fixed obligations.

Controlling property tax rates and requesting state employees to contribute towards their benefits will not entirely solve this crisis. The answer no one wants to hear is that the size of government must be trimmed in order to operate at an efficient level that everyone can afford. Most open-minded New Yorkers are uncomfortable with being forced to choose between spending what little dollars they have on increased taxes or going on a family outing. The scenario can only lead to people voting with their feet and moving out of the state.

A flexible tax cap and help from the state go together. This can be the beginning of a new era of fiscal discipline in New York. As Sinatra says, “if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere.” That can be the case, but it still has to happen.

*****

Anthony Figliola is vice president of Empire Government Strategies, the Northeast's major lobbying and grassroots organization. He previously held the title of Deputy Supervisor for the Town of Brookhaven – New York’s second largest township, where he managed the town’s economic and energy initiatives.

What Is Good for Buffalo Is Good for All New York

2011-05-02T19:38:00Z

Governor Andrew Cuomo will convene a summit of New York’s higher education and political leaders soon to consider a proposal from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo to give that university greater autonomy with respect to its tuition policies and control over physical assets. The proposal deserves support, but not just for SUNY at Buffalo; all public higher education institutions in New York should be given the same authority.

In fact, the Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act, proposed by Governor David Paterson as part of his Executive Budget for fiscal year 2010-11, would have given the autonomy proposed for SUNY at Buffalo to all SUNY and City University of New York (CUNY) institutions. The Citizens Budget Commission supported the Empowerment Act last year[1] [1], but the Legislature did not include the measure as part of the approved budget. Governor Cuomo’s Executive Budget did not include the changes in tuition policy proposed by Paterson, but did include the greater autonomy for colleges in purchasing and in managing capital assets. Only the purchasing provisions were approved by the Legislature as part of the adopted budget.

Tuition - The Heart of the Matter

While enhancements in public colleges’ ability to manage their physical assets and use public-private partnerships to construct facilities are important positive steps, the key issue to be addressed at the summit is tuition policy. Currently the state legislature has de facto control over tuition rates, and this leads to two serious problems. First, erratic and sharp tuition increases coincide with periods of hard economic times. The Legislature has been reluctant to increase tuition in good times, and then imposes large increases in tight budget times. From the students’ perspective this means some face double-digit tuition increases at times when they can least afford it, while others finish their degrees without experiencing any change in tuition. The second problem is that tuition revenue is used to replace general fund subsidies and not to improve the quality of higher education. The Legislature demonstrated its willingness to divert tuition revenue in this year’s budget cycle; it refused to appropriate $40 million of CUNY tuition revenue stemming from a 5 percent tuition increase that was approved by the university’s Board of Trustees, but not by the Legislature.

Allowing the universities to raise tuition without legislative approval is likely to lead to more regular tuition hikes. But the increments would be more modest and predictable than those set by the Legislature.[2] [2] and the increases would not make SUNY and CUNY comparatively expensive. Currently SUNY and CUNY tuition is relatively low. In 2010-11, average tuition and fees for resident undergraduate students charged by New York's four-year public colleges and universities was $5,790, nearly a quarter below the national average of $7,605, and half the amount charged in neighboring New Jersey. (See Figure 1.) Among the 14 peer states with large public education systems, New York’s four-year public schools charge the third lowest tuition and fees behind only North Carolina and Florida.

Out-of-state students get an even better deal. SUNY's out-of-state undergraduate tuition - $12,870 in 2009-10 - was almost $8,500 less than the average out-of-state tuition at 29 comparable state universities. Among the 14 peer states, CUNY's out-of-state tuition and fees were the lowest for public four-year comprehensive colleges, and SUNY had the lowest out-of-state tuition and fees for research centers.

It is also desirable to allow SUNY and CUNY to set differential tuition among campuses and programs. Currently, variation is permitted only between senior and community colleges within each system, and between graduate and undergraduate programs at each system's senior colleges. Differential tuition would enable the universities to recognize variation in costs among programs and campuses, and to maximize tuition revenue by taking into account demand for programs and regional costs. The current uniform tuition policy is perhaps the main reason why New York’s public system lacks flagship schools and programs, in stark contrast to many of its peers.

SUNY at Buffalo wants to be a flagship public school in New York, and it is often treated as such in national rankings. Compared to other public flagships, average in-state tuition and fees for SUNY at Buffalo undergraduates were more than $1,000 below the national average and the fourth lowest among the flagship campuses in the 14 peer states. (See Figure 2.)

If SUNY at Buffalo can increase its tuition because it is competitive relative to public flagship schools in peer states, then the same is true for the other university centers in New York. As shown in Figure 2, SUNY at Buffalo charged slightly higher fees than the other public university centers in New York (SUNY Albany, SUNY Binghamton, SUNY Stony Brook, and CUNY University Center). The same was true of tuition and fees charged for out-of-state students; in this category all five university centers in New York ranked lower than flagships in peer states and well below the national average. (See Figure 3.)

The Concerns

The main concern with the proposed tuition policy changes is that they would lead to tuition increases that could limit access for low-income students. This concern is especially salient for students in two-year community colleges. In contrast with New York’s public senior colleges, tuition and fees at SUNY's and CUNY's two-year community colleges are relatively high in a national context. New York’s in-state tuition and fees at community colleges in 2010-11 were the third highest among peer states, and $1,252 above the national average (See Figure 4.)

The impact of higher and differential tuition on affordability and student choice of schools for needy students should be mitigated through financial aid. Low-income SUNY and CUNY students already receive considerable aid in paying tuition through New York's Tuition Assistance Program (TAP), one of the largest and most generous financial aid programs in the nation. TAP would likely have to become even larger under the new tuition policy outlined above.

In contrast, the last two enacted budgets have reduced TAP from $5,000 to $4,000 for students in 2-year colleges. In addition, graduate students will not be eligible to receive TAP, and eligibility standards will be tighter in terms of academic standing and financial means. This trend should be reversed if state leaders implement the policy changes necessary for a more rational system of funding public higher education in New York.

The upcoming summit at the State Capitol will bring SUNY at Buffalo one step closer to that goal. But it should be only the first in a series of steps to establish a more rational tuition policy and greater regulatory freedom for New York’s entire system of public higher education. Every campus deserves what is now being considered only for Buffalo.

[1] [7] Citizens Budget Commission, “High Time for Higher Education Reform,” April 14, 2010, http://cbcny.org/cbc-blogs/blogs/high-time-higher-education-funding-reform [8] (accessed: April 15, 2011).

[2] [9] The original proposal included an annual cap on increases of up to two-and-one-half times the five-year rolling average of the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI); the SUNY at Buffalo proposal sets the annual cap at one-and-a-half times HEPI.

****

Selma Mustovic is a Senior Research Associate at the Citizens Budget Commission. This article can be found on the CBC website at http://www.cbcny.org/cbc-blogs/blogs/what-good-buffalo-good-all-new-york

Negative Returns on Wind Investments

2011-05-01T19:49:00Z

Every day we are bombarded with stories about the out-of-control spending going on in Washington, as our national debt continues to soar. A particularly infuriating report that recently came out exposed the hundreds of Billions wasted every year due to redundancy in our government (Cal Thomas: Redundancy the Government Way). With the United States flirting with economic disaster as our debt nears 14.3 TRILLION Dollars, it seems we could all agree on this one thing -- redundancy must be eliminated!

A perfect example of government-sponsored redundancy that taxpayers & ratepayers foot the bill for is industrial wind. Due to wind's intermittent, volatile nature - our reliable, dispatchable, baseload power sources must provide constant back-up power for wind at all times - a redundancy we simply can not afford. Claims that this redundancy is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions and save the planet have been proven false by a number of studies. The Colorado/Texas Bentek studies, which looked at actual wind performance data, concluded that wind caused coal plants to operate more inefficiently, "often resulting in greater SO2, NOx, and CO2 emissions than would have occurred if less wind energy were generated and coal generation was not cycled."

Wind's typical outputs range from 10% - 20% -- making the negative return on investment very clear. Wind received $3.4 Billion in Section 1603 direct cash grants last year alone. Another $2.2 Billion of Stimulus funds were given to "renewables" (mostly wind) - of which 80% went overseas (Renewable energy money still going abroad, despite criticism from Congress). Yet, mega-corporations like GE (who paid ZERO taxes on $15 Billion in profits last year), who are benefiting from all these handouts via our tax dollars, have "no skin in the game" when it comes to industrial wind projects (Wind Jammers at the White House, WSJ, 11/12/10).

Analysis by Chris Horner, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (author of the books Green Hell and Power Grab), indicated that the Stimulus Bill's subsidies for renewable energy cost taxpayers about $475,000 per job created - "a lousy return on investment, even for the government." President Obama warned us in his campaign that "his energy policy would cause electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket," and with "green" jobs costing at least four times to create what it costs a non-subsidized private firm to create a job, it's no wonder! The Wind Subsidy Bubble, WSJ, 12/20/10).

President Obama continually referenced Spain early on in his push for all things "green." The President doesn't talk much about Spain anymore - ever since a study out of Spain revealed that for every "green" job created, 2.2 jobs were lost in the rest of the economy - leading Spain to an unemployment rateof over 20%. Or maybe it's because Spain has the highest electricity rates in Europe.

Then there was the revelation by the CEO of UK's National Grid, that a six-fold increase in wind power will mean rationed electricity. (See: Lawrence Solomon: Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO)

All of these facts in the face of our already overwhelming debt, beg the question -- Why would anyone want to waste our taxpayer & ratepayer dollars on this obvious disaster? Especially when all these facts are now widely known and easily accessible? Sadly, we see the pursuit of this utterly divisive, redundant energy source being perpetuated by willfully blind political and business leaders right here in WNY.

The realities of industrial wind are clear. The only thing reliably generated by these negative return on investment, redundant projects are complete and utter civil discord - not something any business leader worth his oats would pursue.

We all have a responsibility to educate ourselves, speak out, and demand accountability from our elected officials. It's time we insist that the government welfare programs that enable redundancy and negative return on investment schemes to exist, be ended! As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

***

Mary Kay Barton lives in Silver Lake, NY.