Empire Page - Guest Editorials

NYS Needs a Moratorium on Forest Preserve Acquisitions.

2010-03-01T16:09:00Z

New York State has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer’s dollars to acquire millions of acres of forestland in the Adirondack Park then added that land into the Forest Preserve. Under state law, once land is included in the Forest Preserve, forest management is prohibited; environmental stewardship declines, and very valuable revenue streams are eliminated forever. Communities whose economies depend upon the forest products industries lose jobs and revenues, and the State incurs tremendous expenses to maintain the land and has to pay property taxes indefinitely. The state now owns close to three million acres of Forest Preserve land.

The Department of Environmental Conservation claims that every acre of productive private forestland in the state generates over $450.00 annually for New York’s Gross Domestic Product. So why has DEC purchased all of this land, and eliminated such an important economic resource for the state?

DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis intends to spend another $100 million of taxpayers’ money soon to purchase even more land, land that is owned by The Nature Conservancy, who purchased it only two years ago from a well-known New York paper manufacturer, Finch Pruyn & Company, based in Glens Falls. This land is some of the most productive forestland in the Adirondacks and The Nature Conservancy has been logging it very intensively for income since it made its purchase.

Why does Commissioner Grannis want to spend our money like this? Supporters of Grannis’ plan claim that the land needs to be protected and that this is an unprecedented opportunity to protect sensitive eco-systems. I ask, protect it from what? Development in these wilderness areas is nearly impossible and highly regulated by The Adirondack Park Agency. DEC’s documents show that is has tremendous difficulty in maintaining these properties once they’re acquired, and that in many instances, the Forest Preserve land is abused by the public, with garbage piling up at trail heads and campsites, and users placing intense pressure on the sensitive eco-systems. It looks more like the land needs to be protected from DEC!

Recreational Family Club Leases, hundreds of them, have traditionally leased hundreds of thousands of acres from the forest products companies, sometimes for several generations. These clubs have been exemplary environmental stewards, and by any number of estimates, bring tens of millions of desperately needed dollars to North Country Communities annually. The clubs are an important part of the social and cultural fabric of the region, and offer tremendous recreational opportunities to the public. Frequent references to the clubs appear in most historical accounts of the Adirondacks. However, state law prohibits the leasing of Forest Preserve Lands, forcing these family recreational clubs out of existence.

Opponents of Mr. Grannis’ intentions support a proposed moratorium of Forest Preserve Land Acquisition and point to the economic hardship that DEC’s policies have caused. There’s a direct correlation that the gradual elimination of forest related jobs in the region has caused the demographics to become tremendously skewed. Young people have moved out in droves to find work, and their aged parents remain behind for their love of the area. The Adirondacks now have nearly the highest percentage of retirees in the country, unemployment is high, and tax burdens on the remaining residents make affordable living in the park nearly impossible.

Advocates of the Forest Preserve Acquisition Moratorium make some excellent points. For instance, unmanaged Forest Preserve lands absorb only a fraction of the greenhouse gasses that privately managed forests absorb. Forest Preserve lands may not participate in the newly emerging Carbon Markets. Forests play a very important role in the alternative energy markets, generating millions of tons of biomass for heating and power generation, but Forest Preserve lands are prohibited from participating in all these arenas.

What is the state doing to our own residents, with our own tax dollars, and why is the State using taxpayer dollars to eliminate private sector jobs and revenues? Why is the state intent upon ruining these economies and changing the cultural fabric of the area?

If DEC insists upon spending your money, why don’t they do it on programs that will help restore and support these communities, and create a level of sustainable economics? Many Adirondack Residents would like to see farming restored to their region. Couldn’t DEC help fund family farm policies, and bring back forest related jobs, and adopt restorative economic policies instead of buying forestland it can’t afford?

What is the best use of New York State Taxpayer’s dollars? Forest Preserve Acquisition eliminates revenue generation capacity, causes unemployment, reduces environmental stewardship levels, and reduces chances of sustainability for local economies. Please support a Moratorium on Forest Preserve Acquisitions.

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

DNA Exonerations Show Need for Legislative Action

2010-02-06T00:24:00Z

Freddie Peacock, who was wrongfully convicted of rape 33 years ago, was finally exonerated through DNA testing in Rochester on February 4. His case is remarkable – and it should serve as a call for critical reforms in our state’s criminal justice system.

Peacock, 60, was convicted of rape in December 1976. He has serious mental illness and told the officers interrogating him about recent hospitalizations, but they continued to interrogate him until he allegedly confessed to the crime. He was not able to give the interrogating officers any details about where, when or how the crime happened. He was arrested, convicted and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison and released on parole in 1982. Because he thought he would never be able to clear his name if he was released from state supervision, he tried to remain on parole. For the last 28 years since he left prison, he has fought to prove his innocence even though he was no longer incarcerated.

Of the 250 DNA exonerations nationwide, nobody has spent this many years outside of prison fighting to prove his innocence. The Monroe County District Attorney’s Office quickly agreed to DNA testing in the case and worked with the Innocence Project to throw out Peacock’s conviction once DNA test results were obtained.

Freddie Peacock’s long, hard struggle for the truth to come out is finally over. Now we need to look at what the case can tell us about our criminal justice system.

In the last several years, New York has had more DNA exonerations of people who were convicted based on false confessions than any other state in the country. Since 2002, 10 people in New York, including Peacock, were exonerated through DNA testing after false confessions or admissions led to their wrongful convictions. This accounts for 33% of all DNA exonerations nationwide since 2002 for convictions that involved false confessions or admissions.

Decades of research show that recording interrogations electronically can help prevent false confessions by creating a record of exactly what happens when police are questioning suspects. Nationwide, 500 jurisdictions now record interrogations in the most serious cases, and 17 states require such recording either through state laws or high court rulings. Approximately 18 local law enforcement agencies in New York State record at least some interrogations, and pilot programs are underway for several New York counties to begin recording interrogations. Monroe County, where Peacock was wrongfully convicted, is one of the counties recording some police interrogations through this program.

While it’s encouraging that Monroe County and others are starting to record some interrogations, this shouldn’t be a piecemeal approach with a handful of counties implementing parts of a critical reform on their own. For years, bills have languished in Albany that would require interrogations to be recorded statewide. It’s time for the State Legislature and the Governor to take action. If they don’t, the state’s high court should mandate recording of interrogations. We owe at least that much to Freddie Peacock.

Stephen Saloom is Policy Director at the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. For more information, go to www.innocenceproject.org.

The Lure of Cheap Energy

2010-02-05T19:55:00Z

In deciding to permit or forbid natural gas drilling in the Southern Tier, state officials must carefully consider whether the economic and tax benefits are a stumbling block to New York’s goal of being a national leader in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and stimulating a green energy economy.

New York is not alone in grappling with a decision to authorize fossil fuel drilling projects. Florida and Virginia are currently considering offshore natural gas drilling. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to revive a proposal to allow increased oil drilling off Santa Barbara’s coast in the hope that royalties would help towards closing the state’s massive budget deficit.

Although natural gas does not have the same adverse affects on air quality as other fossil fuels such as coal and oil, it is still a significant source of atmospheric CO2.

Most reasonable adults understand that fossil fuels are having a perilous impact on our planet. Still, the U.S. - the world’s largest energy consumer - can’t seem to break its dependence. The lure of cheap energy and increased tax revenues is holding back the process of transforming to cleaner sources of energy that may, in turn, stimulate economic growth during a time of economic malaise.

It would be understandable for us to continue our dependence on oil, coal and natural gas if cleaner more efficient means of meeting our long-term energy demands didn’t already exist.

A recent study published in Scientific American found that the world’s energy needs could be met by the concerted, global installation of wind, water and solar technologies. Researchers Mark Jacobson of Stanford University and Mark Delucchi of the University of California-Davis estimate that by 2030, mankind’s energy needs could be achieved through the installation of among other renewable technologies:

· 490,000 tidal turbines;

· 5,390 geothermal and 900 hydroelectric plants;

· 3,800,000 wind turbines;

· 1.7 billion photovoltaic systems; and

· 49,000 concentrated solar power and 40,000 photovoltaic power plants.

The numbers are daunting at first glance. Still, as ambitious as the model may be, the authors note that the U.S. mobilized for the massive manufacture of aircraft and heavy weaponry in World War II and a decade later undertook the creation of our 47,000-mile Interstate Highway System. According to figures from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, 70 million cars and commercial vehicles were produced in the year in 2008 alone - hardly an indication of a lack of international industrial capability.

If we are to believe U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, atmospheric CO2 levels will surpass 450 parts per million, the theoretical critical mass after which irreversible climate damage will occur. The effects will be felt throughout the world – even along the shorelines and in the agricultural regions of the Empire State.

Nobody urging the large-scale installation of Wind-Water-Solar systems should believe that such an undertaking would be easy or cheap. It will require a tremendous amount of money (trillions of dollars), resources (some scarce), research, technological innovation and perhaps most importantly, political will.

During his State of the Union speech last month, President Obama unfortunately emphasized the need to increase oil and natural gas drilling while promoting “clean coal”. His energy initiative appeared to be a concession to political opponents supported heavily by fossil fuel industries.

Nevertheless, all levels of government must begin the transition away from fossil fuels by encouraging consumers, residents and businesses to make long-term investments in renewable systems that can stimulate their growth into a leading source of energy.

Several European countries including Germany and Denmark and some states have encouraged the expansion of clean energy by mandating that utility companies purchase electricity produced by renewable sources. In 2008, New York passed a law allowing businesses, municipalities and non-profits to sell utilities excess energy produced by wind, solar and fuel cell sources they install on their properties. Last November, the state approved legislation permitting municipalities to issue loans to homeowners and businesses that install energy retrofits and renewable energy technologies. Known as the Property Assessed Clean Energy program, these loans are paid back over a longer period than traditional loans and are added to an annual property tax bill. This is an important incentive for property owners to make a switch.

In the years to come the cost of fossil fuels will extensively increase. In order to stimulate economic growth and mitigate the destructive impact of global warming, we must be ready to begin the heavy lifting and ingenuity required to move in a new, sustainable direction on energy.

***

Paul Esmond lives in Albany.

An American Charity Slump?

2010-02-05T13:53:00Z

The Obama Administration and both houses of the U.S. Congress are fast-tracking a number of programs designed to increase the size of what's commonly known as the "welfare state".

These programs are having a devastating impact on American charitable giving. While the wealthy have been vilified, the census data shows that households earning $200,000-plus, which comprise only 2.6% of all households who submit tax returns, give nearly 50% of all individual charitable contributions.

One of the drawbacks of the Obama Administration's and the liberal-left's tax law revision is the decrease in the amount charity-givers may deduct from their annual federal income tax. Ideologues, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others, believe the government should use the "cover" of charity as a means of redistributing wealth.

In other words, President Obama's version of "charity" is more akin to Karl Marx than it is to Jesus Christ. Obama and his ilk are charitable, to be sure, but they're charitable with other people's money.

In the days before Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society, it was the Christian church that provided food, clothing, and shelter for the poor and destitute members of society.

For example, during The Great Depression and thereafter, the majority of "soup kitchens" and "shelters" were run by local churches. The homeless were provided a warm meal, a place to rest, and a chance to hear the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ. Christians in those days understood that if you were to address the needs of the soul, it was best to first address the needs of the body.

While President Obama can't wait to get his hands on this nation's health care, many Americans have forgotten that it was the Christian church and Jewish temples that built most of the hospitals and clinics. Religious groups provided medical treatment to people who were given the bums' rush out of hospitals because they were too poor to pay for treatment.

For example, in New York City, hospitals still bear the names given by religious groups who created them--Saint Vincent's Hospital, Calvary Hospital, Christ Hospital, and many others. While the city government manages 10 non-profit hospitals, the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies manages 15 health care centers.

But today, we run the grave risk of letting the government undermine support of these charitable institutions and thus eliminating crucial charitable services.

While President Obama and his minions will never tell citizens they should stop giving to faith-based organizations, their actions appear to be intentionally or unintentionally stifling such charitable giving. It's a fact that many politicians in Washington believe the government is better able to distribute charitable services than people whom they view as simpleminded Bible-thumpers.

According to a survey conducted on behalf of Dunham+Company by Wilson Research Strategies, Americans reported that they are beginning to spend more of their disposable income on entertainment and other household expenses, while continuing to reduce or stop their charitable giving.

Compared to the 2009 study, Dunham+Company's 2010 New Year's Philanthropy Survey shows that in spite of a surprising 56% jump in the number of households indicating they have not reduced their household budget as a result of the economy, 37% of the respondents said they continue to reduce their charitable donations and nearly 1 in 4 reported in the survey that they have completely stopped charitable giving. The WRS survey reveals that statistically the 2010 rates are the same as last year's rates.
(Click here to download study.)

However, Rick Dunham, the president and CEO of Dunham+Company, a firm that helps Christian ministries with marketing, fundraising, and media relations, said there are some exceptions.

"When you dig into the data, you find that more of those who frequent religious services indicate that in spite of the economy, they are continuing or increasing their support of charity in 2010 compared to 2009," he said in a press statement. "Fewer of these households have reduced or stopped their giving. This is especially impressive as there is actually a 10% increase in the number of non-religious households who say they have stopped their giving as we enter 2010."

Dunham+Company's survey also indicates that households earning $35,000 or less are much more likely to have reduced or stopped charitable giving (33% more than the national average), whereas households earning $100,000 or more are less likely to have reduced or stopped their charitable giving (38% less than the national average). However, about one in six frequent churchgoers say they do intend to give more, which is 33% greater than those who do not attend church.

While the survey reveals a disturbing reduction in charitable giving, respondents are not enthusiastic about having the federal government come in to pick up the slack.

For example, when asked about their support for federal funding of health care necessitating increased taxes on the wealthy, a whopping 63% of those surveyed rejected such a policy.

"The data related to giving basically remains unchanged from 2009," Dunham said. "Most charities should expect contributions to remain relatively flat this year, which is not good news for the many non-profits that are struggling. But religious charities should fare better than most as there are a greater number of these households indicating they are supporting charities as we begin this year compared to last year."

Mr. Dunham points to one bright spot, however, for all charities. The findings do indicate that there should be a resurgence in giving by households making $75,000 or more a year. Among those making $75,000 but less than $100,000, this year's survey showed an 80% jump in those who intend to increase their support of charity in 2010 (18% in 2010 compared to 10% in 2009) and for households making $100,000 or more there was a 31% jump compared to one year ago (21% in 2010 compared to 16% in 2009).

But now that Obama has unveiled his budget and the increase in taxes on households making $250,000 or more and decreasing the amount they can deduct for charitable giving, this intention to give more may be short-lived.

The economic crisis and now the policies of the Obama Administration may mean a prolonged American charity slump that will wreak havoc on charities for years to come.

*****

Nathan Tabor is the author of The Beast on the East River and is the founder of ConservativeVoice.com.

Beverage Tax Definitely Foolish

2010-01-25T14:50:00Z

Governor Paterson is trying to resurrect the beverage tax on sugared sweetened drinks which New Yorkers vehemently fought last year, and won. Last year was bad enough. The Governor tried to impose an 18-percent tax in 2009 which translated to an additional 55 cents to the cost of a 12-pack of soda.

Paying Twice for One Product

Now, in 2010, Governor Paterson is trying to sneak through a penny an ounce tax. That may not sound like a lot until you do the math and realize that a 12-pack of 12-ounce cans of soda equals 144 ounces or $1.44 per pack extra for state taxes! And, for a 2-liter bottle of soda, that’s an additional 67 cents in taxes. This state tax would be more than nine times higher on a 12-pack of soft drinks than the state tax on a 12-pack of beer. And, it’s important to note that this tax is on top of the state tax that New Yorkers already pay for their favorite beverage. This results in paying the state twice -- double taxation – for a single product.

Impacting Individuals, Hurting the Economy

It is outrageous to think that New Yorkers, who are struggling to make ends meet in this economy should bear the burden of fixing the Governor’s budget problems by paying an exorbitant amount in new taxes on the beverages they love. This is not just another tax. This is an unfair tax that will be detrimental to hardworking New Yorkers and businesses alike.

This tax will pose a great hardship to the economy in general. The beverage industry is one of the largest industries in New York State. The industry currently supports more than 160,000 good-paying jobs in New York, totaling approximately $6.7 billion in wages. These statewide jobs are held in manufacturing, distribution and retail. The non-alcoholic beverage industry in New York State has a direct economic impact of $7 billion per year and supports an additional $18 billion in economic activity.

Many small supermarkets and bodegas are already struggling in this economy. One-third of New York’s supermarkets have closed in the past six years and, since 2007, the number of bodegas has decreased by nearly one thousand. Everyone from distributors to supermarket and bodega owners will be severely impacted by this tax because consumer spending will decrease.

This is Not About Health

Contrary to what Governor Paterson has stated publicly, this is not a health issue. Rather, Governor Paterson is using health as a façade when the real issue is grasping at ways to close the serious budget gap.

Science shows that calorie balance is what matters when it comes to losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight - not focusing on specific foods or abstaining from particular foods and beverages that are enjoyed.

New Yorkers have the right to their choice of beverage and should never be limited because the state government is making a favorite beverage impossible to afford.

How New Yorkers Can Fight Back

New Yorkers should go to www.nobeveragetax.com where they can send a message directly to their state senator and assembly member. It’s important for every single voice to be heard.

In 2009, New Yorkers fought hard, put a lot of pressure on the state government, and stopped the double tax in its tracks. We all said “no” last year, and the Governor listened. Let’s make sure everyone sends a message to Albany today and tells them “no” once again in 2010.

This new tax on sugared drinks is far from being pennywise; as a matter of fact, it’s outrageously foolish.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nelson Eusebio is the Chairman of New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, a coalition that includes New York citizens and business groups.

Don't waste school aid crisis

2010-01-18T23:00:00Z

School districts on Long Island and across New York State dodged a bullet last month when the legislature rejected Gov. David A. Paterson's call for a midyear cut in K-12 education aid. But their luck is about to run out.

Savvy school officials already realize that Paterson's 2010-11 state budget proposal, due to be presented on Tuesday, is virtually certain to call for a cut in school aid in the year ahead. In fact, for the state to have any hope of fixing its busted finances, that cut had better be an extra large one.

School aid will consume nearly $21 billion in general fund taxes and lottery receipts this fiscal year, making K-12 education the largest single item in the non-federally funded portion of the state budget. Temporary federal stimulus funds are being used to underwrite another $1.4 billion in school aid this year. But the stimulus is scheduled to shrink in 2010-11, and then to disappear.

Left unchanged, the current state school aid formula for 2010-11 would require general fund spending increases totaling more than 26 percent over the next three years. With the state facing a budget gap of at least $7 billion next year, and $14 billion the year after that, these trends obviously are unsustainable.

There's simply no way to restore long-term balance to New York's budget without first halting, and then partially reversing, the state's school spending binge.

It's not as if our schools have been starving. New York spends more per pupil than any other state - 65 percent more than the national average, according to the latest census data. Long Island schools spend even more - more than $20,000 per pupil, fully double the national average. State school aid has increased 75 percent since 1998-99, even though enrollment during this period was essentially flat or declining.

If the past is any guide, Paterson's budget will level the largest state aid cuts on downstate suburban school districts. The Pavlovian response of Long Island lawmakers will be to demand more cash for their districts - period. That's understandable, of course, but it's not enough.

During previous economic downturns, Albany cut aid without reforming the mandates that drive up local school costs. The result: higher property taxes. But these times demand a more comprehensive approach. If a state school aid cut is coming - and for the sake of New York's fiscal health, we should all hope it is - Long Island's school officials and state legislative delegation should unite behind long-overdue reforms to protect local property taxpayers and minimize the impact on classrooms. This means they have to summon the courage and the will to confront one of the state's most powerful special interests: the teachers unions.

A school property tax cap like the one originally proposed by Paterson and passed by the State Senate in 2008 should be at the top of the agenda. The cap, modeled on Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts, would limit school property tax levy increases to inflation (currently near zero), while giving voters the opportunity to "override" the limit if they want to accept and pay for a larger increase for specific local purposes. Taxpayers could also force a referendum to "under-ride" a levy limit if they believe the district can get by on less.

Lawmakers should also enact a state-mandated freeze on teacher salaries. There is precedent for this. In the mid-1970s fiscal crisis in New York City, the state stepped in to halt collectively bargained pay hikes for members of the municipal labor unions. As recently as 2003, the state froze raises for Buffalo unions during that city's fiscal crisis. When Buffalo teachers sued to overturn the freeze, federal courts upheld it.

Teacher salaries continue to rise even as private-sector incomes stagnate. The resulting estimated savings could fully offset more than $1 billion in school aid reductions statewide, including roughly $220 million on Long Island.

The state's Taylor Law provisions that give teachers unions excessive financial leverage in contract talks with school boards must also be repealed. As one example, the Triborough amendment allows teachers to continue collecting longevity "step" increases in their salaries even after their contracts have expired. Then there is a recent court ruling in a Manhasset School District case that further limits school districts from outsourcing services, and a provision in the newly enacted Tier 5 state pension bill that prohibits school districts from making changes in health benefits for retirees without seeking the permission of active employees.

Also, at a time when districts will need to reduce staff, they should have maximum flexibility to preserve the jobs of the best teachers - regardless of their seniority. But that will require reform of the teacher discipline provision (known as "3020-a") that makes it prohibitively expensive to weed out incompetent staff.

Finally, the legislature should seek contracting reforms that would significantly reduce capital construction costs. They should repeal the Wicks Law, which needlessly requires multiple subcontractors on construction projects, and prevailing wage requirements that add hundreds of millions of dollars to school capital expenses.

A campaign favoring many of these changes and more has been unveiled by the New York State School Boards Association, which has identified 55 ideas for making schools more efficient. They should be listened to.

Of course, accomplishing change won't be easy if state legislators remain beholden to interest groups that benefit from the educational status quo. So teachers unions will scream bloody murder - let them. This fiscal crisis would be a terrible thing to waste.

***

E.J. McMahon is director of the Empire Center and the Manhattan Institute's senior fellow for tax and budgetary studies. This piece is reprinted from Newsday "Sunday Special" Column.

You Can’t Fix Health Care Until You Eliminate Waste

2010-01-06T17:25:00Z

Attention Congress: America has turned down the volume on your health care debate.

After months of so-called do-or-die votes, resolutions and hearings, America is officially tired of listening to the partisan debate on health care. Do we still want reform? Yes. Do we still want cheaper premiums? Absolutely.

But as the Republicans and Democrats huff and puff toward the finish line, one thing seems apparent: The final product will look nothing like what either side had originally envisioned or wanted. To keep the momentum going, the Democrats have made deal after deal, watering down the original legislation. And Republicans are amazed this thing is still alive, following months of coordinated political attacks, TV ad buys and party line “no” votes.

In the end, the solution to our health care crisis is out there. But Congress is transfixed in the wrong place. Rather than focusing on helping individuals, Congress is focused on passing a bill.

True reform will only happen when Congress is willing to fix what is broken, rather than pile on more potential problems, which it defines as “solutions,” on America’s mile-high mountain of health care bureaucracy. It’s no secret our health care system wastes $700 billion a year on unnecessary treatments, redundant tests, fraud, avoidable errors and other black holes that suck cash.

Through the ongoing debate, The New York State Association of Health Underwriters (NYSAHU) has been urging Congress to focus on flushing the waste from the current system. It makes no sense to us to throw more money at a problem without fixing it first. It’s like buying new tires for a car with no engine.

There are many simple and cost-effective solutions to save billions of dollars every year. They can be enacted by insurers, hospitals, employers and the community – rather than a lofty act of Congress. The savings can be immediate and meaningful. For example:

Insurers need to clamp down on fraud and abuse in the insurance system, which attributes to $175 billion in losses each year. Companies are already taking it upon themselves to hire former law enforcement officers to investigate abuses. Others are introducing new technologies to nab bogus medical supply companies. But that is just the beginning, as scamming the health care system has become a rewarding career for criminals from sea to shining sea.

One-third of America is obese. Rather than paying extra premiums to care for diabetes, congestive heart failure and other weight-related ailments, more employers need to invest in wellness programs. Encourage and reward healthy employees; health care costs will go down.

Patients often use many specialists, who often don’t communicate. Care should be run through a family doctor, who can ensure duplicate tests are not done and that all providers know what medications are funneling through the patient. Communication will streamline care, saving money and better serve the patient.

There are other remarkably simple solutions to lowering health care costs, from ensuring that doctors wash their hands to minimize infections to the willingness of a medical staff to actually admit to a potentially litigious patient that they had made a mistake. Such no-cost solutions translate into billions of dollars of savings.

NYSAHU and other groups that are seriously concerned about health care reform stand as a resource to Congress, as it navigates through what should be the final weeks of discussion on health care reform.

Often, the easiest route is the shortest one. Congress needs to recognize the solution is right in front of them: Ending the waste that already exists.

Laura Wander, a resident of Glenmont, NY, is the President of the Northeast New York Association of Health Underwriters. She can be reached at (518) 641-3000.

Killing Jobs Before They are Created

2009-12-28T17:03:00Z

One and a half million New Yorkers have left our state since 2000: more than any other state. They left mainly because of the lack of job opportunities caused by high state and local taxes, and high electric, Workers Comp, and Medicaid costs.

According to the independent Tax Foundation, New York has the second worse business tax climate in the country; surpassed only by New Jersey. New York also has the fourth highest electric costs in the nation; the highest Workers Comp costs; and our Medicaid costs exceed Illinois, Florida, and Texas COMBINED.

In order to overcome these cost disadvantages and compete for economic development projects, municipalities in New York use their Industrial Development Agencies to lower this tax burden in an effort to level the playing field and encourage businesses to invest and create jobs. Since 1990, IDAs have supported more than 3,800 projects that have invested $41 billion in communities throughout New York. The State Comptroller reports that these projects have accounted for the creation of 224,000 and the retention of 424,000 jobs.

Too often though, New York is eliminated from consideration as an investment location because of the very high cost of doing business here. The door is slammed shut before we have a chance to talk about our great research universities, productive workforce, quality of life, comprehensive transportation networks, and superior economic development programs.

Now, legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Sam Hoyt and Senator Antoine Thompson from Buffalo, and another measure proposed by Governor Paterson, would make things even worse. These proposals would impose job-killing wage mandates on the construction of most IDA-financed projects, as well as the permanent jobs they create. These prevailing and living wage requirements would add 30 – 45 percent to the cost of an IDA project; far more than an IDA can provide as an incentive. What business would pay a 35 percent wage penalty in order to receive a 15 percent benefit from an IDA?

And, if that is not bad enough, Assemblyman Hoyt and Senator Thompson have already stopped more than $2.3 billion in non-profit projects from getting low-cost IDA financing in order to leverage their union wage legislation. Affected projects include nursing homes, hospitals, charter schools, YMCAs, housing for the mentally disabled, and Cerebral Palsy Centers.

The Hoyt-Thompson legislation is being championed by powerful NYC labor unions in an effort to gain a bigger foothold in Upstate.

We know what the outcome would be if these wage requirements were enacted. Last week for example, the NYC Council killed the Kingsbridge Armory project that would have created 2,000 jobs in the Bronx. At the urging of the same unions pushing the Hoyt-Thompson legislation, the NYC Council rejected the project because it did not include a “living wage” requirement for permanent jobs.

Three years ago, Ulster County established a prevailing wage requirement for all IDA-financed projects. During the two years the wage mandate was in place, not a single application was submitted to the IDA. Within two months after the county repealed the requirement, three projects were approved.

Expanding costly prevailing and living wage requirements to private employers would be viewed by business leaders and site location consultants around the world as anti-competitive. Given New York’s already high cost of doing business, these mandates would impose even greater barriers to economic growth than we already face, and would give business decision makers one more reason to locate projects in other states.

During this deep global economic recession, Governor Paterson and legislators, including Assemblyman Sam Hoyt and Senator Antoine Thompson, should seek ways to reduce obstacles to growth, not create new ones. The political strength of powerful NYC special interests should not trump the interests of the vast majority of New Yorkers.

***

Brian McMahon is Executive Director of the New York State Economic Development Council

State Budget Ups and Downs

2009-12-03T20:17:00Z

A couple of positive steps were taken in the Capitol yesterday. The first was passage of the Deficit Reduction Program (DRP). Although the package totals only $2.8 billion, is mostly comprised of non-recurring items and falls short of the Governor’s proposed target by $400 million, it does represent an acknowledgment by the Legislature that there is a substantial shortfall and that action needed to be taken.

The second was the overdue creation of a new, less costly tier of pension benefits for new employees of State government and localities outside New York City. This measure--a compromise plan developed in hard negotiations through the determination of the Governor--will "bend the cost curve" of rapidly rising pension costs. The structural changes in the pension system made yesterday will be helpful to state and local governments. It remains to be seen whether the Legislature will in future years stick to the terms of the new tier and refrain from the past practice of passing various "sweetener" bills that raise costs. Nonetheless, this marks the first time in nearly 30 years that pension benefits have been adjusted to meet fiscal realities, and it is a big step.

On to the downers. The contents of the final DRP package are disappointing. The earlier proposal by the Governor covered 40 percent of the $3.2 billion current-year deficit with items that are non-recurring, and the package that passed yesterday increased that share to 59 percent. (See Table 1.) Especially egregious is the acceleration of the use of federal stimulus relief, a measure that will make the day of reckoning when this money runs out even worse than it would have been.

In addition, what was given away in concessions to the teachers' unions to aid the passage of the new pension tier included a big ticket item -- a provision that prohibits the diminution of health insurance benefits for retired teachers without first bargaining the changes with the local teachers' union. This ties the hands of local school district management in containing the costs associated with retiree health insurance. Although it is true that this measure has been renewed every year since 1994, making it permanent means that to end the practice now requires repeal rather than a veto by the Governor. It was a lot to give away and will open the gates for other employee groups to demand the same benefits. This Governor and all future Governors will need to stand firm against that.

Testimony to New York City Council Economic Development Committee on the Empire Zone Program

2009-11-25T18:58:00Z

We appreciate this opportunity to talk with you about the New York State and New York City economies, and more specifically about the need for effective economic development programs and the future of the Empire Zones program.

The Business Council is New York’s largest statewide employer organization, representing 3,000 businesses in all sectors and in all parts of the state.

Today, I will provide you with an overview of our economic development priorities, as well as specific recommendations for new and revised incentive programs for the State to consider in the 2010 legislative session.

Given current economic conditions, and the expiration of both the Empire Zone and Power for Jobs programs next year, it is essential that we make timely decisions on our economic development priorities and the means to achieve them.

And while we recognize that the majority of the actions and proposals we are about to share with you are actually within the purview of the state legislature rather than the NYC Council, as you have so appropriately demonstrated through your scheduling of this oversight hearing, the Empire Zone program has impacts across New York and is very much a New York City issue as well.

So, in terms of the overall big picture, is there any doubt that New York State’s economic climate is becoming non-competitive?

A few quick facts:

Over a ten year period, 1997 to 2007, the state’s job growth was 34th among states, and about 40 percent below the national job growth rate.

Interestingly, the state’s climate for new facilities was relatively good over this same period. In 2005, “Site Selection” magazine found that New York was 4th among states in new and expanded corporate facilities. We were 6th in 2008, but have fallen to 16th in 2009.

What do these seemingly inconsistent data tell us? We think they show that:

Despite our overall uncompetitive economic climate, before the recession the state had done reasonably well in attracting new investments. We believe that this points directly to the impact of the Empire Zones program and other state incentive efforts.

We believe that the most effective economic development strategy for New York State is to create a more competitive business climate.

New York needs to reduce its business tax burden, especially real property taxes, reduce energy costs and bring the cost of employer-provided health care under control.

We need to make the hard choices to reign in spending at both the state and local government levels.

No new taxes, a state spending cap, and a cap on real property tax growth would be invaluable first steps in positioning New York for an economic recovery.

However, real progress toward restoring our business climate will take time. In the meantime, given the significant, on-going competition we face from other states and nations, we believe that New York State also needs to continue to offer economic incentive programs.

Let’s face it: we desperately need more jobs in New York State. With unemployment at 10.2% nationally, over 10% here in NYC, and with at least 850,000 New Yorkers out of work across the state, we have to do everything we can to encourage private sector job growth, including realigning and strengthening economic development programs such as the EZ program.

The Empire Zone program has been the basis for some of the largest capital investments in New York State in recent years. In many cases, its significant tax credits were essential; by offsetting uncompetitive high business costs in New York - particularly real property taxes – they provided a business cost framework that encouraged significant new in-state investments.

Because of its significant incentives, the Empire Zones program had become the state’s de facto principal economic development tool.

As such, it has been amended, extended and administered to address a wide range of development objectives beyond its initial focus on redevelopment of distressed areas.

By now most of the program’s initial “loopholes” have been closed. We believe that this “mission creep” was the basis for much of the recent criticism of the Empire Zone program.

We agree that the state needs to re-think its economic development efforts. We need to assure that development incentives are focused on strategic development objectives, and that incentive programs are economically efficient.

Going forward, the state should consider multiple programs, each designed to address specific development objectives.

Based on input from Business Council members, we believe these objectives and incentives should include:

- Major Investment/Retention Projects - The state needs to have a flagship economic development program that focuses on major reinvestment in existing business to help retain valuable employers and high paying jobs, and to promote major new investments in New York State. An effective program could be based on the incentive structure currently provided under the Empire Zones program, but with eligibility based on targeted industries, rather than geographic location; and with modified incentives that provide more up front benefits. This new “Empire” program would:

o Target businesses in strategic, high wage sectors, including manufacturing, financial services, life sciences, and clean tech and projects with significant regional impact.

o Provide an enhanced and fully refundable investment tax credit of 12 percent for tangible property investments and 15 percent for R&D activities.

o Provide a real property tax credit based on the increased assessed value of property due to new investment; this credit should be refundable for all eligible business, with equal treatment for RPT payments and for PILOT payments. Eligibility criteria for this credit would include significant capital investment and job retention; job creation; value of jobs based on wages and benefits.

- Technology/Innovation - The state needs to support emerging technology sectors, with support for business growth, R&D, and commercialization of new products. The Business Council will be issuing a comprehensive “innovation” incentive proposal next month. Our recommendations will include:

o Expansion and extension of the Qualified Emerging Technology Company credit by increasing the company income-based eligibility threshold to $40 million, and by increasing the credit for tangible property investments from 18 to 30 percent, and by increasing the credit for other research investments from 8 to 15 percent.

o Adopt credits for pharmacological, cellulosic ethanol production, alternative energy storage and distribution, and deployment of commercial alternative energy.

o Adoption of a sales tax exemption for academic incubators.

- Urban/Distressed Areas – A separate program targeting reinvestment in distressed urban areas should be adopted. Components could include:

o Improved implementation of the state’s Brownfield cleanup and incentive programs, including an expedited application, project review and approval process by the Department of Economic Development; extended eligibility to include state superfund and RCRA sites; elimination of the tangible property credit cap for manufacturers and high-tech firms.

o An enhanced job/wage incentive for job creation in distressed communities, with baseline grants of up to 80 percent of personal income tax withholdings related to increased employment, with grants up to 10 years’ duration.

o Allow transferability of the New York State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits for distressed communities, allowing them to be purchased by investors or allocated to investors separate from the federal credit.

At the same time as we can hopefully work toward some of these innovative and thoughtful economic development program updates and reforms, we must also focus on two other key programs that will be considered by the State Legislature in 2010 and which will have significant, long-lasting impacts in New York City:

- Economic development power – The Business Council supports a long term replacement program for the Power for Jobs and Economic Development power programs that provide long-term contracts with allocation-based incentives, and that redeploys “rural and domestic” power for economic development power purposes.

- And finally, Industrial Development Agencies – As you may be aware, NYC leads New York State in IDA financing by a large margin, so this issue is of critical importance to the five boroughs. The state should re-establish the authority for IDAs to finance “civic facilities.” While we support amendments that increase oversight and transparency of IDA operations, and measures that promote the use of regional workers and resources, we strongly oppose new wage mandates applied to construction, tenants and building operations.

***

Ken Adams in president and CEO of the Business Council of NYS.

Liquor Lobby Scare Tactics Shouldn't Stop Opportunity in NY

2009-11-10T17:06:00Z

New York State government has the opportunity to help address our multi-billion dollar budget deficit through a landmark economic development initiative that is the ultimate win-win-win: creating new jobs, providing lucrative new markets to small businesses, boosting key agricultural industries, improving consumer choice, and generating over $160 million in revenue – and all without creating new taxes. This unique opportunity is the comprehensive Liquor Store and Wine Revitalization Act.

This is a simple and common-sense measure. The Act will allow the sale of wine in grocery stores and immediately generate millions of dollars for the state in new licensing fees. At the same time, the bill is responsive to mom and pop liquor stores concerned about the increased competition and provides them with significant relief from the state’s antiquated and draconian liquor laws. Working directly with many of these small liquor store owners, we’ve developed a comprehensive solution that will allow them to open new locations, develop cooperative buying agreements to leverage their purchasing power, and even offer other products to meet customer demand and grow their businesses. Indeed, one of our greatest frustrations in dealing with the liquor lobby has been the claim that a few associations represent all liquor stores. Meanwhile, many small business owners in our districts have told us of their excitement for the possibilities for their businesses to grow under these reforms.

The Act takes a big picture approach that will not only bring New York in line with the 35 other states that allow the sale of wine in grocery stores and help our struggling wine and grape growing industries, but will also fundamentally update liquor statutes that haven’t been changed since the days of Prohibition. It is the first time that Albany has ever seen such strong leadership in both houses pushing to address the needs of all stakeholders – from liquor stores to grape growers – concurrently.

Unfortunately, the state’s liquor lobby – which has enjoyed monopoly control of its product for decades – continues to fight this publicly-supported initiative with misinformation and scare tactics, most recently falsely linking a report detailing deficiencies at the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) to the issue of wine in grocery stores. The report made no mention of wine in grocery stores and offered no conclusions about its merits, but that did not stop the liquor lobby from claiming that the failings of the SLA in addressing teen drinking would somehow be exacerbated by these reforms.

The facts? The Liquor Store and Wine Revitalization Act will not add any additional outlets for the SLA to monitor and enforce, since it only adds the ability to sell wine at those establishments that are already licensed to sell beer. Even more importantly, there is absolutely no evidence to support the suggestion that the sale of wine in grocery stores would increase underage drinking. To the contrary, an FBI statistical report found no correlation between states that sell wine in grocery stores and increased incidences of underage drinking or drunk driving.

An honest, substantive discussion of this proposal has no room for scare tactics and purposefully misleading arguments. We are gratified that journalists have taken a skeptical look at these fictions, including the Schenectady Daily Gazette, which, in response to this most recent incident, called the liquor lobby’s claim “far-fetched.”

We are facing a fiscal crisis of epic proportions and the need to be as creative as possible in our efforts to expand and evolve our state’s economy cannot be overstated. As legislators, we know that looking for opportunities to do this without slashing critical services and taxing our citizens to death is a sacred responsibility. The Liquor Store and Wine Revitalization Act is an ideal place to begin. It’s also an idea that is supported by an overwhelming majority of New York residents, who deserve to have their interests balanced ahead of a lobby desperately seeking to protect its monopoly.

The authors are members of the New York State Assembly and co-sponsors of the Wine Industry and Liquor Store Revitalization Act. Assembly Member Micah Kellner represents Manhattan’s Upper East Side and Assembly Member Keith Wright’s district includes West and Central Harlem.

Preserving the Rights of Adirondack Families

2009-10-28T23:46:00Z

I write this to the people who for generations have lived in the Adirondack Park and to the people who work hard and try to make a living in the little communities that string along the beautiful lakes and rivers. We all truly love this place and want to stay here, but the future looks grim.

The Adirondack Forest Preserve was originally created by the New York State Legislature in 1885. When it was decided to set aside land for protection in the Adirondacks, it was never envisioned that this place would be a park. It was to be an experiment to show that it is possible to have sustainable communities while still preserving a great wilderness area. A recent survey by the LA Group shows the demographics of the "Park" and how the population is aging, families are diminishing and businesses are few. It becomes more and more evident that the experiment has failed.

It takes a Constitutional Amendment to change Article XIV of the New York State Constitution. Article XIV protects state land in the Adirondacks while there is no provision within the Constitution that protects the people and their way of life.

I have been working for several years with NYCO Minerals, a mining operation in Willsboro. NYCO employs 75-100 people. These are family-sustaining jobs that support our communities, stores, churches, businesses and keep children in our schools. NYCO is currently trying to reach an agreement to amend the NYS Constitution so the Company can continue to mine deposits of the mineral that are adjacent to their current operations. The mineral rests beneath state land. If you remove land from the forest preserve it must be replaced, and NYCO is willing to do that. NYCO, DEC, NYSED, Senator Little and I have been working with environmental groups to see if they could support such an amendment. Without this amendment, future operations at NYCO could be shortened by many years.

NYCO was recently notified by the environmental group "Protect the Adirondacks!" that when the concept of a land swap between NYCO and NYS was presented to their board, the response was, and I quote, "The employment issues and community of Willsboro economic issues were voiced as positive benefits of the proposal; however, they fail to sway the majority regarding the high threshold needed to amend Article XIV", end quote. The other environmental groups in the Adirondacks remain at the table trying to work through this issue.

People chose to come here because this is a beautiful and special place. Those of us who live here know that and don't want anything to change; yet as time goes by, our presence is becoming meaningless. Our opinions don't matter! When people first began discovering the Adirondacks, we carried their packs, cut their trees, built their homes, dug their ditches, labored in their mills, taught their children, healed their sick and welcomed them like family. Most have become our friends and our neighbors, but those who came with their own agenda have stood Judge and Jury on what is acceptable for growth in our communities, which roads will be closed, what areas of our beloved mountains will remain accessible to the handicapped and aged, what kind of vehicles are allowed on trails, and even if we can keep our traditional hunting camps on state-owned land. Are we not part of the state? What about the great experiment?

I am very angry, but even more, I am very sad. The great experiment is a failure and there is no balance. My family, friends and neighbors are being forced out of existence and few seem to care.

***

Teresa Sayward (R-I, Willsboro) represents the 113th Assembly District.

Lawmakers Need to Rethink How to Help Uninsured

2009-10-27T23:21:00Z

As a member of the New York State Health Underwriters Association, I was eager to learn what the cost of the proposed health care reform package would be. More importantly, I wanted to make sure that any taxpayer dollar invested in this endeavor would be directed toward the greatest good.

I was stunned to learn that the proposed bill released from the Senate Finance Committee would cost $829 billion, but would just minimally increase the number of insured Americans.

Look at the numbers: It is widely reported that there are 45.7 million uninsured people living in America. About 10 million are here illegally and shouldn’t be covered by a taxpayer-funded plan.

Another 11 million of the uninsured already qualify for free health insurance through the government, but haven’t signed up. That leaves 24.7 million Americans truly without health insurance – 8 percent of the population. Also, remember 10 million of the uninsured earn $75,000 or more annually, but choose not to buy insurance.

So, in seeking “universal” health care, we are clearly not on the right track? Rather than spend $829 billion for the sake of doing something, our lawmakers need to rethink about how to insure the uninsured, while improving the health system for all Americans.

***

Ralph Spagnuola lives in Manhattan.

Legislature Made Right Call in Rejecting Wine in Grocery Stores

2009-10-21T14:33:00Z

Last year, the New York State Legislature rejected Governor Paterson’s attempt to legalize the sale of wine in 19,000 new outlets – and it’s a good thing we did. The recently released report from the New York State Law Commission on the State Liquor Authority makes plain that we made the right decision in rejecting a costly, and dangerous idea.

Consider this: The State Liquor Authority has just 38 enforcement officers policing 70,000 license holders and, in the words of the Commission, “is unable to make prevention of underage drinking a statewide priority.”

The Commission found that New York State spends $3.2 billion annually dealing with the cost of underage drinking – a steep price that would only increase by making wine more readily available in every corner store, bodega, deli, minimart and grocery store in the state that sells beer.

That staggering price tag includes the cost of accidents, violence, treatment and other situations that teenagers find themselves in due to underage drinking. Rather than adding to that burden, we should be working to reduce underage drinking, and driving while intoxicated regardless of age.

In fact, New York doesn’t look so bad when compared with other states. In all, 37 states spend more to deal with underage drinking – on a per teen basis – than New York does. But making it easier to get wine – which has twice the alcohol content as beer – would only increase our costs. We should be looking to improve our record, not move up this dubious list.

We know that legalizing the sale of wine so Big Box stores can make more profits will kill about 1,000 small businesses and put more than 4,000 people out of work. We also know that the Big Box stores will not create one more job to stack a different product on a shelf. That’s reason enough to reject this bad idea.

In addition, letting supermarkets sell wine amounts to a fiscal gimmick, generating one-shot revenues through the sale of licenses without any significant long-term revenue. It’s little more than a finger in a dike that has gaping holes. That’s also reason enough to reject this bad idea.

But the Commission report makes clear that the SLA is ill equipped to do its job now, never mind dramatically adding to its burden by putting even more alcohol within easy reach of teenagers. The report also makes plain that New York already pays a high enough price for underage drinking.

Law Enforcement officials from around the State, along with advocates like Parents Who Host Lose the Most and Students Against Dangerous Decisions, worked hard to make that case last year. It was a powerful argument that moved many legislators to reject the Governor’s plan.

There is no question that New York State faces serious budget issues. But we must focus on real solutions as opposed to gimmicks that carry long-term consequences for the people of New York State. The Commission report makes clear that legalizing the sale of wine in 19,000 new outlets is not just a costly idea, but a dangerous one as well.

Governor Paterson would do well not to repeat the mistake of proposing this reckless idea again in his 2010-11 Executive Budget. But if he does, I am confident the New York State Legislature will make the right decision again and reject it.

What are we really voting for on Election Day?

2009-10-18T16:07:00Z

Elections for State and local officials are just around the corner. So what are we really voting for this November? Our elected officials show themselves at fairs, county events and news conferences during election time, but where are they the rest of their term? Have you ever tried to speak with them, or send them a letter? You normally get a form letter back, or some secretary returning your call telling you that they appreciate your call and the matter is being looked at, and you never hear from them again.

Here is the situation that has me wondering what my representatives in New York are really doing for me. In 2006, I bought a business In Warsaw with the intent of giving back to our community. I had the misconception that Warsaw would want to keep a business alive. The real case was others wanted my money worse than I wanted to keep the business going. So after 2 years of struggle and no more money, Wyoming County shut us down.

The story doesn’t end there. With no more money, bills and judgements piled up. I had all my taxes done but could not pay my accountant to get them filed. I found enough work to pay to have all taxes filed and started talking to the various tax offices to track progress. Here is where my story gets interesting, I owed on paper over $20,000 in taxes to the IRS and about $8,000 to New York State. But with amendments to be filed, each office owed me a total of about $5000. During this time I was on unemployment and finally landed a job with the US Government, but my federal tax obligation had to be met and the IRS was backlogged. I was put in touch with some wonderful people at an office, within IRS of all places. They were the advocates. I told them my story and the position I was in, and, the need to push through the amendments to be allowed to take the new job. My advocate went right to work, she was fantastic and within 3 weeks my tax issues were take care of and I was able to go back to work. Happy ending right? Wrong!!

Now I had to deal with New York State, which will not process my amendments until the IRS has approved the federal tax return. All this time I am talking to the New York Tax collector in Buffalo and explaining the situation and what we are doing to solve it. When this started she sent me a form to fill out about our finances which was OK, but then they want two declination letters stating I cannot not get a loan. Now folks, if you tell anyone you want a loan and oh by the way I am unemployed right now, what do you think their response will be? That’s right, after having a good laugh, they explain that in order to apply for a loan you need to have some sort of income other than unemployment to qualify, so don’t waste their time. But according to New York State I have to have these letters in order to file this form. And what does this lovely person do that I am speaking to in Buffalo? She goes on vacation and leaves no one to work my case.

But the nightmare is still not over. After the IRS got everything squared away with my taxes and helped me to get my new job, I filed everything I needed to file with New York State. I informed the person in Buffalo that the forms were sent to the filing office and my taxes would be paid, and that my refund from the IRS had been applied to my New State Tax bill. That was not enough, she stated to me that, "since you failed to file your expense budget with us along with the declination letters that a levy was placed on your accounts until the taxes are paid." When I explained that if you would process my amendments you will see that I owe very little or nothing at all, and, the levy will place me in a hardship position, the answer was a clear, " I don’t care. That is the LAW". Sure enough my bank account was seized, which will not allow me to pay my student loans, and will force me to leave my new job, because I cannot be in default of any federal loans. Also my check is direct deposited to that account but if it is frozen, I cannot get paid so I have no money to get to work, again I loose my Job. But, I can go back on Unemployment.

I have sent letters to the Labor Department, the Tax Department, and Senator Volker’s office, I really don’t expect a response. Why? People in our State offices don’t care about you as long as they get paid. I am owed over $7,000 in back pay from a former employer. New York State Labor Dept. decided that I am owed that money, but the employer refuses to pay. An order to comply has been sent, that was 2 years ago. Do you think that New York has put a levy on their accounts? Do you think that the Labor Department is pushing hard get the money I am owed? But the Tax Department will go after me for money I really don’t owe, and put me back in unemployment to show that they can.

So this questions came to my mind, Why is it our Federal Government can be compassionate and understanding, and help you through a rough time, and New York State can’t? It’s because the Federal Government understands that they are there to serve the people, and things do happen that can cause a hardship. New York has the attitude that the people serve the State, an attitude that goes back to the time of kings and dukes, where the serves support the wealth of the kingdom and the serves get the scraps left over.

But this is the 21^st Century, the power still resides in the people of this State, and our elected officials know this. They want your vote. Make them work for it. During these campaigns start asking questions. What have you done for ME? What are you going to do for ME? How will you serve ME? That may sound selfish, but your tax money pays their salary, their comfort of living. It’s only right to demand fair treatment from our State Officials, and our State Government. That is what we should be voting for, a fair State Government that serves the people instead of enslaving the people. One that understands and helps, instead of condemning and punishing those who are doing the best they can. And bring to Justice those who work the System, no matter how big they are.

***

Jon Coykendall lives in Castile, New York.