Last week was Medicaid week, based on data I have collected and want to let people see. That was planned. This week is turning out to be public employee pension week. That was not planned, but is in response to an excellent series the Times has produced on the subject. Better than anything the Times has done on any subject where I have specific knowledge in years. Today, the Times smoked out the three remaining major party candidates for Governor on the state legislature’s practice of granting New York City public employee pension sweeteners over the objection of New York City. For the most part, all three candidates answered the same, but even so, Suozzi had the best answer.
With pensions sucking up all available dollars, and taxes being raised and services cut to pay for them, public employee unions and politicians have pointed fingers in a circle. The politicians didn’t contribute enough money, the unions say. Benefits must be reduced, some of the politicians say. The Times correctly points out that part of the hole was created by pension sweeteners, and part by under-funding, agreed to for the mutual benefit of the pols and the soon-to-be men and women of leisure, to the detriment of everyone else. They ask the right questions.
Faso had the worst answer. Then again, he was in a position of having to defend votes in favor of all those pension sweeteners, which tend to pass the state legislature without a single “no” vote, down through the years. So he defended voting for an after-the-fact cost of living increase that public employees had neither worked nor bargained for, on the ground that their pensions had eroded in value and they “needed” it. He didn’t indicate similar concern for the needs of the 50 percent of private sector workers who do not even have retirement plans, nor the additional 30 percent who only have 401K plans. Just as he has indicated no concern for the children of New York City, who have been victimized by an unfair school aid formula for all these years.
On the other hand, he did say he had regrets about voting for a reduced employee pension contribution that increased the take-home pay of public employees with 10 or more seniority while they were providing services to the people of New York City. And, he suggested he favored less generous benefits for future hires. The practice of granting enrichments for those cashing in and moving out in every stock market boom, followed by pay and benefit reductions for new employees in every bear market, and of providing rich pensions for those not working and lower pay for those who do, has left New York City with both high and soaring labor costs and in some cases unqualified and less motivated public employees. Not his problem. Republicans like Faso don’t seem to think New York City residents are entitled to public services. They prefer that public employees who would otherwise have to commute to the city from the suburbs be paid to do nothing instead.
Faso’s answer is indicative of what has gone wrong with Republican Party. Lots of spending seems to be OK as long as it goes to special deals for the few, not services for all or benefits for the needy, as long as it is paid for later rather than now, and as long and New York City or places like it are hurt the most.
Spitzer had a weak answer. He had a spokesman say “Eliot opposes legislative changes to pension benefits that were not agreed to in collective bargaining and did not receive support from local governments that are obligated to pay the benefits.” That’s weak not only because he didn’t say it himself, but also because he didn’t say why he opposes such changes. He didn’t say they were wrong, unfair to those not benefiting, inequitable to those less well off. Without any reasons or values behind it, it is hard to be confident about the solidity of that pledge, or to generalize from it to similar issues.
Moreover, the sweeteners are wrong even if the local politicians agree. Why? For exactly the reasons the Times pointed out in earlier articles. The pension plan assumptions can be gamed to present the fiction that sweeteners and reduced contributions cost nothing. The consequences come later, when the pols have moved on and the unions say “screw you the Constitution says our benefits can’t be cut.” That’s what has gone on in the past. It is still going on now. I’m hopeful about Spitzer, but the fact that he is backed by all those benefitting from and making those deals makes me nervous.
Suozzi had the best answer. “I’d veto every one of them put on my desk…We already have the highest combined state and local taxes in America, and one of the most generous pension systems in the country… It is one of the dark secrets of Albany: During the dark winter days of the legislative session, lobbyists slither around the hallways garnering more benefits for their clients. This forces local governments — that have no say whatsoever in the rewarding of the benefits — to cause their property taxes to go up.”
He could have gone further, and talked about equity with those who work in the private sector and pay the bills, and about the negative effect of paying public employee less to provide services but promising something for nothing for those who want it. But Suozzi comes from Nassau, where civil servants get high pay and rich pensions, and those who work in the private sector are for the most part richly paid too. New York City, where private sector workers are poorer, and recent civil servants are paid less to offset the rich pensions of those who came before, has a different situation.
Still, I’ll take his answer. Let’s hope there is some principles behind what Spitzer’s spokesperson said he said, and that he is prepared to apply the same standards, perhaps liberal standards, to all. Perhaps there is more there, but without a quote from the man himself, the Times didn’t see fit to print it. Faso? Forget it. He’s closer to being an honest Republican, a one set of rules for everyone conservative, than Pataki. But not close enough.