After several months of posting data and complaints, I have spent the last month detailing what I would do at the state level if it were up to me. Now that I’m on record, the reader will have some appreciation of my perspective as I attempt to judge the policies of the next administration in Albany. I really won’t know what they have done until the data comes in some years later, since you cannot go by what they say, but I’ll try my best. My point of view, however, isn’t just a collection of initiatives, or even root-and-branch overhauls, such as I have written about thus far. It is a set of policies and priorities the spring directly from fundamental principles. Do expect any of my specific suggestions to be enacted next year? No. But I am hoping that state government will move closer to the operating principles I would like to see, and farther from those that have been in effect in recent decades. As a summary, I’ll plagiarize what I wrote when I was a candidate for (or rather against) state –legislature as to what those principles theirs and mine — are.
First, I have reverse-engineered the principles of the Pataki-Bruno-Silver administration by examining the policies the state has pursued, and working backward to the principles they must be based on.
The State of New York is one of the most inequitable state governments in the United States.
It is the land of the special deals for the "special" people. Most state residents and businesses face relatively high taxes, and some receive poor services, but politically influential businesses get special tax exemptions, and politically influential non-profits, contractors and unions get high prices, staffing levels, and early retirement for those cashing in and moving out. Those who benefit from unearned privilege in New York, even those in the private sector or in local government, generally have some state law or regulation ensuring that privilege. For the State of New York's political leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, the equal protection clause of the constitution is more honored in the breach than in the observance.
Project the current trends forward into the future, and someday the state budget will be several hunderd million lines long, with a specific tax rate and appropriation level for every revenue source and expenditure for every individual person, which will be larger or smaller according to some deal. It is government by tax break and member item through and through.
The State of New York is the most stagnant state government in the United States.
For at least 30 years the same set of politicians, backed by the same set of interests, have shared power in Albany, with Democrats controlling the State Assembly and Republicans the State Senate. And they have done very well for themselves. If the goal of the Republicans is to force ordinary people to accept less in public services, and the goal of the Democrats is to get them to pay more for it, in New York State both have succeeded. With both major parties in on the deal, the public, though dissatisfied, has nowhere to turn. People get one choice in voting for the state legislature: the incumbent. Moreover, with the state's population changing, but the same old faces in Albany supported by those who are moving away, the state runs its finances as if the future will be someone else's problem. New York State cheats its future to enrich those with one foot out the door.
The State of New York represents feudalism, American style.
Under capitalism, you get what you earn, at least in theory. Those who believe that people need an incentive to work and innovate can agree with that. Under socialism, you get what you need, at least in theory. Those who believe that we are all part of one human family can agree with that. But over time, when you have the same group of people in power, both capitalism and socialism degenerate into feudalism, under which the privileged expect to continue to get what they have been getting, and perhaps a little more, whether they need it or not, deserve it or not. For those who have real needs, and who produce real earnings, it's just tough luck. The feudalism of unearned privilege explains much about the state of the State of New York, where all past deals are set in stone. Every time the economy is up and the state’s fiscal situation improves, the winners get more and/or contribute less. And every time the economy slumps the losers pay more and get less – not that its what the politicians choose, it’s “inevitable” and “can’t be helped” due to “circumstances.’
New York State's governments provide poor value for the tax dollar.
Like many people in my community, I am willing to pay more in taxes to receive quality public services, and to ensure that the needy are taken care of. In New York, however, we do pay more, in many cases we do not receive quality public services, and in many cases the needy are not taken care of. In a low tax state, like Virginia, Alabama or Tennessee, I'd be advocating higher taxes. In New York, that isn't the problem. A career public servant, I am well aware of the unappreciated quality work that many public employees and contractors do, and the fact that many, especially those in lower pension tiers and with less seniority, are neither overpaid nor unproductive. The fact is, however, that because public employees and contractors are among the few organized and active interests in state government, New Yorkers receive poor value for the tax dollar.
Both major political parties pander to the selfish and irresponsible.
Aside from lobbyists who are just out for a dollar, politics appears to be driven by two different concepts of the word "freedom" that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, one good and the other (for lack of a better word) evil. The good freedom might be called freedom of identity, or of lifestyle. For a brief period after World War II, many Americans believed that if you didn't look like, act like, think like, and live like everyone else, then you shouldn't be accepted. The idea of America as a land of social conformity is mostly gone, but politicians can still get elected by manipulating 35 year old resentments with tribal appeals to groups of people, and the invocation of "values" issues on which they have no intention of changing anything. Sadly, tribal politics determines how many people vote, among those who vote at all. They are suckers.
The evil idea of freedom is freedom from responsibility, which has both a "liberal" and a "conservative" version, depending on which responsibilities one does not want to meet. Liberal Democrats have sought to attract votes by telling the poor and not so poor, the old and not so old, the sick and not so sick, and others that they do not have personal responsibilities to work and earn their own living, or to take care of their family members. To knowledgeable critics, their excuse for irresponsibility has been "social realism, " the assertion that this is the way people live today (because they are free to live that way) and government programs, paid for by someone else, must limit the damage. And they have cultivated a sense of entitlement to assistance, causing recipients of public benefits to feel anger at anyone who dares to make demands on them in exchange.
Conservatives and Republicans have sought to attract votes by telling the better off that they do not have social responsibilities to their communities, to the less well off, to the rest of the world, and to the future, particularly with regard to taxes and debt, but also with regard to the environment. To knowledgeable critics, their excuse for irresponsibility has been "economic realism, " the assertion that the affluent are self interested and mobile, and if you make demands on them for the benefit of others, or for the benefit of the future, they will take their assets and go elsewhere, leaving you worse off than before. They also cultivate a sense of entitlement, telling the affluent that their position of privilege is the result of their own moral superiority, not social advantages or luck or (as the business scandals show) worse, and that they do not owe anything to anyone in exchange for it.
That is what we have. What is it that I want?
I Want Equity and Simplicity in Government
I believe that the burdens of government, financial and otherwise, should be limited to those that the government is willing to impose equally on everyone, or at least on everyone in equal circumstances. I believe that government protections and guarantees should be limited to those that the government is willing to provide equally to everyone, or at least to everyone in equal circumstances. I believe that public services should be limited to those the government is willing to provide equally to everyone, or at least to everyone in equal circumstances, and to those that people are required to pay for, or to work or make sacrifices in exchange for. I believe that the only circumstances that should be used to differentiate people in order to allocate burdens and benefits are those that are clear, simple, irrefutable, nearly impossible to fake, and do not rely in any way on judgment. In New York, complexity is just a way to cover up inequity. Anything that isn't simple is a rip-off.
I want member items, other special deals, tax breaks, exclusions, and benefits, repealed, not offset by even more deals and breaks to “even things out.” I don’t want small more initiatives and programs: if it doesn’t cost $100 million or more or substantially affect 100,000 people or more, I don’t even want to hear about it, and perhaps the state shouldn’t even bother doing it. Instead every existing deal should be held each up to scrutiny, and its beneficiaries asked"why it is fair" given the taxes others must pay and the basic services, often inadequate, that others receive? And may I direct your attention to Article 16, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution, which states that “the power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away…exemptions may be altered or repealed.” That’s what I want, for the deals to be altered or repealed – even those that benefit me, as long as all of the others are repealed at the same time. Special deals are like weeds — we will never get rid of them, but if no one fights to keep them in check, they eventually choke off everything else.
I Want Generational Equity
At one time, the U.S. was not very good to its senior citizens. In 1950, the suicide rate for people age 65 to 74 was 29.3 per 100,000, while for those age 15 to 24 it was just 4.5. In 1969, the percent of persons age 65 and over in poverty was 25.3 percent, compared with just 13.8 percent for those under age 18. In the 1950s and 1960s, before Medicare and the creation of other senior benefits, everything was for the children and the young, while the old, who had worked and sacrificed, were neglected and forgotten. Today things are just as inequitable, but in the opposite direction. Rising federal, state and local debts will burden future generations, but few major infrastructure improvements are built. Multi-tier labor contracts provide enriched compensation for those with seniority, but diminished benefits more recent employees. The suicide rate for persons age 65 to 74 fell by half to 15.0 per 100,000 by 1996, while that of those age 15 to 24 nearly tripled to 12.0. In 2002 only 10.4 percent of Americans age 65 and over were poor, compared with 16.3 percent of those under age 18. Today's elderly are not, on average, the most needy anymore.
It is time that this state shift the priorities in favor of the young, the future, and the newly hired. Yes, we need to do right by the seniors, but we need to do right by someone other than the seniors as well. The expansion of debt should stop, but the ongoing renewal of our infrastructure should continue, paid for out of current revenues. There should be no more public employee pension enhancements, no more deferral of the cost of existing pensions, and no more contracts that pay for a better deal for those cashing in and moving out through lower pay and benefits for new hires. Until we have health care for all of the uninsured, the expansion of the number covered should have an absolute priority over any additional care for existing beneficiaries. If anything, those beneficiaries should be giving things up so others can get something. And the victimization of New York City’s children via the state school aid formula, among other things, should end.
I Want People to Be Challenged to Meet Personal and Social Responsibilities
Some people are grateful for what they have and try, over the course of their lives, to contribute more to others than they have received themselves. I am very grateful to my neighbors who have worked to build up our community, running soccer leagues, organizing the rehabilitation of the parks, working to improve the schools, providing services as volunteers in churches and other organizations, and taking care of their family members. I am also grateful for the many assets and institutions provided to us by prior generations, assets and institutions that contribute to our lives today. New York State politics, however, is dominated by those seeking to leave life with a "profit" by imposing a loss on others. Quickly acclimated with and bored by whatever they have, made to feel envious and inadequate by television commercials selling what they don't, far too many people feel needy today. Our state capital is a place where people are focused on themselves.
If you are a net contributor to those with greater needs, you are a good person. If you are a net contributor to those with a greater sense of entitlement, and a greater willingness and ability to work the system, then you are a patsy. Our state politicians have become perpetual incumbents by pandering to the organized selfish, and telling them what they want to hear. I want the next administation to tell it like it is, let the losers know who they are, and challenge people to do better. It is time to pay attention to the responsible and considerate people of this community and this state, and ensure that their net contributions go to the needy, and to future generations, not to the greedy.
I Want Fair Value For My Tax Dollar
There is an exchange of value between private-sector workers and public-sector workers, with each working to provide goods and services for the other, but there is a critical difference in the way each is paid. In the private market all transactions are voluntary, and if the seller does not provide "fair value" in goods or services, the customer may go elsewhere for a better deal. Whenever there is a monopoly, it assumed that consumers are vulnerable to abuse. In the public sector, on the other hand, money is collected from the "customers" up front in taxes, and is paid to public employees and contractors regardless of whether the customers are satisfied. The question is, given that the government almost always is a monopoly, do the customers receive "fair value" in exchange? The answer is often "no."
New York's state and local politics are by dominated by the representatives of the producers, who have a far greater financial incentive to organize and pay attention to the details of public policy, such as labor contracts and bidding procedures. In an era in which virtually all incumbent legislators at the state and local level are re-elected, generally unopposed, the money required to keep challengers off the November ballot is more important, politically, than votes. Public employee unions and contractor organizations claim to represent the interests of those they serve, but when push comes to shove they look out for their members, or just those with seniority or retired, or even just themselves. And when there is opposition, it is generally from wealthy interests that do not require public services themselves, and do not want to pay for them in taxes. Thus, "consumers" of public services are often unrepresented – especially in the state legislature. This makes our state uncompetitive as a decent place to live. The next administation needs to place the needs of consumers of public services first.
Will I get what I want? We’ll see. I’ll try to be hopeful.