Thomas DiNapoli, having been appointed State Comptroller by Speaker Sheldon Silver and the rest of the State Assembly in the wake of the now-convicted Alan Hevesi’s resignation, is running for election against a Republican opponent, Harry Wilson. My general voting rule is to vote against all Republicans at the federal level, on generational equity grounds. To vote against all Democrats at the local level, because they always support the interests of producers of public services (who in NYC often live elsewhere but contribute to campaigns here) against the interests of those who use those services, whether that is fair or not. And to vote against all incumbents of either party at the state level in New York, where politicians of both parties are guilty of both offenses.
Thus far the campaign for State Comptroller has revolved around one issue, albeit an important one, the proper assumed future rate of return for assets of the New York State pension system. This ignores, among other things, the New York City pension system (some times it seems like DiNapoli and Wilson are running for Comptroller of a state that New York City is not part of), the fair level of pension benefits, all those pension enhancements, the level of past employee and taxpayer contributions and the fair level of both, and the debt and capital investment issues I covered in the previous two posts. For these ignored reasons, as illuminated by the information presented in those posts (which you should read), I will not be voting in favor of DiNapoli remaining State Comptroller.
All elected officials are responsible for securing the collective future of those who live in their communities, along with the present, but the State Comptroller and their local counterparts are specifically charged with defending the future first and foremost. It is the Comptrollers who, in a better world, citizens might have the right to expect would lean against the political impulse to take the easy way out, and close one’s eyes to the consequences. Can someone who voted, repeatedly, to make politically organized members of his own generation better off, at the expense of the future of the state and the people who live in it, without disclosing the truth about what was being done, really be expected to tell the truth about why taxes are rising and services are being cut, and who benefitted on the other end of the deal, when that diminished future arrives?
As a member of the State Assembly, DiNapoli voted for all those retroactive pension enhancements and “incentives,” deals will lead to soaring burdens on this state in future years, deals that benefitted his political supporters and in some cases himself. He voted for budgets that failed to properly fund those pensions, and ran up additional debts besides. He acted in all cases as a fully accredited member of Generation Greed, grabbing for his crowd today, and leaving the bills for people he doesn’t’ care about tomorrow. With particular pension pain directed at the City of New York, where his Nassau County constituents did not live but many worked for the city and wanted to go on working for a short a period of time as possible before walking off with as much loot as they could. The very City of New York where he, as a Democrat, expects to gain most of the votes required for him to be elected in his own right.
Since being appointed Comptroller DiNapoli, like his predecessors, has at times talked the talk, tut tutting about the effect of debts, the condition of the infrastructure, the future cost of pensions and retiree health insurance, etc. etc. Some times he took on the air of a reformed sinner. But he never challenged the ongoing sellout of the future by his former mates in the legislature in a way that showed he meant it. And in some cases, he continued to join right in. Let’s take some examples.
Having voted repeatedly to enrich the pensions of his own generation, and his political supporters, he now touts the fact that future employees will have less generous pensions. And only future employees. The future employees who will have to be attracted and motivated if decent public services are to be provided. No existing employee or retiree, no beneficiary of all those retroactive deals, has been asked to give back anything. In fact, as part of that very deal to create a Tier V some of those in older generations got yet another pension “incentive” to retire even earlier. As I showed, such deals make pension costs soar, and sooner or later taxpayers have to pay for them. We are still facing service cuts and tax increases for pension incentives pushed through decades earlier, but not paid for at the time.
Either the pensions DiNapoli’s generation received are fair, on the re-instated Tier IV pensions some future group of public employees will receive (and those of DiNapoli’s generation were promised when hired) are fair. Not both. So which is it? So Comptroller DiNapoli, just how many more enrichments should older generations of public employee get, and how much worse off should younger generations of public employees be to pay for it? And does this policy of yours – make your own generation better off and future generations worse off – extend beyond public employee pensions? There is evidence that it does, if the record of the state legislature over the past 20 years is an indication.
And if imposing lower pension benefits for future public employees is such a fair thing, why was the New York City pension system not included? The data shows the NYC pension system is in as bad shape as the worst off states, and yet the State Comptroller who allegedly represents the people of New York City in his new job has had nothing to say about it. Particularly when it might have made a difference.
A State Comptroller might have been expected to raise some objections when Mayor Bloomberg and the United Federation of Teachers cut a deal to allow teachers to retire years earlier, and claimed it would cost nothing. After all, several generations of NYC children had been given an inadequate education, in part because an unusually large share of the city’s school spending went to the retired. Was early retirement, for teachers who didn’t want to work as long as most people have to work, really the top educational priority as resources became scarce? Why was Randi Weingarten allowed to describe the deal as a “win for children.”
Unlike the Giuliani pension deal of the mid-1990s, New York City teachers were NOT required to buy back past years of service to get this enhancement. Just pay more going forward. Which means a big cost to future teachers, who will be paying their entire careers. But not one dime to those who got to walk out the door years early in 2008, and very little from those who will be walking out within a few years. Now spending in the city’s classrooms is being cut over and over, even as total spending on the school system, including pensions and retiree health care, is rising. Because money is once again being shifted from the classroom to the early retired. This is what Bloomberg and the teacher’s union wanted. This is what the State Legislature wanted. This is why DiNapoli was put into the Controller’s chair for by that state legislature. To keep his mouth shut.
Even Alan Hevesi had the decency to object when former Mayor Giuliani wanted to sell the city’s water system to the state government, in exchange for a short term hit of easy money he could spread around while running for higher office, funded by debts.
Across the full range of public employees New York City’s taxpayer pension contributions are soaring, and are already far above what local governments in the rest of the state pay. Public services continue to be cut to pay for them.
As a result of past underfunding, taxpayer pension contributions are going to have to soar for local governments in the rest of the state too, to keep the New York State pension system from getting in as much trouble as the New York City pension system. But soaring pension contributions are going to lead to the kind of tax increases and public service cuts New York City has already had, and that will be unpopular.
So what does Comptroller DiNapoli propose? Even more underfunding! By having the state and local governments outside New York City borrow against the state pension funds, rather than make their required contributions. And by continuing to assert that future investment returns will be higher than they are likely to be.
After a few years of this, what will happen when local governments in the rest of the state face even more devastating tax increases and service cuts to pay off those debts? Will local governments elsewhere in the state get a state tax funded bailout, paid for in part by New York City taxpayers who are already paying more for their own public employee pensions? Is that already happening? And if Comptroller DiNapoli believes a far lower level of pension contributions is too much of a burden for taxpayers elsewhere in New York State, why has he not said a word about the far greater burden New York City residents already face? Not one word.
Is Comptroller DiNapoli aware that New York City’s local government employment is significantly lower than in 1990, while in the rest of the state local government employment is up by 130,000 future pension recipients? Sure he is. Does New York City face more austerity to pay for this? He doesn't say. It isn't his problem. Ensuring the well being of politically connected people who are moving to Florida is his problem.
Comptroller DiNapoli is Assemblymember DiNapoli, part of a generation and cabal that has exploited the future of this state and done special harm to New York City. As State Comptroller, he has acted as if New York City does not exist. I’m not saying I’m voting for Harry Wilson – that deal hasn’t been sealed. But I’m not voting for DiNapoli. Just as I wouldn’t vote for any state legislator who has voted in favor of selling out my future, to benefit those with one foot out the door.