Michigan is a state much like our own. For years it has been run by and for those who have, let’s say, a very good deal as a result of their political and market power, to the detriment of the future and everyone else. Enough was taken out, and little enough put in, that younger generations of Michigan residents, if they choose to stay, are much less well off than older generations. The recession has accelerated the process. And like New York, Michigan has charged the retired, and particularly retired public employees, much lower taxes than those who are working are forced to pay, and handed tax breaks to large and oligopolistic corporations concentrated in a single industry while nailing new entrepreneurs with taxes. Governor Paterson even sent a chill up my spine by saying New York politicians should continue to back the power and privileges of the dwindling number of financial companies the way Michigan politicians backed the Big Three, to save jobs. Michigan has lost 18.0% of its jobs since 2000, along with hundreds of thousands of people. It’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is over 15.0%.

Suddenly, however, the Detroit Free Press has run a series of articles on a subject that no New York mainstream media outlet, let alone New York politician, is willing to talk about: should the state income tax system begin to charge the retired the same rate as workers pay on the same income? Before there are no workers left in the state to pay for and provide services to the retired.

I couldn't let a recent Daily News article pass without comment. Earlier we heard that many of those collecting signatures to get incumbent state legislators on the ballot were either staff members employed by those legislators, or employees of non-profits primarily or exclusively funded via grants from those legislators. Now today we hear that legislative staff members also served as campaign treasurers, a difficult job involving a lot of paper and use of a state computer program. No wonder those legislators don't see complicated ballot access and campaign finance rules as a problem. Evidently it isn't enough for them to collect money from lobbyists to fund their campaigns, and sell their votes in office for access to member items they hand out as if they were Santa Claus. They also expect, back door, for taxpayers to fund their signature collectors and campaign treasurers.

It was only about a decade ago that former Governor George Pataki and MTA head Virgil Conway, who were loading the agency with billions in debt so their generation could have things they didn’t have to pay for (with some getting more than others), generously decided that the half fare for senior citizens on subways, buses and trains would be available 24/7. As I recall, the federal government had required that such discounts be available in off peak hours. And now, as all those debts come due (and not just at the MTA), the agency is proposing to eliminate school passes for NYC school children, no matter how poor they are. The senior discounts, which are available no matter how affluent someone over 65 is, of course, would remain untouched. A two-part decision just like all the rest.

No doubt there will be lots of tut-tutting about this, by the rationalizers and hypocrites. On TV I just saw former state legislator Stringer, who generously voted for all those debts, all those pension enhancements, all those diversions of funds to more powerful interests, all those grasps at funds by his generation, saying how terrible it was. Perhaps this will be seen as a gambit to cut actual education at the schools further, and shift the money to the MTA. Except that as a result of the 25/55 pension deal of two years ago, education is eventually going to be slashed as much as transit service in any event. So perhaps Mayor Bloomberg might decide to stop going along with the propaganda and use this as “teachable moment.” And instead of going through the motions of a deal that makes the children even worse off but pretends to help them, instead back an all out effort to substitute bicycles for transit for the city’s school children.

“Governor David A. Paterson today signed into law pension reform legislation that will provide more than $35 billion in long-term savings to New York taxpayers over the next thirty years.” So cutting the pay of future public employees is described as a reform. But enriching the pay, after the past, of past and current public employees was also described as a reform. As most people use the word, one of these was in fact a robbery.

So what does reform mean in Albany? Adjusting the standard of living and quality of life of different groups of people, particularly different generations of people, to more accurately reflect the fact that some people matter and some people don’t?

Capital Confidential is reporting that people can watch live footage of Tier V being signed, with much cheering. I hope that some honest TV news organization will pair this footage with file footage of George Pataki signing the massive pension enhancement bill in 2000. And report that the latter is what older generations gave to themselves, and the former is a decision to make younger people worse off to pay for it. One of many such decisions.

The State Budget office, according to this source, has a budget calculator showing how much money will be saved by cutting the pensions of future public employees. Those savings will not be felt for years. But there is no such calculator showing the cost of past unearned retroactive pension enhancements, enhancements that were described, if they were described at all, as costing zero. Almost all of the state legislators who voted for Tier V also voted for and will personally benefit from those enhancements, including Governor Paterson (when he was a State Senator). Cutting benefits for future generartions is the politician's and union's share of shared sacrifice, they will likely say while our taxes soar and services are gutted. And unlike the "savings" from Tier V in the calculator, the cost of what they have done includes New York City.

I have two responses to the conviction of Joe Bruno on two counts for petty corruption. First, if Joe Bruno is guilty they all are (or rather since Joe Bruno is guilty they all are). And second, considering what this generation of state legislators have done to the common future of the state and anyone who will be living in it, this is the equivalent of convicting Al Capone for tax evasion rather than murder. While petty corruption is annoying, there is a limit to the extent it is damaging. Far more damage has been done by deals and non-decisions for which no one has been put on trial. I never cared about the helicopter rides, etc. The problem was and is the transfer of resources from everyone in the future (now the present) to provide unearned privileges to those manipulating the system in the present (now the past), all without any public accounting or debate, all hidden, all lied about.