As someone who’s done more than his share of grousing about the Albany Bi-Partisan Iron Triangle (see also here, here,here, and here, for starters), I should be glad that any NYC daily is at long last taking an interest in a town where they haven’t managed decent day to day coverage for my entire adult lifetime, but today’s Daily News’ “State of Shame” is really a title better applied to the organ which published it, as well as to its competitors in mediocrity (in fairness, I should note that, as inadequate as the News' Albany coverage is, it does a decent job on its blog).

I was asked yesterday why there is suddenly so much talk, in publications like the Wall Street Journal, about the unearned privileges and exploitations of the “political class?” And why there is so much populist posturing by Washington Democrats against executives at companies such as AIG, from which they were accepting campaign contributions in large denominations just a year or two ago? Let’s review. For 30 years, two kinds of people have been getting richer. Top executives who sit on each others’ boards and vote each other an ever larger share of private sector wealth. And today’s senior citizens, the richest in history, particularly retired public employees, and public employees who do not deign to do their jobs, who suck up a larger and larger share of public sector resources as a result of their control state legislatures and Congress, in the absence of contested elections (which are no longer permitted for such offices).

Everyone else has been getting poorer, but this has been covered up in two ways. By having their losses postponed to the future — in the form of lost pensions and health benefits that aren’t so important when one is young and healthy. And by having people go deeper and deeper into debt so their spending doesn’t decline with income. But today the cover up is no longer possible. The standard of living of most Americans is dropping severely, their taxes are rising, their public services and benefits are being cut, and their paper wealth is disappearing. Neither the political class nor the executive class is willing to give anything back, but they do want to deflect blame. So they are pointing fingers at each other.

I sense that most of us who are active in New York City’s political arena have ambiguous feelings about the need for a public advocate, and I base that on years and years of conversations on this topic with fellow activists. Even people who aren’t very “political” have waded in on the longstanding debate over the utility of this office, and its role and function in city government. In fact, there have been times when the generic conversation(s) appeared to be abolition of this office, and the saving of millions in staff salaries and OTP. Even Mayor Bloomberg has had choice words for the office, and he has at times joined the debate to give his most afforded opinion -negative of course.

While no New York elected official can get through any public statement without using the words “senior citizen,” other states are very concerned with keeping and attracting the young. Connecticut for example, based on this article in the Hartford Courant: “State Has To Reverse Aging.” Is the Courant concerned about the young leaving because that might mean Connecticut isn’t a good place for them? No. They are worried for a reason that even the New York State Legislature could appreciate: the need for someone to pay taxes for older generations to go on living the style they have promised themselves. “OK, you may say, we have a smaller state, so what? Less traffic. Easier to get UConn tickets.” But “with the best and brightest in San Jose, and a large elderly population here, who will pay the taxes? The casinos? So before the state turns into one big Medicaid nursing home, we need to get moving. We need to improve the business climate and enhance the quality of life so we can create and attract real jobs. We need to stop building so much ‘active adult’ housing for people leaving the workforce and build something for the people trying to enter the workforce.”

Housing is a reason for young people to leave Connecticut, a reason the housing bust might reverse. But there are many reasons for young people to leave, or not move to, New York, a place where they are seen as cows to be milked by everyone who matters in Albany. While they have abandoned the rest of the state, the young continue to arrive in New York City — for reasons having nothing to do with Albany. I guess we’re going to find out how desperate they are to live here in this recession, as the vested interests take from those without deals more and more and offer less and less in return.

The following appeared in Thursday’s Daily News

Jews and Muslims will have a tougher time burying the dead before sundown because a slash in state funds will delay issuing death certificates, the city's chief medical examiner warned Wednesday.

The coroner's office is facing a 27% cut in state aid, leading the agency to propose 300 layoffs, about half the staff.

So I know that politics isn’t a game: it is serious stuff; very serious stuff. When I call it a game, I am just talking figuratively that’s all. And when I call it “the only game in town”, it’s because I know that if the “politics” of any state or country isn’t right, then society can deteriorate into chaos, confusion, anarchy, civil-war, revolution, hardships and/or strife. Societies go (break down) as “politics” go. Diplomacy is politics without war, and war is surely politics without diplomacy. 

It is known that the United States of America has had its share of the growing pains that accompany political development. Examples abound: The Revolutionary War; the Civil War of 1861 thru 1865; the Great Depression; and also the days of Jim Crow. If those were games then they weren’t enjoyable for many. But people do play games, it’s human nature. And we play games every night and every day. “We never mean what we say and we seldom say what we mean”. And also, some who do say what they mean (and try to mean what they say), hardly ever seem to think of what the fuck they are really saying.  And that’s why I hate “poli-tricks” sometimes. 

According to an article in Newsday, the current MTA funding crisis is the result of decisions made nine years ago, when the state legislature passed the 2000 to 2004 MTA Capital Plan. “Nine years ago, in collaboration with state officials, the mighty investment company Bear Stearns played a special role in shaping the course on which the region's transit system now finds itself” according to this source. “Not only did this financial titan advise the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on a five-year, $17-billion capital program, but more notably its executives personally sold the plan to state lawmakers – helping generate commissions for the firm while temporarily funding mass transit. From today's perspective, of course, the deal represents fiscal risk and folly. Bear's collapse a year ago signaled other global financial failures to come, and the debts carried by the state-run MTA drive its latest threat of massive fare hikes and sharp service cuts.” That’s true as far as it goes, but a highly incomplete picture. In fact, that capital plan was one of a series of similar decisions and deals that sold out the future that has now arrived. Every decision has been like that, for closer to 25 years than nine. And not just at the MTA.

As Albany goes around and around, looking for a way to seize more from the future to offset the damage they did to the present in the past, you may ask “what should they do” about the MTA meltdown. Take a time machine back and undo what they have done is the most reasonable answer. But back in early 2008 I did write a series of posts describing the problem with the MTA Capital Plan and stating what should be done about it. Things the state legislature would never do. Here was my review of the MTA Capital plan proposed along with congestion pricing who says there is no plan?), the MTA’s capital plan costs, and the way the plan should be financed. In the latter case, the words “tolls” could be substituted for “congestion pricing.”

On a related subject, my proposal for what the state ought to do about the pension disaster can generally be found at the end of rants about the pension issue overall. For those who don’t read to the end, however, here it is: the state should mandate by legislation that the employer’s contribution to such pensions should, in all years regardless of returns, be 8 percent for most employees, 12 percent for those who lift heavy loads or work outside in all weather, and 15 percent for public safety jobs such as police and fire. (Except that New York’s governments should also pay back all the years in the past 15 when their contributions were below this level, and thus too low). The employees should be required to pay the rest, whatever is required based on investment returns and other factors, each year. Thus, they would also pay for any pension enhancements, not just in theory based on an excessive “presumed” rate of return, but in reality based on the actual rate of return.

The New York Observer is reporting that New York City will propose a relaxation of regulations that limit the opening of new supermarkets in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Leading the charge is City Planning director Amanda Burden. “With land use rule changes a centerpiece of the plan, Ms. Burden’s agency, the Department of City Planning, has been pushing the effort with the city’s Economic Development Corporation. Now, a Planning spokeswoman said the city hopes to launch the plan in coming months.” The proposal will apparently reduce parking requirements for new supermarkets, and allow them to open in manufacturing districts without a special permit that takes years to obtain, a restriction dating back to 1974 and the fear that competition from stores was responsible for the decline of manufacturing in the city. Among those quoted in the article is Richard Lipsky, who said “the draft policies were a ‘good step,’ but do not go far enough” to turn around the shrinking number of submarkets in the city. He wants the city to give precedence to new supermarkets when selling off new land.

I guess that since no one remembers what happened at point in time A people can pretty much ignore it once they get to point in time B, whether in public finance or in zoning. I don’t run into my former colleagues who still toil at DCP that often these days, but I can imagine how exasperated some of them are. Let’s take the Wayback Machine to the early-to-mid 1990s to put this issue in perspective, and then go Back to the Future an imagine what else might be prevented from coming along.

For those of you wondering how I can see stuff coming, all that is required is that you pay attention. One might have noticed, for example, Secretary of State Clinton imploring the Chinese government to keep buy U.S. Treasury bills, notes and bonds — in effect a poorer than average country lending money so one of the world’s richest countries can spend. I had predicted earlier that as a result of 25 years of deficits that don’t matter, the next U.S. President would end up begging for money around the world. This was followed, yesterday, by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao admitting that he was worried about whether the $1 trillion China was already lent the United States will be paid back, and asking for “guarantees.” That is the lead story in the Financial Times today. Larry Summers, President Obama’s economic advisor, and several other administration officials released statements that the administration is committed to “long-term” fiscal stability in reply. Looks like the Republican “starve the beast” plan to destroy the government might succeed just in time.

Meaning younger generations can expect drastically higher tax rates, and perhaps will not receive benefits like Social Security and Medicare, so China can be paid back, but please keep sending money now so Generation Greed can continue to receive everything believes it is entitled to without paying for all of it. The kids will pay it back in the long run, guaranteed. Or is it?