Tag: Albany

The public employee retirement system contains a slew of inequities that benefit the politically powerful – public employees with seniority – at the expense of everyone else, including more recently hired public employees, and the future.  These inequities and negative future consequences grow year-by-year, contract-by-contract, one act of the state legislature after another.

Public employees aren’t grateful for their rich pensions, if their unions are to be believed.   Instead they resent the modest pay that often comes with a public sector career, sometimes using it as a rationalization for modest performance.  And low pay and limited respect, combined with rich pensions, affects the type of worker the government can attract.  Along with increasingly cynical and disappointed idealists that signed on out some idea of “public service,” public agencies tend to attract only those who, from their first day of work, look forward to not working. 

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit, if it is to ever come of anything, will not only include more equitable funding for New York City’s schools (or at least higher, though still inequitable funding) but also increased “accountability” for those schools.  That is what the court decisions call for, and that seems reasonable, given that the city’s schools have been so bad for so long that the legal system finds that they violate the state constitution.  The usual way to create “accountability” in the public sector is to have a board or boards of people who don’t run an agency second guess it.  Implied is an acknowledgement that for our legislative elected officials, quality public services efficiently provided are not generally a priority.  After all, the New York City Council and New York State legislature control the purse strings and, in the latter case, the structure of the New York City schools.  They therefore have ultimate control over them, and have the ability to hold them accountable.  The City and State Comptrollers may audit their finances, and the New York State Department of Education and Board of Regents audit their performance.  And Mayor Bloomberg claimed that by putting him in charge, the city would gain accountability because he could be voted out if the schools didn’t work well.  But none of this is enough.  And yet another oversight board, appointed by the same politicians who have failed the city’s schools for 30 years, will not be enough either.

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit, if it is to ever come of anything, will not only include more equitable funding for New York City’s schools (or at least higher, though still inequitable funding) but also increased “accountability” for those schools.  That is what the court decisions call for, and that seems reasonable, given that the city’s schools have been so bad for so long that the legal system finds that they violate the state constitution.  The usual way to create “accountability” in the public sector is to have a board or boards of people who don’t run an agency second guess it.  Implied is an acknowledgement that for our legislative elected officials, quality public services efficiently provided are not generally a priority.  After all, the New York City Council and New York State legislature control the purse strings and, in the latter case, the structure of the New York City schools.  They therefore have ultimate control over them, and have the ability to hold them accountable.  The City and State Comptrollers may audit their finances, and the New York State Department of Education and Board of Regents audit their performance.  And Mayor Bloomberg claimed that by putting him in charge, the city would gain accountability because he could be voted out if the schools didn’t work well.  But none of this is enough.  And yet another oversight board, appointed by the same politicians who have failed the city’s schools for 30 years, will not be enough either.

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit, if it is to ever come of anything, will not only include more equitable funding for New York City’s schools (or at least higher, though still inequitable funding) but also increased “accountability” for those schools.  That is what the court decisions call for, and that seems reasonable, given that the city’s schools have been so bad for so long that the legal system finds that they violate the state constitution.  The usual way to create “accountability” in the public sector is to have a board or boards of people who don’t run an agency second guess it.  Implied is an acknowledgement that for our legislative elected officials, quality public services efficiently provided are not generally a priority.  After all, the New York City Council and New York State legislature control the purse strings and, in the latter case, the structure of the New York City schools.  They therefore have ultimate control over them, and have the ability to hold them accountable.  The City and State Comptrollers may audit their finances, and the New York State Department of Education and Board of Regents audit their performance.  And Mayor Bloomberg claimed that by putting him in charge, the city would gain accountability because he could be voted out if the schools didn’t work well.  But none of this is enough.  And yet another oversight board, appointed by the same politicians who have failed the city’s schools for 30 years, will not be enough either.

When Eliot Spitzer provided a one-word “yes” answer to the question of whether he would bring about universal health care, I can only hope that he meant he would do so someday as President, not as Governor.  After all, providing health care for every severely ill person in the United States without health insurance would be a big burden on the New York State tax dollar, perhaps leaving no money for anything else.  And as a result of a Supreme Court decision in the wake of welfare reform, which held that any benefit offered to state residents must also be offered to everyone else, that is exactly what would happen.  Anecdotal evidence suggests this happens, to an extent, already.  Still, while I believe a universal health care financing system must, and should, be implemented on the federal level, there are some things a New York State Governor could do to bring it about.

When Eliot Spitzer provided a one-word “yes” answer to the question of whether he would bring about universal health care, I can only hope that he meant he would do so someday as President, not as Governor.  After all, providing health care for every severely ill person in the United States without health insurance would be a big burden on the New York State tax dollar, perhaps leaving no money for anything else.  And as a result of a Supreme Court decision in the wake of welfare reform, which held that any benefit offered to state residents must also be offered to everyone else, that is exactly what would happen.  Anecdotal evidence suggests this happens, to an extent, already.  Still, while I believe a universal health care financing system must, and should, be implemented on the federal level, there are some things a New York State Governor could do to bring it about.

When Eliot Spitzer provided a one-word “yes” answer to the question of whether he would bring about universal health care, I can only hope that he meant he would do so someday as President, not as Governor.  After all, providing health care for every severely ill person in the United States without health insurance would be a big burden on the New York State tax dollar, perhaps leaving no money for anything else.  And as a result of a Supreme Court decision in the wake of welfare reform, which held that any benefit offered to state residents must also be offered to everyone else, that is exactly what would happen.  Anecdotal evidence suggests this happens, to an extent, already.  Still, while I believe a universal health care financing system must, and should, be implemented on the federal level, there are some things a New York State Governor could do to bring it about.

This essay will talk about state school funding and the Campaign for Equity Lawsuit.  But before I describe what I would consider a fair system, after a root-and-branch reform, let me give you the bottom line.  Under New York State’s Reverse Robin Hood system, New York City’s share of front door and back door (STAR, son of STAR, anything else they come up with) state education funding is not only less than its share of the state’s public school children but also its residents’ state income tax payments.  This must end.  Argue all you want about whether educational resources should be redistributed to poor children; it is an outrage that for 30 years they have been redistributed away from poor children.  And the level of public school spending, staffing and pay in the rest of New York State is far too high, which is unfair to local taxpayers, to New York City’s schools which get outbid for qualified staff, and to New York City taxpayers who are increasingly expected to accept an even lower share of state education funding to pay for it.  The practice of giving more state school aid, under STAR and similar programs, to those who spend the most must end.  The fact that spending in the rest of the state is so high, that New York City’s children have been sacrificed to pay for it, is what no one is willing to say.  I’m saying it, and demanding that it stop.

This essay will talk about state school funding and the Campaign for Equity Lawsuit.  But before I describe what I would consider a fair system, after a root-and-branch reform, let me give you the bottom line.  Under New York State’s Reverse Robin Hood system, New York City’s share of front door and back door (STAR, son of STAR, anything else they come up with) state education funding is not only less than its share of the state’s public school children but also its residents’ state income tax payments.  This must end.  Argue all you want about whether educational resources should be redistributed to poor children; it is an outrage that for 30 years they have been redistributed away from poor children.  And the level of public school spending, staffing and pay in the rest of New York State is far too high, which is unfair to local taxpayers, to New York City’s schools which get outbid for qualified staff, and to New York City taxpayers who are increasingly expected to accept an even lower share of state education funding to pay for it.  The practice of giving more state school aid, under STAR and similar programs, to those who spend the most must end.  The fact that spending in the rest of the state is so high, that New York City’s children have been sacrificed to pay for it, is what no one is willing to say.  I’m saying it, and demanding that it stop.

This essay will talk about state school funding and the Campaign for Equity Lawsuit.  But before I describe what I would consider a fair system, after a root-and-branch reform, let me give you the bottom line.  Under New York State’s Reverse Robin Hood system, New York City’s share of front door and back door (STAR, son of STAR, anything else they come up with) state education funding is not only less than its share of the state’s public school children but also its residents’ state income tax payments.  This must end.  Argue all you want about whether educational resources should be redistributed to poor children; it is an outrage that for 30 years they have been redistributed away from poor children.  And the level of public school spending, staffing and pay in the rest of New York State is far too high, which is unfair to local taxpayers, to New York City’s schools which get outbid for qualified staff, and to New York City taxpayers who are increasingly expected to accept an even lower share of state education funding to pay for it.  The practice of giving more state school aid, under STAR and similar programs, to those who spend the most must end.  The fact that spending in the rest of the state is so high, that New York City’s children have been sacrificed to pay for it, is what no one is willing to say.  I’m saying it, and demanding that it stop.