June 29, 2009: THE SENATE'S CRISIS CONTINUES For three solid weeks now, the state Senate has remained gridlocked over partisan differences. It was three weeks ago that the Republicans plus two Democrats launched a coup that tilted control to the Republicans plus. While it is understandable why Republicans would work to seize control of the Senate, the consequences are that nothing is getting done. New Yorkers are fed up with the Senate's partisan display. There is a time for partisanship, but that time ends with the need to address the work of the people. The time for action is now, but there has been little evidence that the Senate has gotten the message. Hopefully, there will soon be an accord over its leadership and how best to proceed in a bipartisan manner. Once that happens, there are important laws that expire that need to be acted upon - laws like extending the mayoral control of the New York City school system, budget measures for Long Island local governments, and extensions for sales taxes for a majority of county governments that must be passed before the end of the year. Action on these items must be part of any "must do" list for the Senate. But more than simple extenders needs to be done. The Senate should not wrap up its activities (assuming that it ever gets around to starting them in the first place) unless it acts on key reforms. Here are three of the highest priority reforms that the Senate should take up: Ethics Reform. The recent corruption-related resignation of former Assemblyman Seminerio and the guilty plea for misuse of state resources by former Health Commissioner Novello are just the latest examples of failed ethics oversight in New York. The recent Inspector General's report on the failures of the state's Commission on Public Integrity also underscores how bad things are in Albany. The Assembly unanimously approved an ethics bill this week that represents a good-faith effort to address the current failures of ethics oversight. The Senate must take action before leaving to further strengthen and enact the Assembly's proposal. Failure to overhaul the system this year will likely leave an unacceptable status quo in place for a year and a half, since action next year will probably go into effect only in January of 2011. Senate Rules. Senate rules reform has consistently been called for by members on both sides of the aisle, yet comprehensive reforms remain unimplemented. Most recently, the Senate Republicans proposed that there be equal allocation of resources for each member of the Senate. This is but one key reform that must be embraced. And it is one reform that both Senate Republicans and Democrats should understand. After all, both groups have recently experienced unequal treatment while in the minority conference and have a clear understanding of the need for reforms. Replacing the Lt. Governor. The recent uncertainty in the Senate has made it painfully obvious what happens when there is a vacancy in the office of the Lieutenant Governor. There are various methods for how to fill this vacancy, but an approach that combines legislative and gubernatorial agreement is an important and balanced reform that should be approved. Of course, more needs to get done before lawmakers call it quits for the 2009 legislative session. Yet given the chaos in the Senate, it is unlikely that important issues will be left addressed. But the three reforms mentioned above are all important and respond to real problems that the state faces. At a minimum, these three reforms must get done - and get done soon. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. June 22, 2009: SENATE GRIDLOCK Another week of chaos and frustration at the state Capitol. While the state Assembly keeps chugging along, partisan bickering led to another week of stalemate in the state Senate. For a second week, the state Senate stood idle and did nothing to solve the problems of New Yorkers. It was an ugly week of name calling that at one point almost turned violent. The Republicans argue that they should be in charge because on June 8th, they held a floor vote on new leadership and Democratic-dissident Senator Pedro Espada and Republican Senator Dean Skelos were elected by a vote of 32 to 30. The Democrats argue that the vote was technically flawed and that it doesn't really matter anyway since the Senate is now evenly split 31 Democrats to 31 Republicans after one dissident Senate Democrat returned to the fold after the June 8th vote. The Republicans refuse to budge from their demand that the Democrats admit that Espada and Skelos are now the leaders of the Senate. As a result, the Democrats refuse to enter the Senate chamber, thus denying the Republicans a quorum - and so, no business is done. Gridlock. This past weekend, Governor Paterson offered some ideas to break the stalemate. First, he recommended that the Senate accept two arbitrators - former Lt. Governor Stan Lundine, a Democrat and former state Senator John Dunne, a well-respected Republican. If that idea goes nowhere, the governor has threatened to call the Senate into special session every day that there is no agreement on legislation. While the governor can force the Senate into its chamber, he cannot force them to vote. Also, who would convene the meeting? The governor proposes that the state's Chief Judge preside over the session. If that idea is rejected, then would it be Senator Espada or Senator Smith (the Democrat's leader)? Both men are unacceptable to their opposing camps. Whether either idea gains any traction only time will tell. If neither idea works (and if the courts remain on the sideline), that leaves only two options - that at least one member of one side switches, giving the other party the majority. Or there must be a compromise. What would a compromise look like? At least initially, it would have to focus on achieving action on the immediate needs facing the state. There is a host of "must do" legislation that demands action. From local taxes to New York City Mayoral control of schools, from allowing additional debt to overhauling the state's ethics laws, key items need action, now. A short-term agreement must offer tangible benefits to each side. Here is my idea. First, they should put aside the battle over who controls the Senate until July 1. Create some sort of Senate committee with an equal number of Republican and Democrats. These Senators would agree on the legislation that would move forward. A sort of "mutually assured destruction" policy would be in place - if both sides agree, the legislation moves forward. If not, it waits until next year. This approach helps all Senators because it allows them to get work done. But it helps Democrats the most, they're the ones who are currently refusing to attend Senate sessions. So how could Republicans benefit? After all, it is Republicans who would have to put aside their leadership claim. Democrats should have to agree to the Republicans' Senate Rules changes. Many of the Republican changes are good ideas - they propose to essentially equalize resources for each of the Senators. For decades the Republicans had run roughshod over the Democrats. Despite having pledged to do otherwise, once the Democrats took over this year they too viewed resources as a sort of "spoils system." And they treated the Republicans like dirt. By agreeing that all Senators would get basically the same amount of resources, the Democrats would be transferring real power to the Republicans. The Republicans would then be able to "crow" about how they achieved real reform, and would deserve the kudos. Of course, come July 1st the Senate leadership battle would once again commence. Yet, some of the public's work would get done and some good would come of the struggle. With any luck, those achievements could help build future bipartisan agreements. As taxpayers, we can only hope. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. June 15, 2009: A NEW LOW IN ALBANY Clown costumes, lock-outs, shoving matches, screaming protestors and gridlock - welcome to your state Capitol. Usually by mid-June, legislative action is picking up. Lawmakers are debating bills, lobbyists are pleading for favors, and legislation is getting passed. In a typical session, half of all bills pass in June. On the state Assembly's side of the Capitol, things are moving along. The Senate, however, is frozen and in disarray. For a week, nothing was done. Why? Because the razor-thin majority of Democrats running the Senate has imploded. Two Democrats have seemingly shifted their allegiance to the Republican side. They are calling this "bipartisan coalition" government. Yet, Democrats are refusing to give up. They are using every procedural and legal option to block the apparent coup. The result? Gridlock. So who's to blame? Democrats say it's not them, they argue that the Republican putsch was illegal and they are fighting back. Republicans say its not them either, they and their two Democratic allies are simply sick of the way the Senate is run and they want change. The insurgent Senate coalition is arguing that they are the true reformers. And they have advanced positive changes to the Senate house rules. For example, the Senate rules seem to ensure equal distribution of staff resources. They have also advanced interesting ideas on limiting the terms of the leadership of the house. Yet, their public statements do not always match the reality of their plan. For example, the insurgents have publicly stated that their changes include a rule that every Senator get an equal amount of "member item" money. Member items are state-funded grants for each legislative district. These monies are doled out by each legislator to favored groups. Historically, this system has been grotesquely abused - majority party legislators and those with the most seniority got the most, with crumbs left over for minority party legislators. So, the Senate plan offered last week was widely applauded as a significant change to a corrupt system. But it turns out that the actual rules say no such thing. When challenged, the Senate Republicans state that it was their intention to equalize member items, which their press release listed as part of the new rules - yet it doesn't appear in the new written rules. But when it comes to other reforms - like strengthening ethics laws or overhauling the state's disgraceful campaign finance system - not a word has been said. If the Senate coalition wants to truly seize the mantel of reform, they must tell the public exactly what their agenda is and how they intend to achieve it. When it comes to tactics, Democrats have every right to pursue their cause. No one would support illegal actions. Republicans have a case too. If they can get a chance to seize control of the Senate, they should consider doing so. But with every "right" come responsibilities and consequences. When you use legal tricks to stop an apparent majority from controlling the chamber or when you launch a coup during the end of session, the possibility exists that you'll derail legislative momentum. You can cause gridlock, which is what we have right now. New Yorkers spend millions of dollars to pay for a state Senate to solve problems. That is, after all, what we expect state government to do. But if the Senate cannot act, problems cannot be solved. Reforms cannot happen. The people's business is not served. My guess is that 99 percent of New Yorkers could care less who is the Senate Majority Leader. But they care a lot that their hard-earned dollars are being wasted while the parties slug it out. Failing to do the people's business is the consequence of this latest Albany-based debacle. New Yorkers should tell their Senators to at least temporarily settle their differences and get back to work. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. June 8, 2009: COMING DOWN THE HOMESTRETCH In two weeks, the Legislature will wrap up the 2009 session. As the intensity builds, some important issues will be addressed, others will be ignored. A top issue for the end of session must be approval of ethics reforms. During the past few years the Capitol has been rocked by scandals. Legislators have been indicted, some have gone to jail, the state Comptroller was forced to resign and, of course, Governor Spitzer quit over his involvement with a prostitution ring. If anyone had predicted right after the 2006 general election that by 2009 David Paterson would be the Governor and Tom DiNapoli would be appointed Comptroller, that person would have been roundly ridiculed. But that is exactly what happened. And the scandals kept on coming. Even the watchdogs became embroiled in controversy. A few weeks ago, the Commission on Public Integrity had its integrity attacked in a report by the state Inspector General. The Inspector General found that top staff of the Commission engaged in ethical misconduct by leaking information on its investigation of Governor Spitzer to staff in the Spitzer Administration. It's hard to keep track of all of the scandals without a scorecard. But what should be clear is that something must get done to address the situation. In particular, something must be done to reform the Commission on Public Integrity, now a sort of "zombie" agency that is staggering along under a cloud and without its top staff. New York's political leaders have offered their own proposals to fix the system. The governor has unveiled his ethics reform proposal. The governor's plan calls for the creation of a 10 member selection panel that would choose a five person commission to oversee ethics. This new commission would have authority over ethics, lobbying, campaign finance and open meetings issues. The Senate is moving its own package. Senators Squadron and Krueger have offered legislation that creates an independent ethics commission, similar to the governor's, expands ethics disclosures, limits campaign activity by lobbyists and restricts the "personal use" of campaign contributions. The Senate has held three hearings on the issue and is beginning to move its bills. Despite the fact that Assemblymembers Latimer, Kavanagh, Cahill and Reilly have introduced bills that track the Senate's, Speaker Silver last week described his ethics reform package. His package is quite different from the approaches taken by the governor and the Senate. Silver has called for several independent watchdogs instead of just one, as proposed by the governor and the Senate. Under the Silver plan there would be separate monitors of lobbying, legislative ethics, and executive ethics. In addition, Silver has proposed that public financing of elections be part of the discussion. Each of the plans have strengths and limitations-and they're all are different. A more cynical view is that any one of the sponsors, or all of them, are posturing as reformers, but are not truly interested in putting new laws in place. I'm not in this cynical camp (at least not yet), but we'll know in two weeks whether the leaders are positioning themselves to avoid blame or really serious about achieving badly-needed reforms. New Yorkers must demand that actions be taken. What matters most is that there be an independent ethics watchdog that enforces the law without fear or favor. The elegance of the bureaucratic structure is secondary. Urge lawmakers not to leave Albany without an ethics agreement. An agreement that ensures independent, thorough oversight of ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws. The most important thing is that Albany moves to restore public confidence in state government. Ending session in two weeks without an agreement is completely unacceptable. The status quo clearly does not work and must be fixed. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. May 11, 2009: LOBBYING'S TALE OF THE TAPE The annual report on lobbying in New York State was released last week, and there were no surprises. The lobbying industry spent a record amount in 2008 in its never-ending quest to influence policymakers. As in previous years, the number of lobbyists jumped. 2008 saw an increase of 24 percent in the number of lobbyists over the previous year. According to the Commission on Public Integrity, which monitors lobbying, there were over 6,600 lobbyists in 2008, compared to 5,300 lobbyists in 2007. Despite this increase, spending on lobbyists was even more concentrated. Nearly half of all lobbying spending was spent by the top twenty-five lobbying firms! The groups that spent the most on lobbying were essentially unchanged from the previous year. The teachers union spent the most, nearly $4.4 million. The union was followed by telecommunications giant Verizon which spent over $2.5 million, then the doctors lobby at $1.6 million, two hospital associations spent a combined $3.2 million, and the union representing SUNY professors spent $1.1 million. It should come as no surprise that the education and health lobbies spent the most in their efforts to influence lawmakers; after all, health and education are two of the most expensive sectors of the state budget. Yet it is still unsettling. Interest groups spend millions on lobbying and then spend millions more in campaign contributions all in an effort to swing in their favor legislative or regulatory decisions made by the government. How can such a system thrive? Albany's culture of excessive secrecy fosters the lobbying environment. An interest group with at lot at stake is willing to spend whatever it takes to influence government decisions. And if those decisions were made in secret-as key decisions often are-- the interest group must pay a lot for "insider" knowledge. There is nothing wrong with lobbying per se. The Constitution specifically protects the rights of citizens to associate and to petition government. But the big money that is spent gives a huge advantage to those groups that are wealthy and organized. Those groups have an enormous impact on policymaking. And in many cases, the public's views are never really heard. Unfortunately, the state's elected officials are far too comfortable with Albany's status quo. For years, top elected officials talked about proposals to open up Albany and to re-balance policymaking. Yet little has been accomplished. As the 2009 legislative session heads down the homestretch, it is important that the governor and the legislature take steps to rein in Albany's political elites. Here are three ideas:
Of course, these aren't the only steps lawmakers need to consider. However, these three steps can be approved this session and would take Albany a long way toward being an open and accountable government. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. May 4, 2009: UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE The surging swine flu health crisis underscores a key reason why America needs a system of universal health insurance: Lacking health insurance could amplify the impact of this possible epidemic on all Americans if the situation gets worse. That makes access to health insurance everybody's business. Recent reports on the swine flu-related deaths in Mexico have stated that a key contributing factor is that those who died sought treatment too late - falling sick an average of seven days before seeing a doctor. Waiting, the theory goes, allowed the virus to rage out-of-control leading to the unfortunate deaths. Similarly, the lack of health insurance for people in the United States could trigger similar serious problems. There are a large number of Americans lacking adequate health insurance coverage. Here are some statistics:
We know that people lacking health coverage often put off their medical treatment. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, the uninsured commonly delay or go without care because of the cost. And when any member of a family is uninsured, the whole family is affected. Many uninsured adults reported delaying health care for themselves as long as possible and sometimes going without it entirely because they feared the cost. Some reported skipping recommended preventive care, such as mammograms and other screenings, and hoping they would stay healthy. A significant number with serious health concerns that required regular doctor visits and/or ongoing medication had put off the care or did not get it, risking worse or additional problems. What will happen if swine flu becomes a pandemic? Will these millions of Americans seek the treatment they need? Or will they procrastinate, thus becoming sicker and increasing the chance that they will infect others? Hopefully, the swine flu scare will not exact the devastating toll that some fear. But the situation underscores how American health policy inadvertently puts the nation at risk. The nation's system of relying on employers to cover the majority of Americans between the ages of 18 and 65 has been unraveling for decades. As a result, millions of working individuals suffer from illnesses that could be treated. These uninsured or underinsured also don't get the regular check ups and wellness visits which may make them more vulnerable to common illnesses, like seasonal flu strains. And when they do get sick, they spread their illnesses to others-a preventable result of their lack of access to health care. In some tragic cases, uninsured Americans die due to lack of access. The swine flu crisis brings into sharp relief another serious flaw in the current system. Not only will those who delay treatment put themselves at risk, but they put others at risk as well. The Obama Administration seems to be genuinely engaged in the effort to expand health insurance coverage for virtually all Americans. Given the stakes involved, one can only hope that they succeed. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. April 27, 2009: CLEAN UP THE STATE'S PENSION SYSTEM Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, Albany is again being rocked by controversy. This time it is the New York State's massive pension fund system that has become the target of federal and state investigations. Both the federal Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General have accused former top ranking officials of the State Comptroller's office and other political officials of participating in a wide ranging and complicated scheme to drive investments to favored businesses in exchange for political favors and millions of dollars in kickbacks. New York's pension fund is an investment program with the goal of making enough money on investments from state workers' contributions to cover the cost of their future retirement. Investment companies chosen to handle state investments receive hefty fees paid out of the fund. Given the huge potential payoff, the competition for the business is intense. In New York, one person is charged with making the call about who gets the investment business - the State Comptroller. In contrast, most states have pension fund boards to oversee how the monies handled. Giving so much power to one person can lead to serious problems if that person is not paying adequate attention to investment decisions or is looking to enrich himself or his friends. According to the Attorney General and the SEC, that's what happened in New York. In a 123-count indictment issued last month by the Attorney General's office, two associates of former State Comptroller Alan Hevesi were accused of selling access to the pension fund. The SEC also brought actions against those same two, accusing them of violating federal securities laws. The investment firms themselves are also facing scrutiny. According to the SEC, at least some investment firms participated in "a fraudulent scheme to extract kickbacks" and made "sham" payments "pursuant to undisclosed quid pro quo arrangements." Essentially, the Attorney General and the SEC are alleging that members of the State Comptroller's office, lobbyists and others with close ties to the Comptroller, rigged investment decisions to steer business to favored companies while enriching themselves by getting a cut of the action. There have been controversies around the state's pension fund system before. In the 1980s, then-State Comptroller Ned Regan's office was investigated after a top staffer's memo surfaced in which the aide stated that those who "give, will get," specifically tying campaign finance fundraising to pension fund investment decisions. Former State Comptroller Carl McCall was the subject of media queries over similar concerns. More recently, former State Comptroller Hevesi was forced to resign over misuse of tax dollars. Of course, all of the subjects of these investigations should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But that shouldn't stop calls for reform. The allegations raised in this case are consistent with problems that have existed for decades. These controversies raise important questions, here are two: First, should New York State continue to have one person overseeing its pension fund? Obviously, any failure to exercise independent oversight can contribute to a culture in which anything goes. The key issue is whether a board could be appointed that is truly independent. Failure to ensure such independence can cause problems too. Some states with pension funds overseen by boards have had problems. Truly independent oversight must be established. Second, should the State Comptroller be allowed to receive campaign contributions from the companies involved in investing pension fund monies and individuals who lobby for those investment firms? It's far too tempting to raise campaign dollars from wealthy businesses and individuals who stand to gain so much from one person's decisions. New Yorkers should demand that candidates for Comptroller have the option of relying on clean public resources to run for office, instead of conflicted contributions from monied interests. For too long, Albany's "pay to play" political culture has been allowed to influence policymaking. The investigations into the Comptroller's office offer fresh evidence into why reforms are badly needed, not only with regard to pension fund investing but to all of state government. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. April 20, 2009: EARTH DAY CELEBRATION The Earth got some good news with the recent announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency that it considers greenhouse gases, generated by the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels, as "pollutants." The EPA stated flatly that the scientific analysis showing that the burning of fossil fuels was contributing to global warming was "compelling and overwhelming." EPA's designation means that it can regulate these emissions. EPA's action may jump start a regulatory process to help the United States catch up to other industrialized nations' efforts to curb global warming. For years, the nation has been viewed as laggard in the fight against climate change. In addition, the decision by the EPA will put pressure on the Congress to adopt climate change legislation. And that's good news. But what kind of legislation should the Congress approve? Clearly, the Congress should follow the science in curbing global warming. The world's best scientific minds have stated that in order to minimize the worst effects of global warming, the U.S. must curtail greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by the year 2050. While Congress is designing a program to meet that goal, it should also be mindful of how the plan could be attacked. Climate change legislation could be attacked in three ways: (1) By those who don't believe that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming; (2) By those who believe that there is partisan advantage in stopping Obama Administration's initiatives; and (3) By those who will characterize climate change legislation as a new "tax," driving up costs for already overtaxed Americans. For those who don't believe that global warming exists, supporters should not only refer to the best available science - which, like the EPA's findings, clearly links climate changes to human activities - but also underscore that burning fossil fuels harms the public's health as well as enriching some foreign nations that are hostile to the United States. To best respond to the "tax" attack, the program must make sense to the American people and offers tangible benefits. Drastic carbon reductions can only occur with ongoing public support. There are two important features of a successful carbon reduction program: 1) Require that all carbon polluters obtain emission permits. The plan should not give away carbon emission permits. If it does, it will be viewed, correctly, as a public subsidy of polluters -undermining support for the program. All permits should be auctioned so that substantial, and increasing, revenues are generated as the nation reduces carbon emissions. 2) Mandate that virtually all revenues generated by the auction process be recycled back to the American people. The surest way to maintain public support is by mandating that the revenue generated by the permitting process be returned directly to the American public. A program that provides regular financial payments not only helps offset the increasing costs of carbon-based products, but ensures that the public will be "invested" in the long-term continuation of this program. If Congress embraces this approach, it is far more likely that bipartisan support will follow. As the nation celebrates Earth Day, the annual opportunity to examine the state of the environment, policymakers must begin the process of turning energy production away from the burning of fossil fuels and toward a new system based on clean sources, such as solar and wind. In order to succeed, the President and the Congress must develop a program that can stand the test of time and do so with public support. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. April 13, 2009: COMPARING PRESCRIPTION PRICES New Yorkers who don't have insurance coverage for prescription drugs have their lives at risk. There are millions of New Yorkers who lack any kind of health insurance or who have health insurance, but lack coverage for prescription drugs. In addition, due to limits in the Medicare Part D program, some seniors have to pay for the costs of their drugs when they hit the donut hole. For these New Yorkers, lacking coverage may mean going without needed medications. Short of providing prescription drug coverage for these individuals, what has the New York State done? For years, the state offered consumers drug pricing information to help them comparison shop. Until 2005, consumers could request a pricing list from any pharmacy. That pricing list would disclose the prices for the 150 most frequently prescribed drugs. Unfortunately, that law did not work, since consumers didn't really know about the program and even if they did, who would drive from pharmacy to pharmacy to pick up the pricing lists? No one. So in 2005 a new law was passed that created a website for consumers to comparison shop through the state Health Department, see http://rx.nyhealth.gov/pdpw/. In addition, the new law required that each pharmacy post a sign with the Department's website address in the area where drugs were dispensed to consumers. The program is incredibly important. As I mentioned earlier, millions of New Yorkers lack health insurance coverage for prescriptions. As a result, those individuals must pay full retail for the cost of needed medicines. And those retail prices can vary widely -- in Suffolk County the range consumers can pay from one pharmacy to another for the same exact same prescription is a whopping $588,! It's important that the program work well. Ideally, consumers paying for the full cost of their medicines would be able to go to the Department's website and search for the lowest costs. Given the wide range in prices, it could make the difference between getting needed medicines or not. Yet, as found in NYPIRG's recent report, The Price Is Not Right, (www.nypirg.org), the program is deeply flawed:
Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. April 6, 2009: ALBANY "REDEEMS" ITSELF The story of this year's state budget is a dismal one. It's a budget containing tax increases and cuts to programs, its deals hammered out in secret. Governor Paterson and state lawmakers are getting pounded from Buffalo to Long Island for the process and product of the budget. But there is at least one redeemable improvement in the budget - the expansion of the state's bottle deposit law and a return of unclaimed nickels from the beverage industry back to the public. It signifies a victory for the environment, taxpayers and democracy. New York State first established its Bottle Deposit Law in 1982. The concept was simple - consumers would pay a nickel deposit on the purchase of beer and soda containers and would then get that nickel back when they returned it to the store. The idea was originally conceived as an anti-litter measure since people were less likely to leave empty beer and soda containers lying around due to their financial interest in returning them. The law also stimulated the state's recycling efforts, since the returned bottles and cans had to go somewhere. The law was remarkably successful. Over the past 25 years, nearly 70 percent of beer, soda and other carbonated beverages covered by the law were returned, reducing litter and boosting recycling efforts. But the "Bottle Law" had two major shortcomings: one, it was limited to only those popularly-used beverages that existed a quarter century ago; and two, the law was silent on what would happen to the deposit nickels if consumers chose not to return the containers. Over the past seven years, environmentalists and the recycling industry pushed hard to modernize the law. They argued that many new products are on the market today that were not widely used in 1980s - most notably water bottles. In addition, advocates argued that the revenues resulting from the unclaimed deposits should be the public's money, not pocketed by the beverage industry. Had the consumer returned the container, advocates argued, they would have received their deposit and the industry's benefit came solely from the recycling or reuse of the container. On the other hand, if the consumer did not return the container, the beverage industry kept the money and society had to pay for the collection of the empty bottle or can. A broad coalition of advocates wondered, "Why should the beverage companies keep the nickels?" For nearly a decade, elected officials introduced legislation to expand the scope of the 1982 bottle law and to force the beverage industry to return the unclaimed deposits. In recent years, the Assembly would pass a bill and just to see it rejected by the State Senate. Even when the governor's office pushed for reforms, and with support among many of the members of the Senate, the proposal was again blocked by that house's leadership. For years, the fight became a symbol of Albany at its worst. Despite widespread public support, powerful interests used expensive lobbyists and campaign dollars to block action. And for years they were successful, until last week. With November's change in Senate leadership, advocates understood that they had a realistic chance to improve the Bottle Law. The new Senate Majority Leader was not as responsive to the beverage industry's lobbyists and the new Chairperson of the Senate Environmental Conservation committee - the first stop on the legislation - was genuinely supportive and committed to reform. The Paterson Administration decided to include the proposal in its budget. Inclusion in the budget meant that lawmakers would either have to agree to the estimated revenues or cut the budget by $100 million. Since the state was facing a huge budget deficit, inclusion of the Bottle Law proposal dramatically increased the likelihood of success. And it did. The final budget agreement includes an expansion of the Bottle Law to water bottles, the greatest number of beverage containers found outside of the current law. In addition, the budget requires that 80 percent of the monies generated by unclaimed deposits go back to the state, and not the beverage industry. In the otherwise dark cloud of the 2009-2010 budget, Albany redeemed itself with the expansion of the Bottle Law. The change is a long time coming, but should hearten those who have become so jaded that they can't believe that anything good comes out of Albany. Hopefully, there will be more wins for the public interest to come. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. March 30, 2009: The New Budget Apparently, Governor Paterson, the Senate Majority Leader and Assembly Speaker have put together a nearly $132 billion state budget for the fiscal year that starts April 1st. According to news reports, the new budget will be nearly 9 percent bigger than last year's - despite the deep recession. Over $7 billion of the additional $10 billion in spending comes from the federal stimulus agreement. While the legislation is now printed, as yet there has been no public discussion of the proposal and so it's hard to know precisely what's in the budget and what impact the budget will have. One thing is for sure, the negotiation of the state budget was one of the most secretive in New York history. Historically, the governor offered his proposed budget to the legislature. The two houses held joint hearings on the governor's plan, and then, more recently, conference committees were used to negotiate differences. But this year was different. The governor unveiled his plan in mid-December and the legislature held joint hearings on the governor's proposal in January and early February. In mid-February, the Congress approved a federal stimulus package, which meant billions of additional dollars for New York State. So then what happened? Publicly, nothing. The governor did not publicly amend his proposed budget to reflect the additional federal spending, there were no legislative hearings held and neither house approved legislation. Instead, the state budget was re-written by the governor and the majority party leaders completely in secret. Many rank and file legislators groused both publicly and privately that they felt like they too were cut out of the process. Republican lawmakers in both houses were particularly outraged. Of course, since everything was done behind closed doors, it's hard to know for sure what is contained in the budget. But with the budget bills now printed, a few big picture details have emerged:
In many ways, the governor and the legislative leaders accomplished a lot during the budget negotiations. Yet, the manner in which those discussions occurred - completely in secret - leaves a bad taste. Until lawmakers, advocates, the media and the public can completely review the agreement, no one knows the totality of what it contains. One example: According to news reports, the budget agreement distributes $170 million to fund local projects favored by legislators. How will that money be allocated? What criteria were used, or will be used, to determine funding of particular projects? Without an open process, New Yorkers will only get glimpses of how the governor and the legislature will be spending taxpayer dollars until well after the agreement has been approved. Whether the awful process will be reflected in the actual product of the state budget is still unclear. Hopefully, this closed process will deliver a fair budget, one that reasonably meets the basic needs of all New Yorkers. Hopefully, the lousy process will not be matched by an equally lousy budget. When it comes to reform, the governor and the legislature have "fallen off the wagon." All New Yorkers should hope that once the budget is approved, the state's political leadership will get back on the reform "wagon" and take measures to make state government open, accountable and ethical. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. March 23, 2009: ANOTHER SCANDAL ROCKS ALBANY In Albany it was déjà vu all over again. Last week, the New York Attorney General and the federal government's Securities and Exchange Commission announced indictments of two individuals who were prominently involved with former State Comptroller Hevesi. One individual oversaw pension fund investments for the state and the other was Hevesi's political campaign manager who was involved in soliciting state investments into private companies. Both were charged with directing state pension fund investments to favored projects in order to illegally enrich themselves-reportedly to the tune of some $35 million. Both have stated that they are not guilty and they are, of course, innocent until proven guilty. But it never seems to end in Albany, does it? Another corruption investigation, further erosion of the public's trust. Lawmakers have served prison sentences, others are under indictment, officials have paid penalties and still others are embroiled in controversy. And yet, Albany does nothing. Political leaders talk, but no reforms are enacted. It makes you wonder, how many more controversies, indictments and convictions before Albany hits the "tipping point" that finally pushes the governor and the legislature to enact real reforms. br> As you< may recall, the Democrats argued that if given control of Albany, they would fundamentally change and reform state government. Well, they are in charge of the governor's office and both houses of the Legislature for the first time in over 70 years. Given the demonstrable evidence that Albany is out of control, it's time for them to fulfill their promises. The Democrats promised to reform the state's campaign finance system, raise the ethical standards of the state, and operate the government in a more open and accountable manner. Here is their "first quarter" report cards: Campaign finance - Incomplete. The Senate Democrats have only been in power for three months and prior to that the Senate Republican Majority refused to act. Once the budget is done, this should be on the "must do" list for the Democrats. It is the first time in New York history that the governor and the leaders of both houses of the legislature have publicly stated that they want comprehensive campaign finance reform. This year is the time to act. Ethics - "D." It's true that early on, the Spitzer Administration pushed through ethics reform legislation. But the new law was deeply flawed through its elimination of the successful Lobbying Commission and its reliance instead on the structure of the weak and far less successful State Ethics Commission for enforcement of the executive branch's ethics. Worse, it allowed the continued ethical self-regulation of the legislative branch by the legislative leaders. Given the mounting scandals, unless meaningful action is taken this session, New Yorkers should view this area as a failure. Openness and accountability -- "F." Secrecy is still the rule, not the exception. The current budget discussions may end up being the most closed to the public in decades. While the jury is out on the Senate Democrats, who seem to at least be willing to entertain some reforms, the governor has turned back the clock. Hopefully, that trend will change - and change soon. These are all important reforms. If Albany is ever to begin to win back the confidence of New Yorkers, it is critical that there be new limits placed on the influence of big campaign donors, that public officials meet the highest ethical standards, and that the people's business be conducted in public. In addition, it's critical that when politicians ask for our votes based on promises; they do all they can to make sure that those promises become reality. Candidates running for elected office must feel accountable for the promises they make - not that they are merely telling us what we want to hear, but that they will in fact work hard to make campaign pledges a reality. For the Democrats now in control of the key policymaking levers of state government, they can't blame Republicans for the failure to reform the system. The public's trust in Albany has dramatically eroded. The only way for the governor and the legislature to win back that trust is by making good on their campaign pledges - pledges to make New York State government more open, more accountable, more ethical. Time is running out. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. March 16, 2009: SUNSHINE WEEK IN ALBANY Happy Sunshine Week! Sunshine Week is a national campaign that focuses on the public's right to know what our federal, state and local governments are doing, and why. Starting in 2002, newspapers and advocates have used Sunshine Week to shine some sunlight on the debate about open and transparent government. In recent years, Sunshine Week was the beginning of a legislative process that resulted in Albany enacting new laws to strengthen the state's Freedom of Information and Open Meetings programs. This year something is different. As the governor and legislative leaders negotiated the state budget, they announced that this year's budget deliberations would be different. Instead of each house approving its own budget plans and then negotiating in a conference committee process - an open process in which the two houses publicly debate their respective positions -- they would negotiate entirely in secret. You heard me correctly; the governor and the legislative leaders announced that they would negotiate a $125 billion state budget outside of public view. Their justification was that there was a need for an open budget conference committee process only when the two houses were in disagreement. Since both houses are now headed by Democrats, they argued, they were in agreement and thus could hammer out the state's budget outside of public view. Of course, the leaders ignored basic facts - the budget is funded by taxpayers' dollars, designed to pay for programs that benefit the public, by individuals elected to represent the interests of all New Yorkers. And from an open government perspective, it doesn't matter one bit that all the negotiators in a secret process are of the same party. Yet under their plan, the public would know nothing of how their money will be spent until after the fact. Under state law, the governor proposes a budget and then the legislature acts on it, in recent years through the conference committee process. Usually, the budget that is finally approved is similar to the plan the governor initially proposed. However, this year will be unique. The governor's budget plan will be fundamentally changed as a result of the approval of the federal stimulus package - which will mean billions of additional dollars for the state. Already, the governor announced that he will eliminate many of his proposed tax increases due to the influx of federal money. This year it is likely that the final budget will be vastly changed from the plan initially proposed last December by the governor. Despite the significant re-working of the budget, the governor and the legislative leaders were considering secrecy as their preferred way to negotiate. And they announced their plan on the eve of Sunshine Week! So why are they really going out of their way to provoke the public? It's likely to be due to the weaknesses of the new Senate Democratic Majority. For the first time in over 40 years, the Democrats control the Senate-but with a razor thin margin. The risk for the Senate Democrats is that any one legislator can hold up the entire budget to get his or her pet project or kill something they disagree with. Nevertheless, no matter how difficult it is to enact, the budget is supposed to be the people's work and the public has a right-to-know what's going on with their money. The initial announcement created a media firestorm and by the end of last week, the Senate Democrats were stating that they have every intention of discussing their budget plans in public. It makes sense for them to do so. It makes sense for policymakers in New York and in every state to remember that they are public servants. As the nation celebrates Sunshine Week, it's critical to remember that a successful democracy hinges on the informed consent of the public. And that consent can only come from knowledge of, and participation in, the democratic process. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. March 9, 2009: "BACK TO THE FUTURE" IN ALBANY It seems like a long time ago that the Spitzer/Paterson team was promising New Yorkers change in Albany. A new day, we were told: No more secrecy, no more corruption, no more deals for political insiders. Yet, here we are one year after the resignation of Governor Spitzer and little has changed. Despite promises of openness, decision-making is shrouded in secrecy. And the political class is having its way in closed door meetings with policymakers. Last week, New Yorkers got a glimpse of how little Albany has changed, when it was reported in the New York Times that Governor Paterson pledged to weaken air pollution rules at the request of power producers. New York State is part of a 10-state program called the "Regional Greenhouse Gases Initiative," known as RGGI. RGGI requires that power producers obtain pollution allowances, which permit them to release certain levels of carbon dioxide emissions, the pollutant most responsible for global warming. They typically obtain the allowances by buying them at a state-created auction or trading for them with other producers who are willing to sell their allocation. The requirement for utilities to obtain the allowances not only created a financial cost for global warming-causing pollution, but also generated revenues for states to raise money for alternative energy initiatives. RGGI was initially proposed by Governor Pataki and shepherded along by Governor Spitzer. In September of 2008, the RGGI program got off the ground. Governor Paterson labeled the first-ever auction a "success" and stated, "The result of this auction sends a clear signal that supporting investment in improved energy efficiency and clean and renewable energy technologies is prudent and fiscally sound. I hope our bold actions here will prove to be a turning point in the fight against global climate change." Fast forward to the New York Times article last week that reported that as a result of closed door meetings with the power industry, the governor "appeared to overrule the State Department of Environmental Conservation …, which would reopen state regulations to provide power plants leeway to release greater amounts of emissions." Power industry executives were not shy about describing what they did. The top executive of the Independent Power Producers of New York said he "was having trouble last year persuading Department of Environmental Conservation officials to listen to the industry's concerns. So he went directly to the governor, he said, and got results." As the result of this closed process, Governor Paterson decided to reject the results of years of state analyses and public hearings. Instead the governor decided to heed the pleas of a powerful interest group. For its part, the D.E.C. says that it will subject the governor's pledge to the same standard of public review that it held during the original decision-making. But I have to admit that I am skeptical that the agency will re-open its regulatory process and then overrule the governor. Unless I'm wrong, it's "back to the future" in Albany. It's back to the days when interest groups could short-circuit public decision-making by going directly to the top. While there may be no cigars and cigarettes, this is a return to the smoke-filled room. And away from the 2006 election promises of openness and accountability. New Yorkers should hope that the governor's private promises are thoroughly scrutinized in a public process. Let's hope that the process starts with the governor revealing what information he reviewed that triggered his intervention on behalf of power producers. And let's hope that once revealed, the D.E.C. examines the information provided by the governor with objectivity and openness. And let's hope that the D.E.C. rejects the interferences and pressure from the governor and simply does the right thing. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. March 2, 2009: PAYING TO PLAY New Yorkers got a glimpse into who funds legislative elections from a recent report released by NYPIRG. The report, entitled Capital Investment$, documented a disturbing picture of campaign finance in fundraising for the 2008 New York State legislative races. It found that of the $94 million spent by candidates and the political parties in the 2008 election. Most of the campaign money originated with businesses, partnerships and professional trade associations. These groups alone donated nearly forty percent of legislative campaign dollars. Real estate interests and health entities topped the list of the largest corporate sectors contributing to candidates and the political parties. Second on the list were donations from individuals, likely wealthy ones. Despite being the second largest category of donors, a tiny fraction of all New Yorkers made individual campaign contributions. The report found that less than 0.2 percent of eligible adults made individual donations that were reported as contributions. Roughly 85 percent of individuals' contributions were made in at least $1,000 chunks, with fully one-third coming from checks of $10,000 or more. It's likely that campaign contributions in excess of $1,000 were donated by individuals that are well-off or wealthy. Unions came in third - actually a distant third. Unions contributed far less than businesses or wealthy individuals. Of course, campaign disclosures do not include volunteer campaign work done by union members, but it was surprising that unions contributed so little relative to their business counterparts. And it was also quite clear where the money was going-to incumbents, particularly members of the majority party in each house - and the legislative leaderships' political committees. These committees can receive over $94,000 each year in contributions and can then transfer that money to the candidates of their choice. In addition, these legislative committees can receive unlimited dollars from any source for their "soft money" accounts, which are not supposed to be used for electioneering. According to the report, majority party legislative candidates raised far more than minority party candidates. The power of the legislative majority is clear when examining fundraising success. The majority party legislative political committees raised well over two and a half times the amount of minority party political committees. The committees are the source of much of the campaign revenues spent in an election. Also, campaign fundraising by incumbents dwarfed those of challengers. By the end of the 2008 elections, incumbents had raised more than twice as much as challengers. Candidates facing the toughest races received the greatest support from legislative party committees. Legislative party committees - those entities control by the legislative leadership - are well financed and provide huge sums to those few candidates who face tough races. This enormous fundraising advantage helps fuel New York's incredibly high reelection rate. The report makes it clear that New York's legislative candidates rely heavily on enormous financial support from a small fraction of the state's population - typically those with the money to fund elections. As a result, New Yorkers are presented with a system that appears to be far more responsive to the needs of the wealthy and powerful than to the huge percentage of citizens not directly involved in political campaigns. In order for New York's democracy to become more responsive, the system for raising campaign contributions must change. Creation of a new system of campaign financing is a critical component of meaningful reform. There must be a new system that relies on the funding of elections by the public, not special interests. The report issued three key recommendations: First, create a voluntary system of public financing modeled on New York City. Such a system will give New Yorkers of average means a concrete opportunity to seriously run for office. Second, overhaul existing campaign finance law by: banning soft money, dramatically lowering contribution limits, closing loopholes, expanding disclosure, and strengthening enforcement. Third, create a new campaign finance enforcement agency. As President Theodore Roosevelt argued in his speech, New Nationalism, "It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes: It is more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced." With Governor Paterson, Senate Majority Leader Smith and Assembly Speaker Silver all in agreement that New York's campaign finance system should change, New Yorkers should feel hopeful. Hopeful that the days of "paying to play" are nearing an end. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. Feb 16, 2009: THE FEDERAL STIMULUS PACKAGE Last week the Congress approved a huge economic "stimulus" package to jump-start the nation's sputtering economy. The plan - the largest federal stimulus effort since World War II - combines $463 billion in additional spending and $326 billion in tax cuts. As part of the nearly $790 billion package, New York State stands to receive nearly $25 billion over the next two and a half years, including:
So how will New Yorkers know if the money is being well spent? Well, according to the congressional agreement, a special website (www.recovery.gov) will be created to allow the public to know how the funds are spent, all announcements of contract and grant competitions and awards, and formula grant allocations. The agreement also states that the public must have access to the names of agency personnel to contact with concerns about infrastructure projects. Public notice of funding must include a description of the investment funded, the purpose, the total cost, and why recovery dollars should be used. Governors, mayors, or others making funding decisions must personally certify that the investments have been fully vetted and is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. This information will also be placed on the Internet. Of course, the whole point of the stimulus package is get money into the economy quickly. The focus is supposed to be on projects that are ready-to-go or that can be spent quickly and easily through existing programs. With so much pressure on states to spend the money, there will exist the potential for "gaming" the system. New York does not have a great track record of watching how its money gets spent - particularly in the area of economic development. For example, the once-touted "enterprise zones," which target state development grants into supposedly needy areas, is now widely viewed as a failure. Yet, New York policymakers will be under pressure to move quickly - which will mean little public debate over the decisions to spend tens of billions of dollars. It is critical, therefore, that the governor put in place mechanisms to ensure public accountability of the federal stimulus spending in the state. Governor Paterson has created the "New York State Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Cabinet" which will oversee infrastructure spending funded by the stimulus. This "cabinet" is an inside the Administration entity, composed of State agency heads and the governor's staff. Creating the "cabinet" is one important step, but more must be done. New York should create a website that provides comparable data about state spending. The website should allow users to "drill down" into approved contracts to see what the projects are supposed to accomplish and how the state will measure success. In addition, the state should list all projects that have applied for stimulus monies - it should show which ones were approved and why, as well as declare why some projects where not chosen and why. The state should also publicly disclose the criteria it used for choosing projects, including how the state apportioned spending by region, whether the projects helped reduce the state's reliance on fossil fuels, and how claims of job creation were evaluated. The nation is on the verge of adding a trillion dollars of debt - a debt that we will have to pay off for decades to come. In New York, smart use of this stimulus package could help avert a state fiscal catastrophe. In order for us to know that the plan is worth it and to ensure that the state is spending the stimulus wisely, policymakers should set a new standard for open government. The old ways of doing things - lobbyists plying their contacts on behalf of big campaign contributors - is simply the wrong way to go. Complete transparency and public accountability is what we should expect. Keep your fingers crossed. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. Feb 9, 2009: THE PRESIDENT'S NEXT BIG ISSUE President Obama and the Congress are currently hammering out a fiscal stimulus package, with a target agreement date of President's Day. When they wrap that issue up - and we all hope that the package is successful in jump-starting the economy - the question will be: "What is the next big issue?" There are plenty of important issues - like health care and financial services regulatory reforms. But one key issue that the President repeatedly identified as high on his agenda is combating global warming. Expect to hear a lot about this issue this Spring. There are three main approaches being advanced to reduce emissions. All of these plans have similar components - they promise to slash greenhouse gases by at least 80 percent by the year 2050, they propose to charge polluters for the "right" to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Then use the monies generated from this new permitting system to offset resulting increased costs. But there are key differences among these plans, here's a rundown:
Proponents of Plan #3 envision that Americans would get their payments deposited directly into the bank accounts - or to debit cards for those without bank accounts - in the same way as Social Security payments are made to the 50 million Americans that currently receive benefits. Plan #3 has a lot going for it. Like Social Security, in order for the program to succeed it needs to be in place for decades, in this case at least 40 years. By using the money raised from oil, coal and other fossil fuel-burning industries and then giving 100 percent of that money back to consumers, it would increase everyone's buying power as pollution limits take effect. Plan #3 makes the most sense. It annually reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that are allowed to be emitted into the air. It charges polluters for the "right" to emit these gases - thus increasing the cost of burning fossil fuels relative to the cost of energy production that does not rely on fossil fuels. It also directs all of the money raised from the program directly to Americans. For all of us, it would be tangible proof of the program's benefits and a real way to help families offset the rising cost of products derived from fossil fuels. The program has the all of the makings of a system that could be in place for decades. Even if future environmentally-hostile Administrations came to office, it would be as difficult to get rid of a popular program. The program is relatively simple to administer, is transparent, and should be able to stand the test of time. As federal officials turn their attention to the global warming menace, keep these principles in mind - the program must slash greenhouse gases, must make all polluters pay, and must ensure that all of the generated revenues are sent back to Americans. If that's the plan, it'll work. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. January 26, 2009: IS ALBANY FINALLY AT THE TIPPING POINT? The federal government finally completed its investigation into the business dealings of former Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. Last Friday afternoon, Bruno was indicted for depriving the public of his "honest services" by using his office for his own personal financial gain. The indictment disclosed Bruno's business activities over a thirteen year period and found that he pocketed over $3 million from firms seeking to trade on Bruno's leadership position. The US Attorney's office charged that former Senator Bruno used his elected position to make a "substantial" amount of money from entities that benefited from his official actions. Essentially, a "pay to play" scheme. Of course, Bruno is innocent until proven guilty and the trial of the former Senator will decide whether the charges are proven. What is indisputable is that the indictment reveals a fatal flaw in enforcement of the state's ethics laws; namely its reliance on self-regulation. The ethics of the legislative branch are monitored and enforced by the Legislative Ethics Commission. The Commission is new. The ethics reform legislation that passed in 2007 replaced the old Legislative Ethics Committee with this new Commission. But what did not change was who was in charge - the legislative leaders or how it operates. Under the old law, the membership of the Ethics Committee was all legislators appointed by the legislative leaders. Under the new law, the Ethics Commission is overseen by a nine member board. Four of the members are legislators and five are non-legislators, but all of them are appointed by the legislative leaders. The fifth non-legislator member is supposed to be approved through joint agreement of the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Majority Leader. That person was never chosen since the two leaders have not been able to agree on a selection. The staff of the Committee, and now the Commission, has admitted that they have never punished anyone for violating the state ethics law. During the last few years, that failure to act has been glaring as legislators have been charged, indicted and convicted by other enforcers - usually a district attorney or a US attorney. So where have the legislative ethics enforcers been while Assemblymembers Green, Davis, McLaughlin, and Norman and Senator Velella were convicted of political corruption? Where were they while former Senators Bruno and Gonzalez and Assemblyman Seminerio were indicted? They've been nowhere; done nothing. Why? Because they are creatures of the very entity they are supposed to police. They are not independent. New York State allows legislators to choose their own ethics police - essentially creating an honor system. A system that has clearly failed. The executive branch is not much better. That branch's ethics are monitored by the Commission on Public Integrity - a commission in which the majority of members are chosen by the governor. Another example of the regulated choosing their own watchdog. New Yorkers deserve better than the regular news of charges, prison sentences and resignations. They deserve an ethics law that is enforced by an independent watchdog, one with the resources, authority and temperament to take on violations of the law without fear or favor. So what should such a reform look like? Here are some key components:
That's all for now. I'll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. January 19, 2009: GLOBAL WARMING AND THE NEW ADMINISTRATION Americans have a new Administration and new hopes that it will tackle the seminal issue of our time: global warming. As residents of upstate shiver through another cold, cold winter, it seems hard to conceive that the Earth is experiencing an accelerating warming trend. But it is. Over the past few decades, the average temperature of New York has increased by nearly 2 degrees. With that warming trend comes increased frequency of freak storms, rising sea levels and greater likelihood of illness due to insect-borne diseases. And there is no dispute that human activities contribute to the Earth's warming trend. According to a panel of experts convened by the United Nations, unless the world acts to aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth may experience runaway global warming that could destabilize all nations. Greenhouse gas emissions largely are the result of the burning of fossil fuels - like when you burn gas to run your car or a utility burns coal to generate electricity. The panel, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its research on this issue. The IPCC argued that in order to limit the increase in the Earth's average temperature to no more than 3 degrees by the middle of this century, nations such as the United States would have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by the year 2050. The new President ran on a platform that committed the nation to a goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, a goal consistent with the findings of the IPCC. But the year 2050 is a long time from now. Most of today's policymakers won't even be around then. So, it'll be easy to rhetorically commit to that goal, but much harder to make the decisions that will put a policy in place that will hold for over 4 decades. Obviously, everyone is assuming that advances in technology will play an important role in the move from an energy policy based on the burning of fossil fuels to something else, probably energy derived from the sun and other alternative sources. But it'll be hard to predict - it's like someone in 1968 predicting the technologies that we all use today. While it will be hard to predict the technological advances, it is clear that the policies have to be put in place now. The President is quite right to commit the nation to the goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 80 percent by the mid-century. But the legislation must contain interim goals, so that policymakers of the future have an easier time meeting that mandate. Like an ocean-liner, you can't move an economy the size of the United States' on a dime. Today's policymakers must develop timetables so that the public knows that the nation is moving in the right direction. A straight calculation would be that each decade should see at least a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, given that the IPCC suggests that the goal should be at least an 80 percent reduction by the year 2050, the near-term goal should be that the nation cuts greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 percent by the year 2020. It'll be hard for the public to maintain support for such a plan without seeing progress and a clear assurance that the cost is being kept to a minimum. There can be no doubt that curbing greenhouse gases will cost the public. The proposed regulatory approach is to tax greenhouse gases and to gradually reduce the amount of those pollutants over time. One way to help ensure that the program is designed to keep the cost low to the consumer is to ensure that any revenues generated by the program are diverted directly back to the American people. No middlemen, no bureaucracy, just a direct payment wired into Americans' bank accounts (or other vehicles for those without bank accounts). Polluters will be paying for the ability to emit gases into the air that we all breathe. If the public is ultimately going to see those taxes passed along through higher prices, surely any revenues generated from the program should go directly to Americans, in order to offset the cost of the program. In order to tame the global warming menace, we have to start now. And we have to develop policies that will have public support for the long haul. Policies that protect the public's health - both personal and financial - will have the greatest likelihood of success. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. January 5, 2009: THE 2009 SESSION The 2009 legislative session is upon us. Looking back it's amazing how much has changed. Last year's State of the State address was delivered by then-Governor Eliot Spitzer, the economy was showing signs of cooling but no sign of collapse, and the Senate majority was - as it had been for over 40 years - controlled by the Republicans. Given the unbelievable changes that occurred in 2008, it's hard to speculate on what the future holds for New York, but the success of the 2009 legislative session may depend on how the following questions are handled. Question 1. Will the governor and the legislature close the state's $13 billion budget deficit in a fair and open manner? The governor's office currently estimates that the state faces a projected $13 billion shortfall unless changes are made. Last month the governor unveiled his plan for closing that gap with a combination of billions of dollars in additional taxes and fees as well as billions in cuts - to politically sensitive areas like education and health care. While there are a couple of still unanswered questions - how the new Obama Administration's fiscal stimulus package affects New York and whether the economy will continue its steep decline or rebound - both the product and the process of the budget matter. Will the "pain" of the budget be fairly distributed, or will the least politically powerful get hurt the most? Will the budget negotiations be conducted openly? Last year's deliberations were conducted largely in secret and the legislative conference committees were more show than substance. We now see that the current year's secret budget decisions led to an out of whack agreement. Will this year be different? Question 2. Will the Democrats capably govern? It appears that for the first time since the 1930s, Democrats will control all of New York State government. I say "appears" because while there is a Democratic numerical majority in the Senate, 32-29 with one seat still being recounted, it's not clear that the Democrats will be able to marshal a governing majority. The state faces serious problems. The budget is a mess, the energy situation has improved in terms of price, but the problems of global warming still loom, and millions of New Yorkers lack health insurance. Add to those issues the problems associated with the skyrocketing cost of college and the state's pockets of persistent poverty, and you can see that the agenda is long and difficult to tackle. If the Democrats fail to organize the Senate or fail to move the state government in a positive direction, Albany will suffer from a policy gridlock never before seen. If the Democrats wish to succeed, they need to organize themselves and then move quickly to tackle the state budget problems and other important issues. Question 3. Will reform legislation pass? For years, the Senate Democratic minority argued that if they ever seized the majority they would aggressively work to reform state government. They advocated for campaign finance, redistricting, legislative rules, and ethics reforms. During some of that time, their leader was former State Senator David Paterson. As governor, Paterson seems to have forgotten his reform promises; will his former colleagues do the same? Of course it will be difficult for the Senate Democrats to enact anything given their slim majority. But unless they advance proposals and receive support from the governor and the State Assembly, nothing will get done. And if they fail, the public will have no choice but to blame the Democrats. Obviously, all New Yorkers should hope that the 2009 session succeeds. The state's future hinges on what kinds of decisions Albany lawmakers make this year. My fingers are crossed. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. December 29, 2008: PICKING A US SENATOR Despite a tanking economy and a swelling state budget deficit, Albany's political class has been buzzing over Governor Paterson's looming decision to replace US Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton has been nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to be the next US Secretary of State. If Senator Clinton is approved by the US Senate - a seemingly safe bet - that leaves New York without a US Senator. Under New York State law, the governor has the sole power to select a replacement. Why does the governor have this authority? Good question, it probably has something to do with decisions made decades ago to ensure that the state did not go long without being represented by two Senators. If the state had a special election, it would take time and money. Back in the old days, such an appointment was not out of the ordinary. Yet, the controversy engulfing Illinois - where its governor is alleged to have tried to personally profit from his attempt to "sell" the Senate seat formerly held by the President-elect - underscores the hazards of allowing one person, and not the voters, choose a US Senator. Unlike Illinois, there has not been a whiff of scandal in how Governor Paterson is approaching the selection of Clinton's replacement. But there has been quite a bit of controversy. I'll leave coverage of that controversy to the media, but I think the governor could have handled this situation differently. Early on, the governor made a political decision about how he would handle the Clinton seat. He said that he wanted to replace Clinton with an individual who would run for re-election in 2010. As a result, the governor was viewing the replacement of Clinton through a partisan lens. But why view the selection in partisan terms? Why not do something different? Why not choose someone who won't promise to run in 2010? Why not pick someone who under normal circumstances could never get elected to office, but who is capable of handling the job? New York State has over 12 million registered voters. Fewer than 6 million are registered Democrats, the rest are Republicans, unaffiliated voters, and members of small political parties. Since Senator Clinton and Governor Paterson are Democrats, I can understand why the governor would not want to choose a Republican. But why not someone who is unaffiliated with the political parties and is independent? Why not pick who is not partisan, someone of average means - not a celebrity, not a millionaire, not a politician? Why not use this historic choice to give a smart, capable person who would ordinarily never get elected to office the opportunity to show his or her stuff in Washington? Maybe it would show all New Yorkers that they are just as capable of handling a powerful office as someone with wealth or years of partisan experience. And maybe, just maybe, the millions of New Yorkers who do not consider themselves partisan ideologues would get the idea that they can contribute. Sort of a 21st Century version of Frank Capra's movie classic, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington," the tale of an "average Joe" sent to Washington who fights to reform the Congress. Imagine if the governor went down this route and asked people to apply and had a public discussion over why and how he made his decision. It is, after all, our representative in Washington. It's not the Democrats representative, it's not a political reward for an ally, and it's not supposed to be a way to help bolster the re-election prospects of Democrats in 2010. It's a US Senate representative for all of the people of the state of New York. Why not choose someone who looked like that group? Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. December 22, 2008: ALBANY SHOULD BE HELPING NEW YORKERS According to media reports, the governor's budget will propose new tax hikes - primarily on health care providers and college students, and recommend deep cuts to education and health care programs. His plan is not surprising given the magnitude of the estimated state budget deficit for next year. According to the governor's office, New York is expected to face a combined $12.5 billion deficit unless changes are made. While there will be a debate over how to close that deficit, there will also be debates over how to spend the $120 billion state budget. It's important that despite the budget difficulties, policymakers create a budget that spends tax dollars wisely and helps New Yorkers in need in both large and small ways. One thing is for sure, New Yorkers are hurting during these difficult economic times. And help is needed even by those who do not directly benefit from state programs. For them, the cost of transportation is higher, the cost of health care is higher, and the cost of basic financial services and insurance is higher. New York does have programs to help in these areas. Here are three examples of programs that can help consumers save money. First, New Yorkers who want to drive a car must have auto insurance. In many areas of the state, including much of upstate and downstate suburban areas there is limited public transportation and having a car is essential. The state requires auto insurance and for those who purchase a car with a loan, the lender requires additional coverage. In New York, there are huge variations in the cost of auto insurance. Drivers in the Albany area, for example, may pay hundreds of dollars more in insurance if they choose one insurance company over another. That's why for over 20 years New York State has compiled an auto insurance guide for drivers. In that guide, drivers can compare auto insurance premiums of the largest companies in each region of the state. In modern times, the Insurance Department makes the guide available on the Internet at www.ins.state.ny.us/auto/2008/auto08tc.htm. But the Department's website does not offer comprehensive information. The premiums are only offered for "generic" drivers needing insurance for "generic" cars. While helpful, the state could do a lot more. The state currently collects premiums information for all types of cars and drivers. For a relatively small expenditure, the New York should offer drivers an interactive website that allows consumers to do comprehensive online comparison shopping. This will not only help consumers shop smart, but will make insurers more competitive. In addition, the state should require that insurance companies disclose the availability of the website on all bills sent to drivers. By establishing a comprehensive site and requiring that its existence be disclosed on premium notices, the state could save drivers thousands of dollars. In the same way the state collects information on bank fees. You can check out the information at www.cardratings.com/bank_fee_survey/bankfees.html. However, like the auto insurance guide, consumers are unaware of the bank fee information. The state should require that all banking statements disclose the existence of this site. A database coupled with disclosure could help consumers who are trying to save money by avoiding escalating bank fees. The state also publishes the prices of the most commonly prescribed prescription drugs. Patients can get that information at http://rx.nyhealth.gov/pdpw/. The website shows enormous ranges in prices for the exact same prescription - in some cases in the hundreds of dollars. Yet, there is no posting requirement in pharmacies alerting the public to the existence of the website. That lack of information results in fewer New Yorkers comparison shopping for medications and that can cost patients dearly. Some of the millions of New Yorkers, who lack health insurance coverage and must pay full retail, could save lots of money if they knew where to shop for their medicines. The state budget is not only about balancing the books. It's about helping people who need it. For the three programs I just mentioned, and many more, the government could do a lot to help people who need it merely by letting people know that the information is available. Let's hope the governor is thinking of how to use the budget to help people, not just how to cut programs to balance the books. That's all for now. I'll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. December 15, 2008: NEW YORK SHOULD BE HELPING NEW YORKERS According to media reports, the governor's budget will propose new tax hikes - primarily on health care providers and college students, and recommend deep cuts to education and health care programs. His plan is not surprising given the magnitude of the estimated state budget deficit for next year. According to the governor's office, New York is expected to face a combined $12.5 billion deficit for this fiscal year and next unless changes are made. While there will be a debate over how to close that deficit, there will also be debates over how to spend the $120 billion state budget. It's important that despite the budget difficulties, policymakers create a budget that spends tax dollars wisely and helps New Yorkers in need in both large and small ways. One thing is for sure, New Yorkers are hurting during these difficult economic times. And help is needed even by those who do not directly benefit from state programs. For them, the cost of transportation is higher, the cost of health care is higher, and the cost of basic financial services and insurance is higher. New York does have programs to help in these areas. Here are three examples of programs that can help consumers save money. First, New Yorkers who want to drive a car must have auto insurance. In many areas of the state, including much of upstate and downstate suburban areas there is limited public transportation and having a car is essential. The state requires auto insurance and for those who purchase a car with a loan, the lender requires additional coverage. In New York, there are huge variations in the cost of auto insurance. Drivers in the Albany area, for example, may pay hundreds of dollars more in insurance if they choose one insurance company over another. That's why for over 20 years New York State has compiled an auto insurance guide for drivers. In that guide, drivers can compare auto insurance premiums of the largest companies in each region of the state. In modern times, the Insurance Department makes the guide available on the Internet at www.ins.state.ny.us/auto/2008/auto08tc.htm. But the Department's website does not offer comprehensive information. The premiums are only offered for "generic" drivers needing insurance for "generic" cars. While helpful, the state could do a lot more. The state currently collects premiums information for all types of cars and drivers. For a relatively small expenditure, the New York should offer drivers an interactive website that allows consumers to do comprehensive online comparison shopping. This will not only help consumers shop smart, but will make insurers more competitive. In addition, the state should require that insurance companies disclose the availability of the website on all bills sent to drivers. By establishing a comprehensive site and requiring that its existence be disclosed on premium notices, the state could save drivers thousands of dollars. In the same way the state collects information on bank fees. You can check out the information at www.cardratings.com/bank_fee_survey/bankfees.html. However, like the auto insurance guide, consumers are unaware of the bank fee information. The state should require that all banking statements disclose the existence of this site. A database coupled with disclosure could help consumers who are trying to save money by avoiding escalating bank fees. The state also publishes the prices of the most commonly prescribed prescription drugs. Patients can get that information at rx.nyhealth.gov/pdpw/. The website shows enormous ranges in prices for the exact same prescription - in some cases in the hundreds of dollars. Yet, there is no posting requirement in pharmacies alerting the public to the existence of the website. That lack of information results in fewer New Yorkers comparison shopping for medications and that can cost patients dearly. Some of the millions of New Yorkers, who lack health insurance coverage and must pay full retail, could save lots of money if they knew where to shop for their medicines. The state budget is not only about balancing the books. It's about helping people who need it. For the three programs I just mentioned, and many more, the government could do a lot to help people who need it merely by letting people know that the information is available. Let's hope the governor is thinking of how to use the budget to help people, not just how to cut programs to balance the books. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. December 8, 2008: UNDERMINING THE RIGHT TO VOTE Close elections tend to bring out the worst in political campaigns and operatives. But even by the very rough and tumble standards of New York elections, a Queens State Senate race this Fall was particularly offensive. First, a bit of background. Long-time incumbent Republican Senator Frank Padavan of Northeastern Queens has watched as his district has changed: the numbers of nonwhite voters are increasing as is the number of enrolled Democrats. Despite these changes, over the years Senator Padavan has easily dispatched challengers. He has not only brought home the bacon - a public school in his district is even named after him - but he has established a well-deserved reputation as a hard-edged maverick. For example, he has long led the charge against the expansion of gambling in New York, often bucking leadership in his house. But this election has been different. With President Bush's popularity in the toilet and growing Democratic political power in New York, Republicans across the state knew they were in for a tough time. In Senator Padavan's case, he faced a serious challenge for the first time in years. Popular New York City Councilmember James Gennaro challenged Padavan and ran a well-organized campaign. When the initial tally was released, Padavan led Gennaro by 700 votes, but with thousands of paper ballots still to be counted. In a re-run of Florida in 2000, lawyers and political operatives descended on the board of elections in Queens and began a vote-by-vote review of each of the paper ballots. Of course, all of this makes sense. No election should turn on votes that were illegitimately or erroneously cast. But then it got really ugly. The Padavan campaign decided to challenge some St. John's University students' votes simply because, as Senator Padavan put it, "These students have permanent residences that are great distances from the 11th Senatorial District, as evidenced by their driver's licenses and other materials." But New York law couldn't be clearer, students - like all other adults with more than one residence - can choose which residence to vote from. Just like senior citizens, who, for example, may have Queens and Florida residences, but choose to register in New York, students can choose to register from their campus, if they wish. You just can't vote in two places. However, unlike some other adults, students have a strong claim to registering to vote from their college residences. When the census is taken, college students are counted as living at their campus addresses. And census information is used for a lot of things - like deciding political boundaries and determining federal aid. But the Padavan campaign was not satisfied with a mere challenge to these college voters, they served the students with subpoenas requiring them to appear in State Supreme Court in Queens last week with copies of their tax documents, utility bills and other information. As I mentioned earlier, the law is clear - even the New York City Board of Elections publicly said that under state law a student can register and vote based on either his or her parent's address or a college address. So were the Padavan campaign's actions justified? Apparently not. After sitting around for a couple of hours waiting for their court appearance, the college students looked on as judge took under a half an hour to dismiss the Padavan challenges. He told the students that they had no obligation to present any materials, and he asked them to leave the courtroom and return to their studies. You can imagine how the students felt after getting jerked around like this while they were trying to prepare for their finals. They felt they were doing their civic duty by making sure they would vote and ended up getting punished. For many it left a bad taste in their mouths about the electoral process. It was just voter harassment, pure and simple. All in the name of eliminating paper ballots cast by college students - voters who were perceived be leaning Democratic - in an election cliffhanger. The election result between Senator Padavan and his challenger is still unresolved. The Senator appears to be maintaining a slim lead. One hopes that after the dust settles, the winner will think about what happened last week and offer legislation to further strengthen the voting rights of college students. A measure that makes it clear to everyone that college students can choose where they register and not worry about harassment. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. December 1, 2008: ETHICAL LAPSES While high-level budget negotiations were not happening last month, Governor Paterson was spending time in the Caribbean. Two conferences - one on St. Maarten and another in Puerto Rico - attracted the governor and other elected officials from New York. The St. Maarten conference was organized by the Caribbean Multi-National Business Conference and held in the Sonesta Maho Beach Resort and Casino. The conference in Puerto Rico was hosted by Somos El Futoro, an association of Latino legislators. Both events attracted lobbyists and interested groups who wanted to schmooze politicians and collect favors. Favors that would help fatten their bottom lines. It was reported over the weekend that the St. Maarten event was underwritten by some of America's most powerful corporations. According to the reports published in the New York Post, corporations such as IBM, AT&T, Verizon, Citigroup, Pfizer, and American Airlines help pay for public officials' airfare, meals and hotel rooms. Citigroup alone forked over $100,000 to help finance the event. According to the Post, members of Congress and local New York officials were the beneficiaries of these gifts. The governor stated that he did not accept such gifts, but instead used his campaign contributions (much of which originated with lobbyists and interest groups) to pay for the trip instead. Under New York law, state and local elected officials are prohibited from accepting gifts (excluding campaign contributions, which are ok to give) from lobbyists or companies that hire lobbyists. Members of Congress have similar restrictions. In addition, it's a violation of state law for lobbyists or their well-heeled clients to give gifts as well. It's appropriate to prohibit these gifts. After all, lobbyists are in the business of building "relationships." Often those "relationships" are the product of years of doing favors for lawmakers - with the expectation of getting favors in return. Sometimes the favors consist of wining and dining a lawmaker, sometimes it's picking up the tab for air fare and hotel rooms at a so-called "conference" held at a tropical paradise, sometimes it's bundling together campaign contributions to help in an election. Of course, not all lobbyists are high flyers who travel to the Caribbean to ingratiate themselves to elected officials. Some lobbyists' knowledge of the details of public policy is at the core of their effectiveness. But for many, the core of their effectiveness stems from their ability to dole out favors and campaign contributions. I'm not suggesting that lawmakers' votes are garnered through gift-giving. The favors that lobbyists expect in return are often quite small. For example, a call on behalf of a client, or asking a helpful question on legislation during a committee meeting, or a call into an agency to check up on a contract. For each individual lawmaker, such calls are benign, but if the lobbyist has a number of lawmakers taking such actions in concert, it can have a tremendous impact on policymaking. And it's not just the reality of the potential to use gifts to unfairly influence lawmakers; it's the public's perception that their representative's voices are paying more attention to the whispers of lobbyists and their clients than their constituents. That's why lobbyists are banned from giving gifts. Unlike everyone else in the state, lobbyists play a unique role in policymaking. As paid representatives, they are in the Capitol all of the time. Being around alone can help a lobbyist develop relationships, as well as knowing the substance of policies, but doling out favors can make a lobbyist popular too. That's why it's so important to enact policies that limit the influence of lobbyists who primarily rely on their wallets instead of their knowledge. And that's why it's so important for agencies charged with enforcing those laws be aggressive in their enforcement. Hopefully, investigators are looking at the Post's news reports right now. That's all for now. I'll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. November 24, 2008: THINKING "OUTSIDE THE BOX" Albany hit a new low when Governor Paterson and legislative leaders could not agree on a plan to balance the state budget. Last week's emergency session was called by the governor to cut $2 billion from the growing state budget shortfall. Yet nothing was done. Why? One possibility is that the governor failed to do the work necessary to obtain legislative approval. Despite organizing scores of staff-level negotiation sessions, the governor reportedly convened only one leaders' meeting prior to the special session. If the budget deficit is an emergency, then frequent high-level meetings to lay the groundwork for action should have occurred. Moreover, if the governor wanted to galvanize public opinion, his message of "shared pain" fell flat. Another possibility is that the governor did not believe that Senate Republicans would deal. After all, they lost their majority on Election Day for the first time in over 40 years. It never made political sense that the lame duck Republican Majority would be willing to work with a Democratic governor who had successfully campaigned against them. But whatever the reason, the bottom line is that the people's work was not done. The governor and the legislature arrived in Albany to address a critical problem - the budget deficit - and they failed to do so. It's never easy rallying the public to support budget cuts and reductions in services - even when there is a large deficit. While voters generally support the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism, they don't like cuts to education and health programs - the largest areas of the state budget. Moreover, articulating the need for cuts does little to mobilize the public, but it does a lot to mobilize organized groups who oppose cuts to government spending. That opposition is another reason why nothing happened. If the governor is to succeed in tackling the state's financial crisis, he will have to offer a plan for a streamlined, more efficient government that costs less. Without that overarching vision, it will be much, much harder for the governor to succeed. And that plan should look at New York government comprehensively. Here are some ideas:
If the governor wants to succeed in reducing state spending, he's going to have to think radically about how government works. Here's hoping that he succeeds. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. November 17, 2008: LAWMAKERS' CHOICES MATTER When you go to the supermarket and buy a soda, you have to put down a nickel deposit. When you bring the soda back, you get the nickel. If you don't, the soda company keeps the nickel. Does that seem right? New York State law requires the nickel deposit system, known as the Bottle Law. Originally passed in the early 1980s, the law has been extremely effective in reducing litter and helping to recycle. But the law does not entitle beverage companies to keep the unclaimed deposits. In fact, the law is silent on this issue. The loophole in the law has allowed bottlers and distributors to keep more than $2 billion in unclaimed nickel deposits from unreturned bottles and cans over the past 25 years. New York is out of step with other states, such as Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, and Hawaii, which require these unclaimed container deposits be transferred to the state, generally to fund environmental programs. On average, 73% of the bottles and cans with a nickel deposit have been returned and their deposits refunded over the past 25 years, making the Bottle Law by far New York's most effective litter reduction and recycling program. Environmental advocates would be thrilled if the return rate were even higher. But however high the return rate is, there is no compelling reason why the remaining unclaimed deposits should enrich the beverage companies. This is the public's money, forfeited one nickel at a time, and should be reclaimed and used for the public's benefit. When polled, 86% of New Yorkers supported transferring this money to the state to fund environmental programs. As part of his budget deficit plan, Governor Paterson is proposing to expand the Bottle Law to new containers - like water bottles - and to keep the unclaimed nickels to fund environmental programs. The Assembly has repeatedly passed reforms to the Bottle Law consistent with what the governor has proposed. And each of these votes was a difficult one due to intense opposition from industry lobbyists. The state's current budget multi-billion dollar deficit makes the arguments in favor of this legislation more compelling than ever before. The environmental benefits of updating the Bottle Law to include water bottles and other noncarbonated beverages are well documented, and there is tremendous public support for this measure. Add to that potential revenue in excess of $218 million a year, and all you can say to legislators is "what are you waiting for?" This week the Legislature returns to address the budget deficit. The governor is proposing that the legislature act on his plan to close a $2 billion budget shortfall. The governor's plan will cut into school aid, health programs and increase the cost of going to college, among other items. If the Legislature rejects the governor's proposal to expand the Bottle Law and to use the unclaimed deposits to fund environmental programs, it must then find the money somewhere else. Will the Legislature agree with the governor and collect those unclaimed deposits? If they don't, it would be indefensible. Imagine if the Legislature cuts funding for education, health care, environmental protection, and other critically-needed programs, yet allowed companies like Coke, Pepsi and Anheuser-Busch continue to pocket the public's unclaimed deposits. What would lawmakers say to people relying on programs that suffered bigger cuts, or to college students who have to pay a higher tuition because they refuse to reform the Bottle Law? What does it say about lawmakers' priorities? Hopefully, state lawmakers will make the right choice. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. November 10, 2008: HISTORICAL ELECTIONS Election Day was historic. Not only did the Democrats strengthen their control over Congress, but the nation's first African-American president was elected with a solid majority. Closer to home in New York State, the election was historic as well. The Democrats now have majorities in the Senate (32-29, with one still open) and Assembly (109-41), and control all of the statewide elective offices. This the first time in a long while that there is one-party rule in New York, in fact it's the first time since the 1930s that the Democrats have seized both the legislative and executive branches. It is clear that voters wanted one party to break policy gridlocks at both the federal and state levels. Unfortunately for the Democrats, right after the Election a fight broke out for control of the Senate. Four Democrats - two incumbents and two senate-elects - publicly stated that they were not sure that they would support current Democratic leader Malcolm Smith as their leader. In fact, it was reported that the four were having discussions to allow the Republicans to run the Senate. Given the intervention of Governor Paterson, it is more likely that these four Democrats will ultimately coalesce behind Senate Democratic leadership. But it is a bad omen for the Democrats. It raises the big question - can they govern? It will be hard. If the Democrats consolidate their control of the Senate, they will have a hard time advancing controversial issues. In order to pass legislation, the Democrats will need every one of their members to agree. Essentially, the Democratic Senate will need a consensus to approve legislation. And making tough decisions by consensus is practically speaking impossible. And tough decisions they will have to make: tough decisions like campaign finance reform, advancing environmental and health reforms, as well as closing a huge budget deficit. Add to that the difficulties in organizing the Senate - hiring staff, setting legislative priorities and establishing procedures for the house - and it is extremely unlikely that the Senate Democrats will be able to take the lead on controversial bills. In the short term, what is most likely is that the Senate Democrats will spend at least one year consolidating their conference and the governor and the state Assembly will take the lead on policymaking. So what should reformers be thinking? They will have to fight to make sure that one-party rule does not lead to misrule. In addition, New Yorkers should demand that public officials address the climate crisis, environmental degradation, consumer protections, health care and adequate funding for higher education -- and to do all of that in a terrible fiscal situation. At both the state and national levels there is a window for reforms that will lead to opening up government, creating greater accountability and bringing the public into the political process. But the window will likely not stay open long. Despite the difficulties facing the Senate Democrats, voters put the Democrats in charge to end the gridlock on key issues, and they have every right to expect action. That's all for now. I'll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. November 3, 2008: GOVERNOR PATERSON'S CARIBBEAN TRIP At a time when New Yorkers are taking out the down comforters and stocking up on snow melt, Governor Paterson is traveling to the Caribbean this week. His itinerary includes two days on St. Maarten and then three days in San Juan, Puerto Rico. While on St. Maarten, the governor will arrive on Thursday for the Caribbean Multi-National Business Conference. According to the governor's staff, the point of the governor's appearance is to "engage in a dialogue with Caribbean leaders about ways to improve trade." The governor will speak at the Conference for an hour on Friday and then fly to Puerto Rico on Saturday to attend Somos El Futuro at the Intercontinental San Juan Resort and Casino in San Juan. What's wrong with that? One big thing: The governor is tapping his campaign contribution war chest to pay for his Caribbean travels. And what is the source of much of the governor's contributions? Those with business before government - lobbyists and their clients. Essentially, Albany's special interests are subsidizing the governor's Caribbean travels. The practice of elected officials using their campaign contributions for personal uses has been controversial. Reports of elected officials using their campaign contributions for country club memberships, leasing of luxury cars, and even trips abroad, have been roundly criticized. Allowing lobbyists and interest groups to make donations to elected officials who then use the money essentially for themselves is an inherent conflict of interest. Due to this cozy relationship, lawmakers could easily decide to prioritize the interests of those funding their lifestyles, instead of the public at large. That potential conflict has led reformers to argue that it should be banned. Governor Paterson agreed. In his campaign finance legislation introduced in June, the governor proposed that campaign contributions could only be used if it is "directly related to promoting the nomination or election of a candidate." Is going to St. Maarten for a one hour speech during the two day stay "directly related" to the election of the governor? Is the governor's appearance at the Conference being held at the Intercontinental San Juan Resort and Casino an election event? Of course not. Even the governor's staff can't make the argument. The governor's press staff argued that "Since portions of the trip will clearly be for political purposes, and to save taxpayers money, the governor has directed that campaign funds be used." Basically, the governor is arguing that since a portion of his Caribbean adventure is for "political purposes," he can use his campaign contributions to pay for the entire trip. Even under the overly permissive interpretation of current law, what the governor is planning to do is questionable. But under his own proposed legislation, it would not be allowed. And that is what is so amazing. The governor is planning to spend his campaign contributions in a way that would be prohibited under his own legislation. When it comes to campaign finance reform, advocates have never argued that legislators who propose needed reforms should end up putting themselves at a political disadvantage. For example, if a lawmaker proposed to lower campaign contribution limits, reformers have never demanded that those lawmakers voluntarily abide by those lower contribution limits - while their opponents were allowed higher ones. In this case, however, the reform does not put an incumbent at a competitive disadvantage. No one could lose an election because they spent their campaign contributions solely on their re-election efforts, instead of trips to exotic locales. The governor should adhere to his own proposal. If he ignores his reform, he sends a clear message that he is not serious about getting his plan enacted. If he believes it's in the state's best interest for him to attend these events, he should ask the taxpayers to pay for it. If he wants to go, but can't justify the taxpayer expense, he should pay for it out of his own pocket. If he can't afford it, he shouldn't go. The governor ran as a reformer in 2006, he should be raising the ethical bar in Albany. In this case, he did not. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. October 27, 2008: A HIGHER EDUCATION PLAN THAT SHOULD BE REJECTED As the state faces a looming multi-billion dollar budget shortfall, some have argued that New York's public college systems need a "rational tuition policy." The proposal works like this: Each year, higher education officials would raise tuition for incoming first-year college students by an amount adjusted by some sort of an inflation price index and then lock in that tuition rate for three more years. Under this plan, supporters argue, smaller annual tuition increases would be combined with a legal mandate requiring stable and adequate state funding for the university systems and prohibiting future large tuition hikes - the type of large tuition hikes that have periodically occurred in New York State. Currently, public college students go for years without tuition hikes (although they do get frequent hikes in mandated fees) and then when the state's budget gets out of whack, big tuition hikes get proposed as a way to offset cuts in state funding for the university systems. Supporters argue that if policymakers agree to a "rational tuition" system, future big tuition increases will be averted. Given the state of the state's budget and the recent cuts to State University and City University of New York, it is not at all surprising that a public college tuition hike is being discussed. Should there be a tuition hike? In a more rational system, no. There is a ton of evidence that shows how investment in quality, affordable public higher education can lead to a better trained workforce, a broader tax base and a stronger, more innovative economy. Making wise investments in SUNY and CUNY now is one of the best ways to help address the state's current economic nosedive and safeguard against future troubles in the economy As for "rational tuition," in theory it sounds like a good idea, maybe, if the promise to ensure stable and adequate funding and limit the size of the annual tuition hikes could be guaranteed. Unfortunately, it's not a good option because it's predicated on a promise that cannot be kept. Let me state that clearly again - it's a promise that cannot be kept. Why can't they keep this promise? Because current legislatures cannot make budget decisions that bind the decisions of future legislatures. As New York's top court, the Court of Appeals, noted a half-century ago, it is fundamental to our democratic system that "one Legislature cannot be limited or bound by the actions of a previous one." That means that a promise put into statute to keep annual tuition hikes small and "manageable" can't be guaranteed. So a "rational tuition" policy in New York State could guarantee minimum or baseline tuition hikes every year, but could provide no real protection against larger hikes. It would be a mistake to simply trust officials to keep the promise in the future - if there is no legal way to hold them to the promise. And even if you could trust current lawmakers, what about when others are running the show down the road? Sadly, there is precedent showing that such promises are broken. New York State has failed to keep a similar promise to fund community colleges adequately. Each year lawmakers ignore decades-old legal requirements that limit community college tuition and mandate 40% state support. This happens in both tough budget years and better times, and the same thing could happen with funding for the state's senior colleges. Similar tuition policies haven't worked out in other states either. In the handful of states that report using some type of index to help set their annual tuition, students still get whopping tuition hikes above and beyond the amounts dictated by the index whenever their state budgets get tight. The "rational tuition" proposal can only really promise that students will pay more and more. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. October 20, 2008: THE OTHER GLOBAL MELTDOWN While Americans have been transfixed watching the global financial meltdown, there is another meltdown beneath the electoral radar screen - the climate meltdown. There is a scientific consensus that global warming is a real danger and that human activity is a big part of the problem. The experts serving on the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have stated that unless we act to limit global warming by the middle of this century, the world as we know it will be devastated. This is the most important issue that we face and candidates for office should let the voters know what they intend to do about it. Without quick, decisive action, scientific experts warn that the world may face runaway global warming, a scenario in which the earth's climate is dramatically altered and increasingly inhospitable to humans and other living things. These climate changes would contribute to rising sea levels, to increased droughts and famine, to the spreading of diseases and illnesses. But that climate disaster can be avoided if we act now. The world's experts have urged that industrialized nations pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by the year 2050. Policymakers must act to embrace that goal. In order to succeed, policies must be adopted to drastically boost energy conservation and efficiency programs - programs to help cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce energy costs and help create jobs. A policy "win, win, win." In order to succeed, policies must be adopted that rely on clean renewable energy - such as solar and wind and biomass - for energy production. In order to succeed, the public must be educated and candidates asked to take a stand. To promote public awareness and spur action by representatives in Congress and in the state Legislature, concerned New Yorkers are taking the message to the people and ultimately to the state Capitol in Albany. The message is clear: We need to take action now to prevent catastrophic climate change. To help make this happen we need to start now by expanding energy efficiency programs, boosting clean renewable energy sources, and adopting tough laws curbing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050. And the candidates for state and federal offices must let the public know how they will deal with this issue. Last week, a letter was sent from environmental and civic organizations to New York candidates for congress and the state legislature. The letter asked candidates a simple question: Do you support a proposal to cut greenhouse gases that is based on the objective scientific findings of groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? In order to meet the 80 percent goal, policies must be enacted now. We can't play catch up at the 11th hour when it comes to global warming-the problem will be irreversible if we don't start acting now. Voters need to know about the issue and where candidates stand for the 2008 elections. So this week, concerned citizens are holding rallies across the state urging congressional and state legislative candidates to declare how they will address the global warming crisis facing the nation. In addition, these events are being coordinated as part of a statewide "Clean Energy Bike Tour" with concerned citizens riding from both Buffalo and on Long Island and converging in Albany on October 26th. The reason for this Bike Tour? To help to bring attention to the climate crisis and to urge the public to demand that congressional and state legislative candidates offer up their plans for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and the high cost of energy. If you want information on the "Tour" and the stops it will be taking, you can email us at cleanenergytour@gmail.com. It's critical that candidates hear these questions and that voters get serious answers. The only heat that needs to get turned up is on those who want our votes on Tuesday November 4th. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. October 14, 2008: VOTING REFORMS FOR NEW YORK Last week was the official voter registration deadline in New York State - a full 25 days before the election. While the state's constitution prohibits anyone from registering to vote within 10 days of the election, state lawmakers have gone the extra mile to impede voter registration in New York State. Why has the state enacted a law more restrictive than its constitutional requirement? In the old days, the public argument was made that administering the election in an age without electronic communication and desktop computers would be too difficult with a 10-day deadline and so the 25-day standard was put in place. Paradoxically, voters are most likely to "tune in" to candidates' campaigns as Election Day nears. This year, for example, the last Presidential debate occurs after New York's registration deadline. So, just as some citizens become interested in an election and may wish to vote, they are prohibited from doing so due to New York's voter registration deadline. While voters may have already decided on which Presidential candidate they support, races that are closer to home - congress and the state legislature - are just now coming into focus. Yet for new voters - either those who've just turned 18 years old or those who have recently moved here - the voter registration deadline will mean disenfranchisement. The way New York runs its elections contributes to a low voter turnout. Historically, New York has had one of the worst voter turnouts of any state in the nation. In the last Presidential election in 2004, a paltry 45% of the voting age population turned out at the polls - one of the five worst state turnouts. This turnout stands in stark contrast to the rest of the country where the national average voter turnout was 52%. Of course part of that difference can be attributed to the Presidential candidates' view that New York will likely be a reliable supporter of one party - but what about the other races? Turnout drops even further as a voter goes "down" the ballot to local elections. New York State is not alone with such a deadline, but, according to studies, states with shorter registration deadlines tend to have higher voter turnouts than states with longer ones. And states that allow voters the option of registering and voting on Election Day tend to have the highest voter turnouts. States that allow Election Day Registration averaged 69% turnout, while states without EDR averaged 51%. The states of Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow voters the option of registering and voting on Election Day. As mentioned earlier, these states tend to have higher voter turnouts. In fact, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wisconsin - all Election Day Registration states - had the nation's highest turnouts in the 2004 Presidential election. In addition, Election Day Registration dramatically reduces the number of paper ballots that are cast and are too often the source of controversy and litigation when determining the winners of tightly contested elections. New York State should consider allowing the Election Day Registration option for its voters. Yet, even if lawmakers can't make the leap to Election Day Registration - and it would be difficult since it requires changing the state constitution - it should reduce its deadline to the 10-day standard. Given the advances in technology, there is no justification for continuing to adhere to the "horse and buggy" 25-day minimum. New York should be doing all it can to facilitate voter participation in elections, not creating artificial and counterproductive obstacles. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. October 6, 2008: NEW YORK'S BUDGET DEBATE Last week, Governor Paterson and state's legislative leaders met to assess New York's deteriorating finances. According to the governor, the current state finances are running $1.2 billion behind and he estimates that by the end of the fiscal year in March, the shortfall will grow to $2 billion. The reason for this development was the collapse of revenues generated by Wall Street. As a result, the governor wants to convene a special session on November 18th to discuss ways to reduce state spending by $2 billion, on top of the $1 billion in administrative cuts and reductions approved in August. The governor described the current situation as "an emergency." The governor went further and stated that "everything is on the chopping block." Both he and the legislative leaders agreed that tax increases will not be on the table for the November session. However, the leaders were not willing to agree that $2 billion in cuts was needed. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos argued that the state must "act prudently" and then listed projects that he considered untouchable - money for schools and local governments. The Senator stated that New York should be looking to collect taxes on the sales of cigarettes and gasoline by Native Americas, which is estimated to be as high as $1 billion annually. So what are New Yorkers to do? The debate over spending occurs in secret and the public has no way of knowing in advance whether contemplated cuts will target much needed services. Those with the cash to pay for lobbying efforts are plugged into the budget discussions, but those who ultimately pay the bills - taxpayers - know the least. The state's budget crisis is not the first, nor will it be the last. Yet the state should, and could, do more to create opportunities for the public to participate. It should not simply retreat to the time-honored practice of hammering out deals behind closed doors. Here are three steps the governor and the legislature should take when they convene in November to tackle the state's budget problems.
Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. September 29, 2008: NEW YORK AT ITS BEST Given all the scandals and controversies in Albany, it's tempting to write off state government as incapable of addressing the problems facing New Yorkers. However, last week offered an example of state government at its best. On Thursday, Governor Paterson opened the nation's first-ever auction of carbon dioxide pollution allowances. The auction is the culmination of a vision of how to reduce greenhouse gases that is years in the making. New York's program, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was initially advanced by former Governor George Pataki and continued under the Spitzer Administration. Pataki organized a consortium of ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states that have come together to establish RGGI, a program that regulates fossil fuel-burning power plants, requiring the owners of those plants to pay for the carbon dioxide they emit into the air. By putting a price on carbon dioxide pollution through the RGGI auction, power plants will now have a financial incentive to reduce pollution. RGGI is designed to cap and then reduce the amount of carbon dioxide power plants are allowed to emit. The money generated from the purchase of carbon dioxide emissions-estimated to be millions of dollars - would be used to fund energy conservation and renewable energy programs. The idea of a "cap-and-trade" system is based on the currently-in-use European system. In Europe, a multi-national emission trading system is in place and currently regulates energy and industrial installations which are collectively responsible for close to half of the EU's emissions of CO2 and 40% of its total greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, seven western U.S. states and several Canadian provinces have established the Western Climate Initiative, to be implemented by 2012. The Paterson Administration deserves credit for sticking with this program and getting it up and running. This is just the latest of New York State's impressive efforts to reduce air pollution, curb global warming and curb energy costs, here are some more:
It's also true that Albany needs to be reformed and that other issues still go unresolved. But don't despair, the actions on energy show that when the "heat" is on, policymakers can act to solve society's problems. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. September 15, 2008: ALBANY’S ETHICS CRIME WAVE Shocked but not surprised. That’s the reaction as another state lawmaker has been charged with corruption. It is sad because New Yorkers who pay for state government and who vote for its elected officials deserve better than they are getting right now. It is not surprising because state public officials have been doing a lot of perp walks in the last decade. In last week’s case, the US Attorney’s office unveiled allegations that a 30 year Assemblyman from Queens was caught on a wiretap pledging political favors in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars from a local hospital executive. While the Assemblyman is innocent until proven guilty, the case comes after a series of corrupt and unethical behaviors that have plagued the state Capitol in recent years. The political rap sheet has gotten quite long: now-former Assemblymembers Davis, Gordon, McLaughlin and Norman and Senator Velella have all been convicted of corruption charges. Two legislators are currently charged with political crimes and others are reportedly under investigation. Former Comptroller Hevesi was convicted of misusing state funds and former Governor Spitzer was driven from office for his involvement in a prostitution ring. And these actions are in addition to the many ethical controversies and conflicts that swirl around government. Each of these cases has unique circumstances that led to these downfalls. But what is clear about them all is that their actions hinged on the belief that no one was watching, the belief that the government’s internal ethics enforcement system was unlikely to catch them or even identify a problem. In fact, Albany’s systematic failure is underscored by the fact that for the most part, the aggressive prosecutions that led to the convictions has come not from Albany’s governmental watchdogs, but from federal attorneys and local district attorneys. Each time a major controversy bubbled to the surface; elected officials would run to the media and proclaim their support for reforms. Indeed, Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson ran in 2006 pledging to fundamentally change Albany. And so far, at least, the only change that we have seen is the resignation of the governor. His successor, Governor Paterson, has talked of reform, but done nothing to change the way Albany’s political elite practice governing. Predictably, Assembly Speaker Silver and Senate Majority Leader Skelos have both pledged to take up ethics reforms in the wake of this latest investigation. Neither has offered specifics, but it is safe to say that they want to appear to respond to the growing crackdown by the US Attorney’s Office. The broad outlines of any meaningful ethics reforms are obvious, but have proven too difficult for passage. First, ethics oversight entities must be independent. Right now, that’s not the case. The governor chooses the majority of the members of the commission that monitors ethics enforcement of the executive branch. The legislative leaders choose all of the members of their watchdog agency. These obvious conflicts of interest must be changed. Second, the ethics disclosures and oversight must be open. Both entities conduct their investigations largely in secret. Ethics disclosures by public officials reveal virtually nothing. Ethics oversight must be conducted in the open, investigations must be public, and disclosure forms must be revealing and comprehensive. Third, ethics staff must be insulated from political pressure. This is one area in which lawmakers have made things worse, not better. The central element of former Governor Spitzer’s much ballyhooed ethics reform last year resulted in the elimination of the respected Lobbying Commission and its director David Grandeau. Spitzer moved the Lobbying Commission’s function into the controversial ethics commission and gave it a new name and added new staff. While it is still an open question as to whether that change will ultimately improve ethics enforcement, it is clear that the current system has not matched the work of the Lobbying Commission. Governor Paterson has stated that he thinks all is well. Last week, the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader moved from warmly embracing the status quo to making vague statements in support of change. The only way to end Albany’s ethics crime wave is through real change, change that is meaningful and comprehensive. Discussions should begin now on ways to move Albany’s ethics enforcement from one of self-regulation conducted in secret to one that is independent and open. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. September 8, 2008: GOVERNOR PATERSON'S WRONG PRIORITIES Sally Bien, a SUNY at Cortland student, was able to afford to go to college thanks to New York's tuition Assistance Program, better known as TAP. TAP's financial aid is based on the previous year's income of the student and his or her family. The state assumes that the current year's income of the student's family will be more or less the same as the previous year's. But what happens when that family's income suffers a serious drop during the school year? That's what happened to Sally. Her father was in the Army National Guard and was called to active duty to serve in Iraq from 2004 to 2005. Sally's financial aid was based on her father's income prior to his deployment. Once her father was called up, Sally's family income dropped by 40 percent. As a result, Sally was forced to take on more student loans to make up the difference. Recognizing the unfairness of New York's approach, the legislature (introduced in the Assembly by Albany's Ron Canestrari and in the Senate by Frank Padavan of Queens) approved a bill that would allow students to receive adjustments to their TAP awards if they suffered sudden changes in their families' income. Seems reasonable, but last week the governor vetoed that bill. Why would the governor veto such a reasonable change in the college financial aid? According to the governor's office, the state cannot afford the roughly $12 million price tag. And while there can be no doubt that the state's finances are stretched, it's hard to believe that the state doesn't have the money in its $121 billion budget Budgets are about choices. In this case the governor chose to reject a plan to help needy students stay in college. Yet the Governor has found millions of dollars to fund questionable proposals. Earlier in the summer, the governor was able to come up with money to help advance an unproven technology. In June, the governor committed $6 million to advance the construction of a so-called "clean coal" power plant in western New York. While "clean coal" has a nice sounding name, it has not delivered on its promise. Many environmental groups have objected to the state's subsidy of "clean coal" technology. Under the "clean coal" theory, the dangerous greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants would be pumped underground. Yet, the theory has not yet been proved in practice - and it may never. The governor, however, was sufficiently sold on this unproved theory that he put up millions of dollars to help it. This is the same governor who doesn't have the money to help New Yorkers-including the children of National Guard reservists called to war duty-- who have already been accepted to and attend college, but unexpectedly may not have the money to pay for it. Budgets are about choices and the governor is choosing to advance the interests of the coal industry, while choosing to ignore the interests of college students, college students who perhaps lost a parent in the middle of the school year or who have seen their mother or father go off to war. Cold. Budgets are about choices, but elections are about choices too. This election, urge candidates for the state legislature to pledge to make their choice - a choice to reject the governor's cold-hearted decision to make it harder for students who are attending college. And to pledge, if necessary, to override the governor's decision. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. August 18, 2008: NEW YORK TAKES ON GLOBAL WARMING Last November, the United Nation's top scientists issued a stark warning: the world will have to end its growth of greenhouse gas emissions within seven years and slash most of its greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. If those goals were not met, as many as one quarter of the planet's species would die from the effects of global warming, low lying coastal areas will get flooded due to rising sea levels, as well as a host of other significant human health problems. Scientists have determined that an average increase in the world's temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit is the maximum that the world could tolerate without courting catastrophe. Assuming that goal, the world's industrialized nations would have to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. As a result of these scientific findings, Congress has begun a debate over policies to reduce greenhouse gases - but has not acted. Nor has the executive branch. The Bush Administration has resisted action, though both candidates for president have pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions, if elected. The overwhelming evidence of harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions has, however, spurred action by the states. Several states, most recently Massachusetts, have acted to slash greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. New York State is currently considering that proposal as well. In addition, ten states in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions have instituted a "regional greenhouse gas initiative," known as "RGGI." The Initiative is designed to cap and then reduce the amount of carbon dioxide power plants are allowed to emit. The Initiative relies on a "cap-and-trade" program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Under the "cap-and-trade" approach, the power plant operators will be able to purchase by auction emission allowances to "cover" the amount of carbon dioxide they emit. The total amount of carbon dioxide allowances will be limited. Companies that need to increase their emissions must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost. The idea of a "cap-and-trade" system is based on the currently-in-use European system. In Europe, a multi-national emissions trading system is in place and currently covers more than 10,000 installations in the energy and industrial sectors which are collectively responsible for close to half of the EU's emissions of CO2 and 40% of its total greenhouse gas emissions. Power plants, and anyone qualified under the RGGI Initiative's rules, can purchase these allowances from any of the states in the Initiative. The power plant operators have until 2012 to purchase enough allowances to cover the actual emissions from 2009 through 2011. Starting in 2015 until 2018, the total allowed emissions will be reduced. It is estimated that the auction of pollution credits, which could take place as early as December, could generate $300 million, according to Senate Democrats. Advocates are calling for this money to be invested in energy efficiency programs and development of clean energy sources. Critics of emissions trading point to problems of complexity of running the system, monitoring compliance and, of course, the difficulty in enforcing the program. In addition, business and utility groups have complained that the program will add a cost to consumers' utility bills. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which will run the program, the cost will add about 78 cents per month. Business groups argue that it will be more. Of course, the cost estimates do not take into consideration the considerable cost New Yorkers -and the world - faces if greenhouse gas emissions trigger runaway global warming. The cap-and-trade program is designed to help avert that catastrophe and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before it's too late. And if the RGGI auction proceeds are used for energy efficiency and home weatherization programs, the savings to residential customers would considerably outweigh the costs. The cost of failure in taking on the global warming menace is far more than a few bucks or so added to our utility bills now. It's complicated, but hopefully the regional greenhouse gas initiative will work. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. August 11, 2008: THE SENATE RETURNS Last week, the State Senate returned to Albany. The top agenda item was to show Senate support for Governor Paterson's plan to cap increases in New Yorkers' property taxes. The proposal passed with unanimous Republican Senate support joined by a handful of their Democratic colleagues. Whether the plan will become law is unclear due to hostility to the bill in the Assembly. So what else happened? Two important public health bills passed the Senate - both unexpectedly. The first was legislation that would dramatically limit tax-free cigarette sales by Native American retailers to non-Indians. Supporters expect that the state could recover as much as $400 million in taxes in the first year and more in future years. The second bill encourages the removal of lead paint hazards from homes built before 1978 through tax credits to help cover the costs. It also includes expanded lead screenings for pregnant women and children younger than 2 years old. Both proposals had passed the Assembly during the regularly scheduled 2008 legislative session, but were stopped in the Senate. So an obvious question is: why did they pass now? Each bill has its own rationale for passage. As the price of tobacco products sold in New York has increased, smokers have increasingly looked to Native American reservations as a tax-free source of cigarettes. Native Americans have long claimed that as a sovereign nation they were exempt from state taxation and could sell cigarettes to whomever they wished without collecting sales taxes. Their justification suffered a legal blow in the mid 1990s when the US Supreme Court ruled that New York had the ability to collect taxes on tobacco products sold by Native Americans to non-native Americans. It's not clear what Governor Paterson will do, but fear of confrontation with Native American tobacco dealers has stymied action in the past. Yet, the governor has a strong incentive to collect the taxes given the deteriorating financial situation of the state. But that logic has existed for years, why is there action now? The highly visible support from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave added impetus for the Senate to act. Earlier this month, the Mayor wrote an opinion piece in a major downstate daily newspaper calling on the legislature to act on this issue. Mayor Bloomberg is the single biggest political donor to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee. With control of the Senate up for grabs this election, Republicans are looking to Bloomberg to put forth a significant effort on their behalf. Clearly, politics played a big role in moving this issue along. In addition to the action on property taxes and tobacco, the Senate approved a bill that marks a dramatic and important shift in the state's efforts to respond to the epidemic of childhood lead poisoning. Although lead was banned from residential paint in 1978, the legacy of lead poisoning continues in New York's older buildings. Unless properly removed or contained, the lead paint inevitably chips, peels and flakes exposing children to grave risk. According to estimates, as many as 5,000 children - mainly low income and minority - suffer from lead exposure. That's why the bill passed by the Senate is so important. It will require New York to focus on looking for lead in housing in the communities that consistently have the most lead poisoned children; improve lead screening; require early intervention when children have elevated levels of lead in their blood; and provide tax credits to help property owners eliminate lead hazards. On the merits, it was an important step. But politics played a role. The sponsor of the legislation is Senator Joe Robach who is facing a tough re-election bid this November. And Robach is from Rochester, an area with a serious, highly visible lead poisoning problem. The Senate Republican majority was clearly interested in helping Robach. In politics and policymaking, you pay attention to what gets done, not what is said or the apparent motivations. Whatever the reasons for action, what really matters is that the bills passed and they now go to the governor. It's not clear what the governor will do: the tobacco bill could lead to confrontation with Native Americans and the lead bill comes with a price tag. In both cases, however, the legislation addresses serious problems in the state. And they offer a test of leadership for the new governor. Will he embrace these important issues and approve the legislation? Time will tell. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. August 4, 2008: A SPECIAL SESSION Late last week, the New York State Last week, Governor Paterson pledged to call lawmakers back to Albany this month to address the state's twin crises - its looming budget deficit and skyrocketing home heating costs. On the budget front, the governor argued that eroding revenues from Wall Street were driving this year's budget out of balance and would likely add to an already too large budget deficit for next year. According to the governor, this year's budget is now $600 million out of balance and he estimated that the budget deficit for next year will grow from $5 billion to $6.4 billion. The governor wants the legislature to return on August 19th to work with him to cut $1.2 billion from these deficits. The governor pledged to cut $600 million from state spending through his administrative power and urged the legislature to cut $600 million more. The governor wants lawmakers to return because he believes that the situation will certainly get worse, much worse, and that actions taken now will keep the situation from getting out of control. It is questionable whether the governor can convince the legislature to enact painful budget cuts months before the election, but what is without question is that by taking his message directly to the people, he has strengthened his hand. The typical Albany game is one that only insiders play - one played extremely well by lobbyists and their clients - and a reasonable argument can be made that the state's budget woes are exacerbated by this insider game. Taking the case directly to the public can help create the climate in which he can trump the power of Albany's political elite. But the governor must be careful. If he "oversells" his effort by significantly distorting the numbers in order to get the public's attention, he may harm the cause he seeks to advance. If he plays it straight and his figures are borne out, he will be able to pressure lawmakers into action. In order to beat the money of Albany's political heavyweights, he must organize the power of the voters. Yet his delicate balancing act is even more treacherous. When the economy sours not only do revenues fall, but the needs of the people grow. The governor made that clear when he coupled his call for a special session on the state's finances with a call for additional spending to help New Yorkers afford this winter's home heating costs. According to a recent study, New Yorkers can expect to pay $720 more to heat their homes than they did last year - a 25 percent hike. The average cost of home heating and natural gas has nearly doubled in price since last year. For many, those increases will cause extreme hardship that may even threaten their health. There is a real danger that some New Yorkers may freeze unless something is done. Others may make dangerous choices to heat their homes and stay warm that may lead to disaster. In his comments, the governor acknowledged that the state will have to spend more - even though he's trying to cut costs. The money for this additional spending will have to come from somewhere. The Assembly approved legislation to pay for additional spending on home heating subsidies by taxing oil companies' excess profits. Given the report last week that the oil companies enjoyed record profits (ExxonMobil reported a 33 percent increase in profits, $11.5 billion in the second quarter alone), it seems reasonable for government to look to those companies for the money to keep low and middle income New Yorkers warm this winter. But the governor must ensure that this money is well spent. The Assembly legislation called for additional spending on conservation programs as well as enhanced subsidies for those who need help. Beefing up conservation programs make sense, after all if the state is going to help pay for home heating costs it must make sure that the money is used efficiently. And curbing home heating costs helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - a policy "win-win." When lawmakers return, addressing the public's needs means not only focusing on the state's balance sheet, but making sure that those who need help get it. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. July 28, 2008: TROOPERGATE RETURNS Late last week, the New York State Commission on Public Integrity issued its long-awaited report on the "Troopergate" scandal. The Commission found that four top aides of former Governor Eliot Spitzer violated state ethics laws. These violations stemmed from their roles in trying to publicly embarrass Senator Joe Bruno. According to the Commission, last year Spitzer's aides concocted a scheme to generate internal State Police documents that purported to show that the Senator had illegally used government aircraft for political purposes. These documents were then leaked to the media as part of a plan to at least embarrass the Senator and possibly make him the subject of a law enforcement investigation. The Commission found that these four top aides had violated the state ethics law's prohibition on using state resources for private purposes. Two of the aides agreed to punishments that did not include a fine and two others are fighting the finding. Both of them argue that they were merely following the orders of the Governor. Spitzer himself was not found guilty of an ethics violation. The 68 page report and the 3,000 additional documents do not paint a pretty picture of the ham-handed efforts of the Spitzer Administration to smear Senator Bruno. Instead, the report shows their efforts to be part "Soprano's," part "Keystone Cops," and part "Watergate conspirators." The report shows that the Spitzer team wanted to get Senator Bruno for his attacks on the governor and that they were willing to bend the rules to make it happen. According to the report, generating internal State Police records of the Senator's use of the government's aircraft was something that should not have been done. Beyond the report's identification of the Spitzer Administration's thugish actions, it documents an amazing lack of coordination in making the scheme work. According to the report, top officials had completely different interpretations of what was going on at the time. Despite the seriousness of the scheme's efforts to go after one of the state's top officials, members of the Spitzer team ignored emails, failed to follow instructions and bungled the implementation of the smear effort. Lastly, the report shows that despite Spitzer's claim of extensive cooperation with the investigation, it time and time again stonewalled the Commission's efforts to obtain government documents. In a manner eerily familiar to the Watergate coverup, the report showed that the Spitzer Administration used bogus claims of executive privilege to block the Commission's requests for information. The report left some key questions unanswered. Critics simply do not believe that former Governor Spitzer -- who was well known to be a hands on manager -- did not know as much about the scheme as his top aide who was punished by the Commission. In addition, the report makes no mention of who was behind the Spitzer Administration's stonewalling efforts and punished no one for that tactic. One of the great ironies of the report is that the Spitzer team -- whose successful investigations of Wall Street was based on critical evidence obtained in emails -- was so cavalierly writing emails describing their scheme. It was those internal emails that provided the smoking gun evidence for the Commission's investigation. While the Spitzer Administration has now become part of New York history, there are key lessons to be learned by the Troopergate saga. First and foremost, public officials must put the people's interests ahead of their own political needs. In this case, if the Spitzer team thought that Senator Bruno was abusing the use of state aircraft, they should have tightened the rules or barred him from using it. Second, while the Commission deserves credit for issuing its findings, its efforts and motives were constantly under challenge since a majority of its membership is chosen by the governor. Governor Paterson must see to it that the Commission is independent. Lastly, stonewalling should not be tolerated. Lawmakers should look to ensure that the Commission has all the powers it needs to investigate wrongdoing. And New Yorkers must be ever vigilant in watching those it chooses to run state government. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. July 21, 2008: A NEW ENERGY POLICY "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Gore's observation was right on point and underscored the pathetic state of energy policymaking. America's energy policy makes no sense other than to keep things going the way they have been, despite all evidence that such policies are putting the nation - and the world - at great risk. The former Vice President made his observations as part of his call for the nation to set a goal of generating all of its electricity from renewable resources and carbon-constrained fuels within 10 years. It's hard to argue with Gore's vision, something like that has to happen pretty quickly if the nation is to dramatically reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. Experts at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which shared the Nobel Prize with Gore last year), have urged that the world must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 if it is to have any change of steering clear of the calamity resulting from runaway global warming. Frankly, an aggressive effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would also address skyrocketing energy costs fueled by the rapid increase in the cost of oil. As Gore pointed out, "The sun and the wind and geothermal are not going to run out … and they are not increasing in price." The nation already has an infrastructure in place to deal with the change. If cars were fueled by electricity instead of the combustion engine, for example, all you would need to do is to plug your car into a socket to get a charge. Gore's vision is to replace the way that electricity is generated, by replacing power generated by the burning of fossil fuels with renewable sources of power. It makes a lot of sense for policymakers to be moving in the direction outlined by Gore. Some states are already embracing the policy of meeting the challenge of reducing greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050. New York policymakers debated the same thing during the past legislative session. The State Assembly passed its bill to reduce greenhouse gases. In the Senate, a significant number of Republican Senators supported the same approach - including the new Majority Leader Dean Skelos. Unfortunately, the legislation was killed in the Senate on the last day of session, reportedly due to a concern that the legislation may undermine efforts to run coal burning plants in Western New York. As a result, the Senate rejected the overwhelming scientific and economic evidence of moving to renewable power in order to protect some coal burning plants - plants which use the dirtiest form of fossil fuel. It's that kind of backward thinking that has kept the nation in its current energy rut. It is precisely the kind of thinking that must be rejected by New Yorkers and the rest of the nation. New York policymakers must focus on an energy plan that:
Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. July 14, 2008: THE GOLISANO FACTOR Last week upstate billionaire, and three time gubernatorial candidate, Tom Golisano announced with great fanfare that by this November he was going to spend $5 million to help elect candidates that supported Golisano's agenda for the state. Golisano complained that Albany needed to be reformed and that it hasn't happened. He touched on measures that he supported - campaign finance and election reforms, more conservative fiscal measures, and other ways to change Albany. His announcement sent shockwaves throughout the Capitol. Anyone who has followed Albany - and its controversies, convicted former lawmakers, scandals and resignations - might feel sympathy for Golisano's frustration. After all, Albany is a mess and despite repeated promises for change, things are as bad - if not worse - than ever. And there is a delicious irony to the plight of elected officials. After the collapse of the Spitzer Administration, many of Albany's political elite were privately relieved and viewed it as the end of the reform effort as well. Now, those same elected officials are staring down the double barrels of Golisano's $5 million political shotgun. For those who support reform, there are mixed feelings - sympathy, shared frustration - but there is also discomfort and dread. After all, how can it be that a wealthy individual can pledge millions of dollars to aid candidates' efforts? How can he ignore the state's campaign contribution limits? What does it say if it takes a billionaire to shake up Albany? And if he is successful, what will that mean for the future? Here are the current rules. Under New York State law, no individual is allowed to donate more than $150,000 annually in the aggregate on state and local campaigns. Golisano contends that if he created a political committee and spent his own money, no limits apply. He cited US Supreme Court decisions that have equated the Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech with spending money on politics. The nation's top Court has decided that no law can limit political spending, unless it is a direct campaign contribution. The Court makes a distinction between different kinds of money in politics; it has argued that in order to prevent outright corruption, or the appearance of corruption, contribution limits are permissible but spending by campaigns increase free speech and therefore can't be involuntarily limited. Golisano is arguing that he is not making a campaign contribution; he is merely expressing himself through political speech. As such, he argues he can spend as much as he wants on whoever he wants to support, and he might be right. But there is one key rule he cannot break. Golisano must not coordinate his spending and electoral strategies with candidates or the political parties. If he does, then the campaign contribution limits apply. And his actions to date may invite litigation on this point. There have been media reports that he has met with, and pledged support to, candidates for office. If this means that he is coordinating, then he will not be able to spend the $5 million as he pledged. And if that's the case, he may face court challenges that could stall his efforts even if his actions turn out to be legal. If he is successful, however, it will mean that campaign contribution limits don't really apply to the wealthy. While they will not be able to coordinate their spending with candidates, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how best to impact these elections. If successful, Golisano will have helped to create a political caste system, one in which the wealthy play an even more powerful role in choosing our elected officials, while the rest of us watch. And that's not good for democracy. There is not much - outside of an amendment to the US Constitution - that can be done. The critical issue appears to hinge on whether a wealthy individual's spending is truly independent. In the Golisano case, whether the spending is truly independent will rely on vigorous oversight by the State Board of Elections - an entity which to date has done virtually nothing to aggressively enforce the law. If elected officials learn anything from this experience, it should be this: ignore New York's reform movement at your own peril. And instead of enabling the Barney Fife enforcement behavior of the Board of Elections, create a new organization to enforce New York's campaign finance law. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. July 7, 2008: GETTING ENERGY SMART The news on the energy front is depressing - skyrocketing gas prices, soaring home heating costs and no relief in sight. The days of cheap energy seem to be gone. The combination of increasing demand - particularly from Asian countries, political instability in the Middle East, the eroding value of the dollar, and the failure of government to develop an energy plan, have combined to hammer the American economy. So, what should we do? When it comes to our homes, there is a lot that we can do. Experts estimate that through aggressive conservation and efficiency programs, Americans can reduce their energy costs by nearly one-third. That's significant. If energy costs rise dramatically, programs to reduce those rising costs will not only help our wallets, but will also help with the crisis resulting from global warming. If we use less energy, less fossil fuels will be burned. Where should we begin? Well, there are plenty of tips that are available on how to reduce energy costs in your home. They typically propose that home owners insulate more, identify heating "leaks," turn off lights and computers, and purchase more energy efficient appliances - replacing an energy hog like a refrigerator, for example. But if you're like me, it's hard to know what to do, other than the most obvious fixes. We need someone to check things out and develop a real game plan for action. Prior to energy deregulation, New York required utilities to offer free home energy audits for ratepayers who requested them. Under that program, part of the Home Insulation Energy Conservation Act, utilities would send someone to check out your home, develop a checklist of energy options that you could employ to reduce costs, and even offer free or low cost energy saving packages - like giving you a free insulation "blanket" for your hot water heater. The program was started in reaction to the last energy crisis and lasted until the Pataki Administration deregulated the utility sector. And with the country enjoying relatively low energy costs at that time, most of us didn't miss these free energy audits. Well, times have changed. The first thing New Yorkers need is for someone with expertise to help them develop a strategy for curbing home heating costs. Unfortunately, free home energy audits are no longer available to most of us. If you are willing to pay for it, though, the state does offer information on contractors who do these audits. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) has a program called "New York Energy Smart," which will give you a list of local contractors who do these audits. As far as I can tell, this service is just the listing of contractors who have been certified by the state, they are pretty much independent. So, the normal "buyer beware" rules should apply and if you use them, you should shop around to compare prices and see if you can get references. You can get information on this program by going to www.getenergysmart.org. The website has free tips on how to make your home more energy efficient. It also offers information on other subsidized and non-subsidized energy conservation and efficiency programs that allow New Yorkers to reduce energy costs. It's a start, but New York public officials have to do more. Other than legislation passed by the New York State Assembly, which used money from a windfalls profits tax on the oil companies to fund energy programs, nothing of consequence was acted on this year. In addition, so far the governor has done little other than hold meetings and make public pronouncements. That has to change. The governor and the legislature should start moving. A good place to start would be to require that all New Yorkers be eligible for free home energy audits, and then to develop programs for those hit hardest by soaring energy costs. Until then, though, we're on our own. Check out the www.getenergysmart.org website and begin to prepare for the winter. Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns. |
Midday Magazine The Roundtable Vox Pop The Legislative Gazette The Media Project The Capitol Connection Northeast Report |
Commentators WAMC Conversation WAMC Blog WAMC Speakers Corner NPR BBC Marketplace PRI |
