May 12, 2008: MEMBER ITEM MADNESS Pork or bacon. Earmarks. Member items. For lawmakers there are no sweeter words. Many of you may have heard about earmarks at the Congressional level, member items are essentially the same thing in New York. Like their Congressional counterparts, member items are local spending initiatives that are decided by state legislators - typically funding projects in their own districts. Last week both the Senate and Assembly released their member items list-well after the money was appropriated when the budget was passed in a last minute flurry of activity in early April. In Albany, the justification for the member item system is that state legislators offer a unique insight into local projects that deserve state support, but which may not catch the eye of the governor in developing the executive budget. Unlike the rest of the budget, spending on member items is not subject to any hearings or any meaningful public scrutiny prior to approval. There's no competitive bidding for the services that are provided. In fact, taxpayers find out about the spending on these projects only after it has been approved The process for approving member items goes something like this; sometime in mid-February the legislators are told that if they want funding for local projects they have to present them privately to their respective legislative leaders. As of that time, there is not even any money allocated for this spending, it is just assumed that the money will be added as the final piece in the budget negotiations, which is supposed to be approved by April 1st. Historically, $170 million is spent on legislative member items, split between the houses. In both houses, the political majorities get the lion's share of the money. Is this a good system? In most cases, the funding goes to local charities that are worthy and need the money. But the budget debate is how to fund unlimited state needs with limited amounts of money. The decisions on what to fund and what not, is supposed to be done in public with those deliberations determining those programs most important for the public's best interests. Does it make sense for legislators to essentially control local funding of projects that they deem worthy? I think the answer is no. As I mentioned earlier, which member items get funded is determined outside the normal budget process. The decision is really left up to two people - the legislator requesting the money and the legislative leader who decides whether to fund it. So the process is too secretive, but it gets worse. How member items - your taxpayer dollars - are spent is decided almost entirely on political grounds. Legislators in the political majorities get more than the minorities; legislators with more clout get more than those who don't; and those legislators who face tough re-election bids get more than those who seem to be in good shape for November. For example, the list of the most recent member items showed that each member of the Assembly Democratic majority got 4 times as much money as their Republican counterparts and the Senate Republican majority got 8 times as much money as Senate Democrats. The consideration is not about the public's needs. What drive the decisions are the political needs of the partisan majorities. It is nakedly partisan and it's not right. But the spoils system continues. So should your money be spent rewarding long-time political incumbents and bolstering the partisan interests of the legislators? No. IF New York is going to have a member item system, then it should be allocated fairly. Each legislator should get roughly the same amount (after all the Senate's districts and the Assembly's districts are roughly comparable in population). This way, the money could be doled out according to strict standards of openness and accountability. But the current scheme, which treats taxpayer dollars as some form of spoils system for those legislators with the most clout, is simply unfair. Why should districts get more taxpayer money simply because a legislator is a Republican in the Senate or a Democrat in the Assembly? They shouldn't. If Albany is to change, one way for lawmakers to show a newfound interest in reform would be to promise to reform the member item system, and to change it to a system based on fairness, not politics. 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 5, 2008: PLAYING POLITICS WITH PAIN AT THE GAS PUMP The skyrocketing cost of gasoline has recently dominated not only the Presidential debate, but has emerged as a key issue with state lawmakers in Albany. At the national level, Presidential wannabes John McCain and Hillary Clinton have called for cuts to the federal government's gas tax. In New York, Senate and Assembly Republican lawmakers have proposed a cut to the state's gas tax, too. There can be no doubt that drivers are feeling pain at the pump. Gas prices have more than doubled over the past couple of years, and now stand as the highest prices ever. The $4 per gallon price is undoubtedly coming soon. In a downturn economy and with gas taking a bigger chunk out of budgets, there is tremendous political appeal in arguing for a cut in gas taxes. At the federal level the gas tax is around 18 cents per gallon; here in New York the state tax is about 33 cents. Advocates are proposing that these cuts go in place for the summer months, helping Americans to pay for their travel plans. Seems appealing, but will it work? Let's look at what we know. First, let's put aside the environmental costs of driving and just look at the direct financial costs. Estimating benefits from a gas tax cut is tricky. The benefits can be vastly different for those, say, who drive a SUV versus someone driving a hybrid, or who lives in a rural area versus a city dweller. But in order to get a ballpark figure, let's talk about the average driver. According to the American Automobile Association, the typical car gets about 24 miles per gallon and is driven 12,000 miles per year, so its driver purchases around 550 gallons of gas per year. At $4 per gallon, that driver spends $2,200 annually. He or she pays about $101 in federal gas taxes. New Yorkers pay an additional $182 in state taxes. The proposals would cut gas taxes from Memorial Day through Labor Day. If enacted, drivers would see their taxes reduced by roughly 25% for the three month period. Thus, summer driving savings ring up at about $26 for federal taxes and $45 in state taxes per car for a combined savings of about $70. That's not a lot - assuming that the savings actually are passed on to consumers. However, whether drivers completely benefit is in doubt. Indiana and Illinois cut their gas taxes in 2000. The expectation for both the Indiana and Illinois governments was a sharp and sustained decline in prices at the pump. But it didn't work out that way. Benefits were split between drivers and the gasoline industry. According to a study conducted by researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research, the 5% gas tax cut resulted in a 3% reduction in prices. In another study, researchers found that for every 4 cents per gallon the Illinois government gave back to consumers, it gave 3.5 cents per gallon to oil companies, gasoline stations and other suppliers of gasoline. Closer to home, research has cast doubts on the benefits as well. According to an analysis by the chief fiscal officer of Onondaga County, Syracuse-area drivers saw no significant savings at the pump during the two-year period that the county gas tax was cut. The analysis compared gas prices paid by Onondaga drivers to those paid by drivers in the upstate counties of Erie and Monroe -- which did not cut gas taxes. The analysis found no price change from the gas tax cut. In an interview with the Syracuse Post Standard, the Onondaga official said he didn't know exactly who pocketed the more than $20 million in sales tax savings but it wasn't consumers. The money got gobbled up somewhere along the gasoline supply chain, from the oil companies to the wholesalers to the service station owners, he said. In addition, there was evidence that the county budget hole created by the gas tax cut was filled by increased property taxes. As a result, Onondaga is getting rid of its gas tax cut. Gas tax cuts will have a big impact on the federal and state budgets - an estimated $9 billion hit to the federal budget and over $600 million to the state budget. How will those holes be filled when both governments are already deeply in the red? Probably with cuts to programs that benefit those who need the most relief from gas taxes - individuals of modest means. If you want to save money driving this summer, use common sense; don't fall for election year political posturing. Instead, drive less, check the air pressure in your tires, and slow down. 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 28, 2008: REFORM DAY 2008 Some things are just unfair. Take New York's redistricting practices. Under New York law, those individuals with the most at stake personally in the outcome - legislators - draw the district lines for themselves. As a practical matter, legislators get to choose their constituents, with the majority parties in the Senate and Assembly dictating the outcome for redrawing the district lines for their house after the census each decade. That's unfair. And the result isn't fair either. Roughly 25 of the 212 state legislative districts have close enrollments, when comparing the numbers of Democrats versus Republicans. Of course there are parts of the state where Democrats overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans and vice versa, but that ratio doesn't exist in 85 percent of the state. When you design legislative districts overwhelmingly for one party and with the intention of protecting incumbents, you get staggeringly high re-election rates. Democracy is undermined. Another example of state-sponsored unfairness is the campaign finance system. A system that relies on private donations - usually from those with business before government. And lawmakers know it. They brazenly hold fundraisers at night in Albany to hit up lobbyists for campaign contributions - while during the day listening to the same lobbyists' pleas for favors for their clients. This linkage of campaign giving and policymaking - perceived or real - distorts the democratic process. In New York, campaign money flows to those who wield legislative power. With lobbyists and their clients so deeply involved in both campaign fundraising as well as policymaking, it is clear why Albany seems to listen far more keenly to the voices of the well-connected than the public. That's unfair. There is no doubt that the system is rigged to protect incumbents and can easily be manipulated by those with wealth and connections. It's an unfair system and one that must change. But change can only come as the result of citizen advocacy. The only thing that lawmakers fear more than unhappy campaign contributors or fairer legislative district lines is an outraged public. It's time to show your outrage to Albany's political elite. On Tuesday, April 29, citizens from across New York State are meeting in Albany to bring the message of reform to state lawmakers. Starting at 11 am in the Sign of the Tree restaurant in the Empire State Plaza, New Yorkers from across the state will be educated on the issues, hear from some of Albany's top elected officials, and meet with their own representatives to urge them to reform Albany and make state government more fair:
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 21, 2008: THE GRIMMEST EARTH DAY EVER This week marks the 38th anniversary of the first Earth Day. Earth Day is an opportunity for the nation to assess the quality of its environment and our prospects for the future. There can only way to view the state of the environment this Earth Day - we're in serious trouble and time is running out. Here is what we know: the planet warming up. And this global warming will have a serious negative effect on the environment and the public's health. Here in the Northeast, the warming temperatures have already had an effect. Over the past few decades, the snow has become "slushier" and there have been a decreased average number of snow-covered days across the state. Global warming will also result in the increased frequency of droughts. We will experience an increase in sea levels - some experts estimate that this increase will range from 10 inches to two feet by the end of this century. Rising sea levels will result in more coastal flooding and an adverse impact on the state's coastlines. The changes in the climate will also have an effect on New Yorkers' health. Experts guess that by the end of the century there will be more days when the temperature will top 100 degrees. According to projections, even Buffalo could see 14 days in excess of 100 degrees by late century. The number of days with poor air quality is expected to quadruple. Those higher temperatures will lead to worsening air quality. One impact will be an increase in asthma rates. It's clear that actions must be taken. The grimmest global warming predictions of just a few years ago have turned out to be far more optimistic than today's reality. There is no magic bullet that will somehow tame global warming. We know that we must change. We must be more careful drivers, we need to purchase "greener" products and we need to reduce our own carbon footprint. But we also must demand changes from state and federal policymakers - not more rhetoric, but real leadership and real action. They must embrace policies that boost non-polluting energy sources and that provide funds to help reduce energy costs beyond what we can do for ourselves. In terms of non-polluting energy sources, policymakers should enact innovative ways to increase the production of renewable energy. For example, one issue before state lawmakers is legislation to dramatically increase "net metering." "Net metering" allows consumers of energy to build solar and other renewable power sources on their property and then generate power that is sent back to utilities. As energy is produced from, say, a solar panel on the consumer's roof, the electricity meter runs backwards, thereby reducing the cost to the consumer. Imagine the energy production and savings if every school, retail store and other buildings were generating energy through solar panels on their roofs. This form of energy would generate the most electricity when utilities need it most - hot summer days. And that would mean we wouldn't have to put new power plants in our communities. Policymakers should also be using state funding to boost energy conservation and efficiency efforts by consumers in their homes. I mentioned earlier that there are steps that we can take right now, but if the government helped much more could be done. For example, if every home got a free energy audit that identified energy problems and offered low cost ways to reduce those costs - such as giving away hot water jackets to reduce radiant energy loss - consumers could save money and energy demand could be reduced. The time for rhetoric has long since past. The time for action is now. Make this Earth Day one that you remember. Make it the Earth Day that you took steps to reduce your energy costs and carbon footprint. And make it the Earth Day that you demanded immediate actions by state and federal policymakers to reduce energy costs now and to boost the use of renewable. 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 14, 2008: ALBANY'S REFORM "TO DO" LIST After unprecedented turmoil and a drawn out budget process, lawmakers must begin to grapple with changes that are necessary to bolster public confidence in state government. Never in New York history has the state been hit with so many scandals. The resignations of the governor and the comptroller, as well as the convictions of two assemblymen, are just the most recent examples of Albany's ethical dysfunctions and blindspots. On these points there can be little disagreement. So what should be done? New York lawmakers should pledge to enact measures that reduce conflicts of interest and bolster public oversight before standing for reelection this November. In addition to the overwhelming need for campaign finance and redistricting reforms, ethics changes must be taken, including actions that:
So what will lawmakers do? It hinges on whether they fear the public's reaction to the past year and a half's scandal sheet. That's where you come in. It is important that lawmakers hear from their constituents. No one will expect you to be an expert. What will matter is that you care and that you are demanding action. Just let them know that you are fed up and want things to change for the better. Make sure that they feel the heat over the next few months, the time leading up to the scheduled end of session in late June. (You can contact your legislators by either going to http://www.senate.state.ny.us/ or www.assembly.state.ny.us.) If they fail to act, just remember that they will be asking you for support this November. 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 7, 2008: New York's Budget Process - As Bad As Ever Is Texas or the It's déjà vu all over again. Despite years of budget reform rhetoric, the budget is not only late, it is being hammered out in secret. Lawmakers seem to have returned to their roots - they are ignoring the public's demands for a more open government and instead are assuming that they can ride out voters' complaints in the hope that all will be forgotten by November. In fairness to lawmakers, this year is unique. It was only a few weeks ago that Governor Spitzer resigned in disgrace and Lt. Governor Paterson was vaulted into the budget fray. It's hard to blame him for this mess. He did not design the budget and he was not a key advisor to Spitzer on the budget. Most of the blame rests with the legislative leaders; Senate Majority Leader Bruno and Assembly Speaker Silver. Under New York law, once the Governor issues his executive budget, the "ball is largely in the court" of the legislative branch. It is up to them to debate the Governor's plan, amend it and pass it by April 1st. There can be no doubt that the legislature froze up while watching Governor Spitzer's political self-immolation. It was a shock and undoubtedly distracting. But legislators get paid to act on the budget, not be spectators to the destruction of Governor Spitzer's political career. Yet that is precisely what happened. Legislators have told me that budget discussions ground to a halt while they waited for Lt. Governor Paterson to become Governor Paterson. As a result, they argue that they had to hammer out a budget deal in secret in order to get their work done on time. Except they are late. So New Yorkers are getting the worst of both worlds - a late budget being negotiated in secret. When it comes to democracy, openness matters. Secret negotiations provide a fertile field for well-connected lobbyists to hotwire deals that benefit their clients and few others. Secrecy usually leads to laws that hurt the interests of the many while protecting those of the few. Want to know why the Bigger Better Bottle Bill fell off the budget when the Governor and Assembly supported it? Curious as to why the basic welfare grant wasn't increased after 18 years? Since these items were negotiated in secret, we'll never truly know what happened and why. The return to the bad old days of budgeting also means that rank and file legislators join the public on the sidelines. Their perspectives and experience gets cut out of the budget making process-the process of raising and spending $124 billion of our money. What should be done? Albany needs a good dose of openness. Here are four steps lawmakers can take to really change Albany:
While it's past time for him to do so, it is not too late to begin discussions on reforming the budget process. If lawmakers wish to begin to restore the public's sagging support for Albany, reforms must be enacted. 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 |
