Commentators: Blair Horner

Now on Air

Listen Live

Up Next

View Schedule

Now on Air

Listen Live

Up Next

View Schedule

Blair Horner

March 8, 2010: SAVING ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Every year, skyrocketing prices make prescription drugs more unaffordable, especially for uninsured consumers. It is the uninsured that must pay the entire cost for their medicines, yet by shopping around they could save big bucks.

When New Yorkers who lack adequate health insurance go to the drug store, they can pay a huge additional price-sometimes hundreds of dollars more-for the exact same medicine, depending on the pharmacy they go to. For example, in the Capital District, the drug Prevacid had the greatest range in price, from a high of $272 to a low of $32 - a difference of $240.

Those particularly hard hit are the 2.6 million New Yorkers who lack health insurance. They pay the full retail price, yet typically have the toughest time paying those bills.

New York State law recognizes the difficulty in helping consumers to comparison shop for their prescriptions. New York has created a website (rx.nyhealth.gov) and requires that pharmacies prominently post that web address in their stores.

In theory, that should help. Consumers who must pay full retail could identify the pharmacy with the lowest price and save money.

But a recent report entitled - A Bitter Pill - issued by NYPIRG, AARP, Consumers Union and the Center for Medical Consumers identified two big problems.

First, many pharmacies do not post the web address as required under law. According to the report, only 46 of 256 pharmacies surveyed did prominently post the web address. Thus, consumers who are ignorant of the price differences may assume that drug prices are more or less the same among different pharmacies. As a result of that ignorance, they could be paying a lot more for their medicines.

Second, the state's database has holes. The database is made available on the Internet from information collected by the New York State Department of Health. The Health Department's pricing information comes from its Medicaid database. So if a pharmacy does not have a substantial number of Medicaid beneficiaries obtaining prescriptions at their store, the drug pricing information may not be collected by the Department.

So what should be done? First, the law must be enforced so that consumers know of the existence of the state website. The state Education Department enforces that requirement and the groups have called on the Education Commissioner to crack the whip and enforce the law.

Second, the holes in the Health Department's database must be filled. That can only be done through a change in state law.

But consumers must shop smart for their medications. Failing to shop smart can cost consumers big.

And the huge drug prices we've identified can also bring another cost. If consumers can't afford their medications, they can end up paying a terrible price - additional illness and pain from failing to obtain their necessary medicines.

Of course, ensuring that all New Yorkers have health insurance will help more than anything else. But until that day comes, state government should do its job and help New Yorkers to shop smart for their prescriptions.

Once more, if you want to check out the prices of your medications, go to rx.nyhealth.gov.

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.

Back to the Top

March 1, 2010: WHERE IS ETHICS LEGISLATION?

When Governor Paterson ended his election campaign, he argued that he would continue to work on behalf of the people of New York during the remaining 308 days that he is in office. Obviously, that is the correct posture. New Yorkers send public officials to Albany to solve problems.

Yet, as the governor laid out his top policy objectives, shockingly he made no mention of ethics reform legislation. One month ago, ethics reform was a big deal for the governor. The need for ethics reforms was at the heart of his State of the State message.

Following an unprecedented wave of scandals at the state Capitol, the Legislature had hammered out an ethics reform agreement that would have required lobbyists to disclose business relationships with public officials, created more independence in ethics oversight agencies and boosted penalties, among other changes.

Despite the action by the Legislature, the governor vetoed ethics reform legislation stating that it was simply not good enough. The governor claimed the mantle as Albany's leading reformer. He argued that he knew best and that any legislation that fell short of his standards was not worth enacting. Many editorial boards agreed with the governor and backed his veto.

But was the governor really the best agent of reform? The governor's strategy never made sense if truly wanted to get a bill passed into law. The governor's track record on ethics reform paints a picture of an executive with only a rhetorical interest in ethics reform.

In May of 2009, he put out his first ethics proposal with big public fanfare. But once the public's attention diminished, the governor let the issue drop. Even when he was empowered to set the state Senate agenda during the special sessions that he convened during the Summer and Fall, he never once put his own ethics bill up for consideration.

Then at the beginning of this year the governor made ethics reform the central theme of his State of the State message and used it to build editorial support for his new ethics plan. Despite the fact that he knew that the Legislature was negotiating its own ethics reform bill, the governor never pushed this second bill. Instead, he chose to veto the legislative agreement after it passed both houses and was sent to his desk.

Then, with the Legislature poised to override his veto, the governor proposed a third ethics bill. This time the legislation was part of a successful effort to join with the Senate Republican leadership to block the override.

Since the failure to override that veto, has the governor convened a public leaders meeting to discuss ethics reform? In his speech withdrawing from the gubernatorial race, did the governor mention ethics as a priority? Nope. He has dropped the issue once again.

Absent public declarations or open leaders' meetings, it is hard to know the status of private legislative discussions. However, the governor's silence on ethics coupled with his, at best, fleeting interest in his own proposals, strongly suggests that the governor viewed the fight over ethics reform in political terms, not in terms of problem-solving.

In order to enact legislation, the legislature must act - either in concert with the governor, or by overriding his veto. Hectoring the legislature, while ignoring their negotiations and then vetoing their work, only sets the stage for gridlock. And the status quo is maintained. New York State faces two serious crises - one fiscal and one ethical. Albany must act to respond to the ethical "crime wave" that has gripped the state Capitol. And the governor must lead in developing appropriate policy responses.

Now that it is clear that he is no longer a candidate, New Yorkers should hope - and demand - that the governor use his remaining time in office to focus on getting results. And one important result is to respond to the ethics failures of too many elected officials.

Back to the Top

February 22, 2010: AMERICA'S ENVIRONMENT IS AT RISK

There has been a lot of noise from climate change doubters around the fact that the unprecedented winter storms that recently pounded the Eastern seaboard showed that global climate change is a myth.

Yet as I watched the Olympics' cross country competition, the announcer mentioned that the temperature in Vancouver, Canada was in the mid-50s, unusually warm for February. He stated that as a result, many competitors had to pull out of the race - it was too hot.

But nothing was said by the climate change doubters about the unusually warm Canadian weather in mid-February. You see, ignoring inconvenient facts is the hallmark of climate change doubters.

No one should ever say that one event bolsters scientific claims, trends are what matters. And the trends in climate change are unsettling - the earth's atmosphere is heating up and the last decade was one of the warmest. And according to the world's leading climate experts, unless actions are taken now to dramatically curtail the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, the world may experience runaway global warming that could be catastrophic.

The coordinated attacks of the climate change doubters on the science of global warming are not something to ignore. They are having a negative effect on public opinion and are undermining the prospects for federal legislation that would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that the nation is emitting.

Failing to act is bad enough, but the campaign to undermine climate change science is now targeting existing efforts to regulate air pollution.

Alaskan U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced legislation that would eliminate the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA already sets limits on certain pollutants - including greenhouse gas pollution - under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was initially passed in the 1970s and its successes led to strengthening of the law during the first Bush Administration.

According to the EPA, since 1970 air pollution from large industrial sources has been slashed by 70% and new cars are more than 90% cleaner under the Clean Air Act. At the same time, the U.S. economy has tripled in size, the nation's energy consumption has increased by 50%, and vehicle use has increased by almost 200%. Clearly, the regulation of air pollution has not harmed the nation's economy, but it has certainly made the air healthier to breathe.

Despite its clear authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide - a key greenhouse gas - the oil and coal producers and their allies are fighting to strip that power from the EPA. Senator Murkowski's bill would do just that - it proposes to strip away the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

While EPA regulation is no substitute for comprehensive legislation, its authority under the Clean Air Act can help to reduce the harm that comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

Even if climate doubters can't bring themselves to agree that a rapidly warming planet is a problem to be avoided, they should think that the health hazards caused by air pollution and the security risks resulting from the nation's reliance on foreign oil are good enough reasons to curtail fossil fuel use.

But if they don't, Americans must demand that members of Congress oppose the Murkowski bill. In New York, that means that Senators Schumer and Gillibrand have to stand up to the polluter lobby. The good news is that Senator Gillibrand is already on record in opposing efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act. The bad news is that Senator Schumer has been silent.

New Yorkers must demand that climate change legislation be enacted. And they must demand that efforts to weaken an already inadequate status quo be rejected. Senator Schumer should get the message loud and clear, New Yorkers will not tolerate silence when it comes to protecting the public health.

Back to the Top

February 8, 2010: THE GOVERNOR WORKS TO BLOCK ETHICS REFORM

On Saturday, the governor announced his third ethics reform proposal. Apparently, the proposal was developed without broad legislative consultation and it will be formally unveiled today -- coincidentally the day that the Legislature may consider overriding his veto of ethics legislation that passed both houses last month.

Let's review the governor's record in this area. His first ethics reform bill was announced in May. After the fanfare, the governor promptly dropped it as an issue. He never put the issue on any of the many extraordinary session agendas that he controlled during the summer and fall. In fact, he never even got the bill introduced.

During the months of negotiations between the houses on their version of the ethics bill, there is no evidence that the governor's staff bothered to seriously involve themselves.

Then, days before the Legislature was to wrap up months of negotiations - which followed public committee hearings and floor debates -- the governor proposed his second ethics plan. This one was cobbled together, as far as we can tell, without discussions with the Legislature or reform groups.

This "kitchen-sink proposal" included term limits, public financing of elections, even elimination of the Comptroller's authority over the state's pension fund system. He promised to veto the Legislature's plan, despite the plan's clear improvements over the status quo.

The legislative ethics reform established more independent oversight by ensuring that no one elected official controls a majority of the appointments to any of the ethics watchdogs and mandated that each of the executive directors would have protections from possible political pressures.

The legislative ethics reform included better disclosure requirements. For example, the value of public officials' outside income would be made public and it requires the public disclosure of any business relationships that lobbyists or clients may have with officials.

And the legislation included new measures to boost enforcement of ethics restrictions.

Yet, once the legislature followed through and passed the ethics reform bill, the governor vetoed it.

Now, as the Legislature considers an override, the governor proposes his third plan -- nearly three weeks after the legislation passed both houses. According to media reports, this plan had the input of the Senate Republican minority -- the group he needs to sustain his veto.

Apparently, he did not, once again, bother to roll up his sleeves and work with the Legislature to develop legislation that could pass. The governor did not call a leaders' meeting and he has done nothing to pave the way for passage.

Passing legislation can only be done with legislative participation. The bill that the Legislature approved had overwhelming bipartisan support. In contrast, the governor has merely issued a series of press releases and has acted as an obstacle to reform. The governor simply has not done the serious work necessary to influence the legislative process. And his track record makes it hard to believe that this time he means it.

New Yorkers need the enactment of ethics reform legislation. They do not need ethics reform to become a political football; that game should be over now.

Back to the Top

January 25, 2010: THE US SUPREME COURT OPENS THE FLOODGATES

The US Supreme Court weighed-in on the issue of campaign spending and free speech last week and decided that more spending should be allowed. The Court ruled that corporations -- and by extension unions -- should be allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose candidates - and be able to tap into their corporate treasuries to do so.

Boiling the decision down to its essential element, the Court decided that corporate entities are entitled to the same free speech protections as individual human beings and restrictions on that free speech are unconstitutional.

How did the Court arrive at that position? Basically they relied are two notions: one, that money equals free speech, thus the constitution protects corporate political spending in the same way that it protects an individual's ability to say whatever they want (within reason); and two, that corporations -creatures of statute, economic entities - have the same political speech rights as flesh-and-blood human beings. Once you buy into those two views, it's not a stretch to end up with the Court's decision.

The decision strikes down the McCain-Feingold federal restrictions on corporate spending on candidates and issues - as long as the spending is not coordinated with those candidates. The Court upheld limits on campaign contributions from corporations to candidates, but for the first time held that corporate spending outside of those direct contributions cannot be limited.

What impact will it have? It will certainly mean more spending. The Courts have consistently ruled that individuals can spend money on political speech without limitation. We've seen that in New York City where billionaire Michael Bloomberg has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help get himself elected Mayor for three terms. We've also seen Rochester-based billionaire Tom Golisano drop big bucks in 2008 to get candidates elected to the New York State Senate.

We can now expect to see the same unfettered spending by "people" named Exxon/Mobil, Philip Morris, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. These corporate giants will now be able to spend as much as they want on behalf of, or in opposition to, candidates - as long as they do so without coordinating their messages with those candidates. Unlimited in their spending, corporations can now threaten and bully into submission legislators who disagree with their corporate agendas.

While many may disagree that corporations should have the same political rights as human beings and that money equals speech, that is the law of the land. So, the question now is, "What should be done?"

Amending the US Constitution to set it straight on the rights of humans versus the rights of artificially-created legal corporate beings would help, but it is unlikely to happen any time soon.

What then are more realistic steps?

The first is to make sure that such "independent expenditure" spending is subject to the same scrutiny as all other campaign spending. Luckily, in New York such disclosure is part of the ethics reform bill that was recently approved by both houses of the Legislature. If enacted into law, contributions to, and spending by, independent expenditure campaigns would become public.

The second step is to take measures to help average people participate in political free speech. If spending equals speech and the rich and powerful have access to lots of money, then they speak louder than those without money.

New Yorkers of modest means (that is, most of us) need to speak too. Currently, we speak through our own campaign donations, but realistically who will candidates listen to - those who make a $50 or $100 donation, or those who can spend millions, or even billions, of dollars on their behalf?

I think we know the answer.

Lawmakers should create a voluntary system of public financing of elections. Typically, public financing allows small donations to be matched with additional public dollars. So, a $250 donation could become $1,000 under a system that matched 4 public dollars for every private dollar raised from small donations. Under this system, small donations get amplified so the small donor speaks louder.

Of course, a system of public financing cannot balance the political-economic scales against an entity like Exxon/Mobil, but it can help. Unless a system of public financing - however it is structured - is established, small donors will speak with a political whisper while large corporations will speak up with a 10,000 watt megaphone. And the loudest voice gets heard best.

Back to the Top

January 18, 2010: SUPPORT ETHICS REFORM

Last week, the legislative leaders unveiled their ethics reform bill. The event brought together the Democratic and Republicans leaders of the Assembly with the Senate Democratic leader to offer their agreed-to measure to enhance ethics oversight and to boost campaign finance enforcement.

This legislation represents a significant step forward from the status quo by eliminating the current ethics structure and replacing it with new enforcement entities in each of the following five key areas.

First, the ethics package includes critical changes to executive branch ethics, including the creation of a new ethics agency. Unlike previous executive branch ethics agencies, the legislation proposes that no one elected official chooses a majority of the appointments to the commission. In addition to restrictions on those who can serve on the commission (such as lobbyists), the legislation grants the executive director a three-year term, which will help to insulate him or her from political pressure. The legislation grants to the commission the crucial power to randomly review ethics filings to ensure honesty and accuracy.

Second, the ethics package includes critical changes to lobbying oversight.

With regard to lobbying, the bill "turns back the clock" and essentially restores the structure of the well-regarded lobbying commission that was eliminated in 2007. However, unlike the earlier lobbying commission, the legislation adds new protection for the executive director by granting a three-year term, which will help to insulate him or her from political pressure. Importantly, under the proposal all state and municipal lobbyists and their clients must report business relationships with state public officials.

Third, the ethics package includes critical changes to legislative branch ethics. One key addition is that the executive director, who currently serves at the pleasure of the commission, will now have a three-year term, which will help insulate him or her from political pressure. Significantly, the commission is granted the power to randomly review filings to ensure honesty and accuracy.

The legislation creates an office of legislative ethics investigation. This new entity would have a board that contains no lawmakers and no lobbyists, among other restrictions. The office will have an executive director with a three-year term. In addition, the new office has the powers necessary to fully investigate complaints.

Fourth, the ethics package includes critical changes to campaign finance enforcement. The State Board of Elections (SBOE) enforcement counsel and special counsel would have three-year terms. The enforcement counsel would have power to initiate investigations. The legislation makes it hard to stop an investigation once it has commenced.

Fifth, the ethics package includes critical changes to disclosure requirements. Currently, public officials are required to disclose the sources of outside income and the value of that income within ranges established in law. However, those dollar-figure ranges are secret and kept from public view. Under the legislation those dollar-figure ranges would become public.

Lobbyists and those who hire lobbyists - such as large businesses, trade associations and unions - would now have to report business relationships they may have with public officials. Such relationships are not currently disclosed.

Lastly, by mandating stable funding for each of the entities, the potential for political interference through the budgetary process will be limited.

Is this everything reformers had advanced? No. Is this proposal an across-the-board improvement in ethics oversight? Absolutely.

The measures offer reform, bolster oversight, and enhance independence. It is a package worthy of support.

Back to the Top

January 11, 2010: STIFLING DISSENT

I have to admit, the State of the State was a head scratcher. After years of indicted politicians, agency scandals and resignations, Governor Paterson chose to voice concerns about "good government groups" in his State of the State message. Ironically, he chose to do so after the groups declared their support for the governor's call for reforms in Albany. Essentially, good government groups responded to the governor's reform message by saying:

The governor is right that New York's ethics system is a disaster and needs a radical overhaul.
The governor is right that New York's campaign finance system is a disgrace.
The governor is right that the failures in ethics and campaign financing contribute to the state's policy gridlock.

Yet in his formal State of the State address the governor said that good government groups were a problem too and implied that they were acting improperly and running afoul of the law.

After his State of the State address, Governor Paterson kept up a constant attack on good government groups. He said that the groups needed to be regulated by the state, that they were partisan, and even that they are "drunk with power."

For the governor to say this, New Yorkers would assume that there was some evidence to back up his claims. But there are not.

In an Associated Press story that ran over the weekend, the governor's office continued its criticisms, but admitted to a reporter that it had no evidence-not even any complaints - of wrongdoing. As reported in the Associated Press, "The administration, however, has received no complaints. 'We're trying to prevent this before it happens ... rather than say gotcha.'"

What is the "this" that they are trying to prevent? They did not say.

What the governor appears to be doing is using the vast power of the government to smear perceived opponents - an outrageous misuse of public resources.

We've seen this type of misconduct before. The most celebrated example was during the Watergate scandal during which is was revealed that the government reviewed IRS filings, leaked false information on opponents and even - most notoriously - sent political operatives to break into the offices of the Democratic Party.

While there is no evidence of such misconduct now, it is clear that the Paterson Administration used the State of the State address to attack "good government groups," used government lawyers and press people to be part of the effort and used taxpayer dollars to travel the state to continue the attack. All without a shred of evidence of wrongdoing.

If there is a problem, government officials should fix it. And the state has plenty of problems -- fiscal imbalance, ethical failures and policy gridlock. But to go after a handful of groups, simply because of some perceived slight, is petty and dangerous.

Government has immense power; it should be used honestly, openly and responsibly. The governor's smear campaign is none of that. New Yorkers deserve better and should demand better.

Back to the Top

January 5, 2010: ALBANY'S YEAR IN REVIEW

One year ago, New Yorkers were hoping for a good year. In 2008, things had gone bad and there was no way to go - but up.

In 2008, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton lost in her Presidential quest. Governor Eliot Spitzer had been forced to resign due to his involvement in a prostitution ring. And, of course, the all-too-familiar story of some legislators getting into trouble.

Democrats, who had run in 2006 as the party of reform, were trying to get their bearings after the resignations of Governor Spitzer and Comptroller Hevesi. Things did begin to look up for them. In 2008, their Presidential candidate won, for the first time in nearly half a century they seized control of the state Senate, and picked up a couple of New York Congressional seats. Despite the global financial meltdown, Governor Paterson was viewed favorably by a sizable majority of New Yorkers.

It seems so long ago. 2009 turns out to have been a very bad year.

Democratic control of the state Senate has, to put it charitably, been controversial. Their razor-thin majority made it extraordinarily difficult to cobble together enough votes to pass bills. It took a while to hire staff and to deal with the inevitable "shake out" that comes with a big change-after all, Republicans had controlled the Senate for more than 40 years.

And then there was the June coup. Democrats are hardly a politically homogenous group, an uneasy family of more conservative upstate and suburban legislators hitched to the conference's more liberal New York City base. During the session, tensions boiled to the surface when two Democratic Senators teamed up with Republicans to try to seize power in that House. It ultimately failed, but the Republicans-plus-two attempted power grab brought policymaking to a standstill. It was a moment in which all New Yorkers noticed just how bad things had become in Albany.

Governor Paterson had his own problems. The Great Recession forced him to attempt unpopular budget-cutting decisions. In addition, the governor's popularity took a beating as a result of the shabby - and unethical - treatment of Caroline Kennedy during her consideration as Senator Clinton's replacement. Moreover, the governor's recent effort to secure free World Series tickets further solidified the public view that the he is insensitive to public's need for top officials to operate at the highest ethical levels.

Not to be outdone, last month the Republicans got into the act when former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was convicted by a federal jury on corruption charges.

2010 has got to be better, right? Only if Albany takes steps to respond to the darkening ethics cloud that hangs over the Capitol.

In order to restore public confidence in state government, the governor and the legislative leaders have to take concrete steps to begin to repair Albany. In order to succeed, Albany has to respond to three big crises facing the state.

Ethics. The political "crime wave" that has rolled through the state Capitol demands a response. The mushrooming number of controversies, scandals and convictions should shake Albany to its core. The incidents of unethical conduct, self-dealing and outright corruption has to lead to a policy response. This response should include a new structure of ethics enforcement. This new structure must rely on establishing independent agencies to police ethics, better disclosure requirements and clear standards for what's right and what's wrong.
Government consolidation. The Great Recession has devastated the state's finances. It is clear that state government has to be reformed so that costs match revenues, while meeting the service needs of New Yorkers. Policymakers should focus on three areas: consolidation of local governments, steep reductions in the number of public authorities and reorganization of state government.
Constitutional reform. New York's constitution needs to be re-worked. The best way to do that is through a constitutional convention, which allows delegates to re-examine every provision and ensure that it meets the needs of the 21st century. But the election of delegates to the convention is essentially rigged so that those with the most influence - current elected officials, interest groups and wealthy individuals - could easily win control. In order to ensure that any future convention is truly a "people's convention," new rules must be in place to limit the influence of the powerful and well-organized.

The first constitutional test will be redistricting. Will the individual elected governor in 2010 demand an end to lawmakers rigging legislative district lines?

Every New Year begins with hope. That's why we offer New Year's resolutions. Here's one New Year's resolution that Albany should fulfill - a new beginning that rejects the status quo and builds a state government that's honest, efficient and effective.

Back to the Top

December 28, 2009: 10 REASONS TO ENACT ETHICS REFORM

Some prominent politicians have begun to argue that there has been too much focus on the need for ethics reform. I'm not sure what planet they're on: 2009 has been a terrible year for ethics. It seems like every day there is another assault on the public's fraying trust in their state government.

It's important not to forget how New York got to the sorry state it's in today. There have been serious scandals this year. Here are the "top ten" scandals that came to a head this year and should be the impetus for action when lawmakers return in the New Year:

Reason #10. Former State Senator Efrain Gonzalez pled guilty to ripping off taxpayers for his own benefit. In 2009, Gonzalez admitted that he had used hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to pay for Yankees tickets, financing a private cigar company, membership fees in a vacation club in the Dominican Republic and college tuition for his daughter.

Reason #9. Former Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin was sentenced to 10 years in prison for embezzlement, fraud and bribes from labor unions and contractors, even filching from a Little League team in Queens.

Reason #8. Governor Paterson solicited five free tickets from the New York Yankees for Game 1 of the World Series, which may have run afoul of the state's ethics law. The Yankees are a registered lobbyist and so the governor is prohibited from soliciting or accepting free gifts - including World Series tickets.

Reason #7. The Paterson Administration admitted to spreading rumors about Caroline Kennedy's "tax problem and potential nanny issue." When Ms. Kennedy withdrew from consideration for appointment by the governor to the US Senate seat formerly held by Hillary Clinton, members of the governor's office attempted to smear her by claiming she did so due to personal problems that emerged during their "vetting" process. Problems she denied.

Reason #6. State Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada failed to file his campaign finance disclosures and failed to pay the resulting fines. For years, Senator Espada ignored the state's campaign finance laws requirements that he publicly file reports of who his donors are. He also ignored $60,000 in fines from his failure to file.

Reason #5. Former Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio pled guilty in federal court to political corruption. Seminerio pocketed more than $1 million in 'consulting fees" by promising hospitals, nonprofits and others inside access to legislators. He is facing at least 10 years in prison.

Reason #4. Senator Hiram Monserrate attempted to use a secret loophole to create a legal defense fund to pay his lawyers to defend him of criminal charges related to the assault of his girlfriend. Under Monserrate's tortured interpretation of state law, rich individuals - even lobbyists with business before the Legislature - can give as much as they want to his legal defense.

Reason #3. The Inspector General found that the then executive director of the Commission on Public Integrity, the state's ethics watchdog, had secretly alerted the Spitzer Administration to the details of the Commission's investigation into the "Troopergate" controversy. As a result of the report, Governor Paterson called for the resignation of the Commission's membership (a request that was ignored) and the executive director resigned.

Reason #2. Since former Comptroller Alan Hevesi's resignation in late 2006, more scandals in his Office have come to light. Most recently, it has been reported that the former comptroller took $75,000 in gifts to pay for luxury trips from an investment banker. This banker has also admitted paying nearly $1 million in bribes for state pension fund business.

Reason #1. Last month, former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was convicted by a federal jury of depriving the public of "honest services" by using his position to reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and by failing to disclose his conflicts of interest. Bruno faces up to 20 years in prison on each count and a $250,000 fine.

It has been a bad year in Albany. So when you hear top officials arguing that there is too much emphasis on ethics in Albany, remember that in 2009 there at least ten reasons why they are wrong.

Back to the Top

December 21, 2009: THE LT. GOVERNOR'S QUESTIONABLE FUNDRAISING

It was reported last week that Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch has come up with an interesting way to hire staff. According to the New York Daily News, the Lt. Governor has obtained commitments of $100,000 to $150,000 from foundations to allow him to hire staff. The plan is for the foundations to send money to an Albany-based "think tank," the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, which would then hire staff. While technically paying those staff - who are now being recruited by the Lt. Governor - once hired they would report directly to the Lt. Governor's office.

It's an interesting way for the Lt. Governor to hire staff. The Lt. Governor is the first appointed LG in New York State history. He will have a hard time hiring staff. He has stated that he will not run for election in 2010, so his political future is limited. The state is facing serious financial problems, so he won't have easy access to money to pay for staff. As a result, the LG apparently chose to reach out to his contacts in the foundation and "think tank" worlds to hire consultants to act as his staff.

But the entire enterprise raises serious questions. Questions like, how should the sources of money be reviewed? And since the individuals hired will be acting as the LG's staff, what ethical restrictions will exist for them?

New York has an entity that would review the plan. The Commission on Public Integrity should review the plan in advance of any action. Apparently, the Lt. Governor agreed and initially sought, and received, guidance of the Commission. Yet, the Lt. Governor then decided that such guidance was not necessary. Why he decided that way is unclear. Is it that he didn't like the Commission's answers? Who knows.

According to news reports, the LG has gone ahead, set up his plan, started raising money and lining up staff without the explicit approval of the Commission.

The public should expect that prior to implementing his plan, the Lt. Governor should have received the Commission's approval.

Of course, we have no way of knowing which entities are actually funneling money to pay for the Lt. Governor's staff. Yet, it is important for the Commission to thoroughly review which entities are providing the funding for this project.

The problem is not an academic one. In 1995, then-Governor Pataki's trips to Europe were funded by a not-for-profit - the Hungarian-American Chamber of Commerce. At that time, the Commission's predecessor, the State Ethics Commission, approved this unique fundraising since it had received assurances from the Governor's staff that the Chamber had no business before state government. However, in 1999 it was revealed that the Chamber was merely used as a conduit for funds from lobbying entities, most notably Philip Morris, to pay for the then-Governor's trips. It was revealed that representatives of Philip Morris met with the Governor in Budapest. That lack of thorough review led to one of the biggest lobbying scandals in New York history. Ultimately, the State Ethics Commission admitted it had erred in failing to thoroughly review the relationship.

Moreover, the arrangement raises other important issues. It is clear from the news reports that the Lt. Governor views these staff as his own. If so, that relationship raises concerns. State law prohibits public servants from accepting freebies from lobbyists, contacts with them are reportable under the lobby law, they must comply with "revolving door" restrictions to limit their ability to "cash in" after government service, and their correspondence are considered public documents.

Will the Lt. Governor's newly-"hired" staff be covered by the state's lobbying rules and ethics restrictions? What about the Freedom of Information Law? To ensure ethical government, they must. But with regard to ethics, only the Commission has the authority to make this determination and to monitor its implementation.

The Lt. Governor erred in plunging ahead on his plan without the Commission's prior, and public, approval. He should immediately stop and seek guidance from the Commission.

Back to the Top

December 14, 2009: LESSONS FROM THE BRUNO FELONY CONVICTIONS

The biggest news out of the Capital last week was the conviction of former Senate Majority Joseph Bruno stemming from charges of political corruption. The federal court jury convicted Bruno on two felony charges and the former Senator faces years behind bars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

The Bruno legal proceedings gave New Yorkers an insider's view of how the politically powerful can operate. And while Bruno was convicted of corruption stemming from his business dealings with a local businessman and lobbyist, equally nauseating testimony emerged during the trial.

According to those closest to the Senator, including his former staffmembers, Bruno essentially ran his private business dealings out of his public office. Senate lawyers did private work for the Senator, his public secretary ran his personal affairs on public time and even some private business meetings were conducted in his public office in the Capitol and Legislative Office Building.

Like former Comptroller Hevesi and former Health Commissioner Novello, Bruno used his public resources for his own private benefits. Unlike those other two, however, Bruno was not convicted for his misuse of taxpayer dollars. And he was found guilty of violating federal law, not state.

Like many others, Bruno was caught because his personal greed trumped his public responsibilities. Yet, the Bruno case highlighted another problem - the vagaries of state law.

It turns out that there is no explicit prohibition on misusing public funds for personal gain. Obviously, the convictions of Hevesi and Novello make it clear that you should not misuse public resources, like running a private business out of your taxpayer-funded public office, but the language of state law does not explicitly state that "Thou shall not use public resources for private gain."

Clearly, the law should.

The aftermath of the Bruno conviction presents state legislators and the Governor with a critical test. Will lawmakers be able to fashion a legislative agreement to respond to the revelations uncovered during the Bruno trial? Will they be able to respond to the spate of guilty pleas and convictions of other lawmakers? Will they be able to respond to the Inspector General's report that found that the state's ethics watchdog - the Commission on Public Integrity - was itself found to have acted unethically?

Right now, Albany's political establishment is saying that it will respond. Both the Senate and Assembly leadership have publicly stated that they are negotiating a new law - one that will overhaul and strengthen the state's ethics standards. The governor - who has talked about the need for ethics reform, but done virtually nothing to make it happen - now insists that he too wants reform.

In Albany, talk is cheap. What matters is whether the governor and the legislative leaders can fashion an agreement that actually responds to Albany's scandals with meaningful changes. So far, the rhetoric is good, but to date there has been no action.

The Bruno conviction ups the ante for what needs to be in an ethics reform package. The media has reported that lawmakers are pledging to act early next year. If they do, their package should include:

New ethics standards that make it clear lawmakers cannot use taxpayer resources for their own private gain.
The establishment of new, independent oversight and enforcement of these new standards.
Meaningful disclosures of lawmakers' outside income. It is only through such disclosures that New Yorkers can be realistically ensure that conflicts of interest are adequately monitored.

Hopefully, New Yorkers will see concrete actions taken by lawmakers in response to the cascading scandals that have rocked Albany. If nothing happens, New Yorkers should "remember in November," 2010, when all state lawmakers stand for reelection.

Back to the Top

December 7, 2009: COPENHAGEN AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Starting today, the world will turn its attention to a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. It's the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference. The Conference was originally planned to negotiate a new climate change treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol set binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol was approved by 184 nations that are part of the UN Climate Convention. Despite agreeing to the protocol, the United States Senate never granted final approval of the treaty, and as a result, the US has not followed the protocol's provisions.

The Kyoto Protocol was rejected by the US for two main reasons. First, it did not involve action on the part of major developing countries - such as China and India. Second, it was felt by the then newly-elected Bush administration that Kyoto would be harmful to the US economy.

In addition to sponsoring these 15 conferences, the United Nations also created a panel of climate experts to review the scientific evidence relating to climate change and the human impact on global warming. This group, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has been responsible for evaluating the available international scientific, technical and socio-economic literature on climate change. For the most recent report - the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007-over 1200 independent scientific authors and 2500 reviewers participated.

It was that 2007 report that argued that human activities are a primary driving force in global warming. The report laid out various scenarios for the projected devastating impacts from climate changes resulting from a warming planet. This report is the basis for pending Congressional legislation and policies around the world.

The IPCC found that many of the effects of global warming have been well-documented, and observations from real life are very much consistent with earlier predictions. Among the predictions are:

More droughts and more flooding. As heat builds up, many areas will become arid and the loss in vegetation will make areas susceptible to floods.
Less ice and snow. As glaciers recede, drinking water supplies will be affected, according to the IPCC, up to a sixth of the world's population lives in areas that will be affected.
More extreme weather incidents. There will be more heat waves, more cases of heavy rainfall, and increased intense storms.
Rising sea levels. Sea levels will rise due to melting ice and snow, as well as the thermal expansion of the sea - which could raise sea levels as much as 3 feet.

The hope has been that the IPCC's research would drive the Copenhagen conference to begin the process of approving a new treaty, one with global, binding greenhouse gas reductions. In order for that to happen, the Obama Administration's plan was for the Congress to have approved climate change prior to the President's trip.

Unfortunately, the legislation has not yet made it to the President's desk. In June, the House passed legislation, but the Senate has not acted. There are key reasons for the Congressional failure - the Congress has been tied up in the health care debate, the legislation has run into stiff resistance funded by the oil and coal lobbies, and there has been a massive public relations effort by those industries to undermine the findings of the IPCC.

Since the President is going to Copenhagen without Congressional action, the goals have changed. The hope is that the Copenhagen Conference can achieve global agreement on broad principles that will lead to a treaty agreement next year. Success will hinge on the answers to the following four questions:

How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?
How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
How is that money going to be managed?

It's disappointing that the immense power of special interests have slowed the pace of climate change legislation in the U.S. Hopefully, agreement on key principles will break the logjam and lead to a global agreement that will help turn down the heat on global warming.

Back to the Top

November 23, 2009: THE FIRST CONVICTION IN THE BRUNO TRIAL

The trial of former Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno is supposed to wrap up soon, but the first conviction is in. We don't yet know if Mr. Bruno will be found guilty of any crime for his use of taxpayer dollars to pay for staff, office space and other support to subsidize his personal business activities and any conflicts created by his business interests. But we do know that a system that could allow Mr. Bruno to think what he was doing was ethical, is a system that is rotten to its core.

According to court testimony, Mr. Bruno's taxpayer-funded, public servant secretary spent as much time on his private activities as she spent on being a public servant. Senator Bruno used office space in the Capitol for personal business activities, and he had Senate lawyers giving him free legal advice on his businesses, including drafting and reviewing his business contracts. He even had his business correspondence and consultant payments sent to his legislative office. As a result, federal prosecutors charge that Mr. Bruno used his public position as one of the state's most powerful lawmakers to make millions of dollars and failed to disclose his business dealings as required under law.

For his part, Bruno says that he is innocent. "It's a citizen Legislature, and that's what the public has to remember and I think will remember," Bruno said. "We broke no laws, and that's what's important."

Of course, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but we'll soon find out if Mr. Bruno is right. Yet it is amazing that such a scheme could even be contemplated. How could this be so?

For years, the legislature's adherence to ethics was overseen by the Legislative Ethics Committee. The Committee operated in secret and its membership were all legislators chosen by the leadership in both the Senate and the Assembly. And while the Committee had a few of its own staff, it relied heavily on the staff provided by - you guessed it - the legislative leaders, like former Senator Bruno.

In addition, under New York laws, very little information about lawmakers' outside business dealings was made publicly available.

It was within this system that Mr. Bruno began his business activities that ultimately led him into the hot water he's in today. Even the changes made in 2007 to the oversight of legislative ethics, probably would have done little to curb legislators' excesses.

Today the Legislative Ethics Commission (which replaced the old Legislative Ethics Committee in 2007) continues to operate in secrecy, continues to rely on lawyers from the legislature, and continues to disclose very little information about lawmakers' outside business activities. Are other lawmakers doing what Senator Bruno is alleged to have done-using public resources to run a private business and concealing it? We don't know.

The system simply does not work. New Yorkers deserve a new system, one that allows for the public to meaningfully examine potential conflicts-of-interests that may exist when a lawmaker has an outside job, a system that relies on independent investigation and enforcement of ethics; and clear ethics guidelines for what is allowed and what is not.

The Bruno case has pulled back the curtain on how Albany operates. It has shown to the public just has weak the state's ethics restrictions really are.

Regardless of the outcome, the Bruno case has made another compelling case for reform.

Supposedly both houses of the legislature are negotiating new legislation that would help boost ethics oversight. If nothing else, the public's revulsion to Albany's antics should spur those negotiations and produce a new law.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Back to the Top

November 16, 2009: CREATING A NEW YORK STATE "C-SPAN"

As any seasoned TV watcher knows, there is a cable channel known as C-SPAN. C-SPAN stands for the "Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network" and was started 25 years ago, as a public service offered by the cable industry. C-SPAN offers cable-viewing Americans unedited access to Congressional proceedings, as well as coverage of conferences, news events, journalist roundtables, call-in shows and other programming designed to educate the public.

And it has worked. According to the 2008 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press "Biennial News Consumption Survey," the Congressional C-SPAN has achieved much:

C-SPAN ranks among the top five TV news organizations (joining CNN, 60 Minutes, Local TV news and NPR) in believability ratings.
71% of C-SPAN's regular audience follows international news "Most of the Time."
Regular C-SPAN viewers scored 6% higher than the national average (24% vs. 18%) when tested on political knowledge and tested higher than audiences of the four cable news networks.

Due to its popularity, there are now three C-SPAN channels.

Unfortunately, there is no similar equivalent offering coverage of New York State government. Since 2006, New York has offered some limited coverage of legislative floor discussions, but not much else. In addition, the current channel does not offer coverage of executive branch proceedings, such as the deliberations of the Public Service Commission, the entity which regulates electric utilities.

There is a move afoot to change that and to expand the current state channel and expand its coverage. Both Houses of the Legislature have passed resolutions committing them to expanding the current channel. The Senate and Assembly created a Joint Senate-Assembly Task Force that is scheduled to issue a report on the topic soon.

While we don't know for sure what the Task Force will call for, we do know what they should use as a model - the Congressional C-SPAN. The new state channel should not only include the actual coverage of legislative and executive actions, but it should also provide coverage of conferences on state issues, committee hearings, issue roundtables, events sponsored by non-governmental organizations and other programs generally found on the national C-SPAN.

Since most New Yorkers get their information from television and cable TV, granting them easy access to governmental proceedings will enhance their understanding of, and interest in, state policymaking.

A robust cable TV channel that combines independent, non-partisan, gavel-to-gavel coverage, coupled with enhanced programming such as "Roundtables" and coverage of events sponsored by non-governmental organizations would help educate New Yorkers on state government and engage them in the important policy debates of the state.

It is important that a New York State "C-SPAN" be created.

The absence of unbiased, unedited televised coverage of state actions is an impediment to building public confidence in governmental proceedings. Into that void powerful interests spend money on slick media relations efforts to "spin" the public toward goals - actions that are not in the state's best interests.

As a result, New Yorkers have grown more cynical that state government can ever respond to the public's needs. An important antidote to that voter cynicism is openness - and a state "C-SPAN" is critical.

Let's hope that the Task Force focuses on expanding New York's current state channel to more closely resemble the highly successful Congressional C-SPAN. It works in educating Americans and its success has spawned two additional national channels. It is exactly what New Yorkers need to understand and monitor their own state government.

Back to the Top

November 2, 2009: SECRECY AND GOOD ETHICS DON'T MIX

Two and a half years ago, then-Governor Spitzer and the Legislature enacted a package of ethics reforms claiming that the changes would lead to higher standards of ethics by public officials. Sadly, that prediction did not come true. Since passage of those changes, the state has been rocked with scandals, including a report by the Inspector General that the new ethics watchdog established by Governor Spitzer was itself guilty of ethical misconduct.

Last week, two new incidents underscored the need for sweeping changes to that law.

First, the Commission on Public Integrity, which is supposed to monitor the ethics of public officials in the executive branch, issued its response to a complaint filed in the Caroline Kennedy case. As you may recall, earlier this year Governor Paterson was considering Ms. Kennedy as his appointed replacement for the US Senate seat held by Hillary Clinton after Clinton was appointed US Secretary of State by President Obama.

As part of the appointment process, Governor Paterson required that all applicants fill out a confidential questionnaire and allow the state to review confidential tax returns. The governor repeatedly promised that all information collected would be kept secret.

Just before the governor was to announce his pick, Ms. Kennedy withdrew from consideration. According to news reports, the governor was furious with Ms. Kennedy's withdrawal. In retaliation, members of the Paterson team then leaked misleading and false personal information in an effort to smear Ms. Kennedy.

That was bad, but the ethical question was - and is - who leaked the confidential information? It is a violation for public officials to leak confidential information. So who is to be held accountable for the damaging Kennedy leaks?

News reports tagged a campaign consultant as the person behind the leak, and she was fired. However, who gave confidential governmental information to a campaign staffer? The situation was the basis for the complaint filed in February by four government reform groups.

Last week, more than seven months after the complaint was originally filed, the Commission on Public Integrity issued its two sentence response. It concluded, "After a factual and legal inquiry, the Commission on Public Integrity has unanimously determined to close this matter with no further action."

The letter leaves many questions unanswered. For example, who did the Commission interview, if anyone, in order to investigate the complaint? Under current law, the Commission is restricted from making public statements. They conduct their activities in secret. Of course, to some extent that is appropriate, however the excessive secrecy undermines public trust. How can the public judge whether a real inquiry was undertaken or if it was just a political cover up?

Last week, a second ethics issue came to a head. State Senator Hiram Monserrate's legal troubles, which led to his recent conviction on assault charges, have resulted in huge financial costs.

To pay his legal bills - which may reach as much a $1 million - Senator Monserrate has created a "legal defense fund." According to the Senator's attorney, "He's got some supporters, I think, who are high-net-worth individuals, helping."

But how can rich individuals secretly donate money to pay Senator Monserrate's bills? Under the state ethics laws it's illegal to give gifts that exceed more than a "nominal" amount.

According to the Legislative Ethics Commission, Senator Monserrate has never asked them for approval to create a legal defense fund outside of the gift ban. However, they have carefully refused to state that whether any "informal advice" was given to the Senator and whether approvals have been given in years past.

Of course, if there are previous approvals allowing the creation of "legal defense funds," the public would never know anything about it. All of the Legislative Ethics Commission's decisions and policies are secret.

Apparently, no one will get punished for leaking Caroline Kennedy's personal information and we have no idea if the legislature's ethics watchdog has secretly created, illegally in my opinion, a million dollar loophole in the state's gift ban.

These two issues underscore the need for ethics reforms that create new independent oversight agencies and which operate in the open, rather than behind closed doors.

Back to the Top

October 19, 2009: MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS WORK

Last week, Governor Paterson unveiled his plan to slash the state's $3 billion budget deficit. Part of his plan would take $90 million from an energy efficiency program to apply to the deficit. While a compelling case can be made that the governor's proposal is bad policy, the governor's action highlights the importance of designing legislation to build and maintain public support to safeguard important programs from short term pressures.

The state's energy efficiency program is called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or "RGGI." The Initiative is designed to cap the overall amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted by the state's power plants. The RGGI program then reduces the amount of carbon dioxide power plants are allowed to emit. Power plants that want the right to emit greenhouse gas must pay the state for a permit. The revenues that are raised from the sale of these permits are supposed to be used to pay for energy efficiency programs. The state recently collected $220 million in its permit sales.

It is from that pot of money that the governor proposes to divert the $90 million.

While the governor's scheme is controversial, it is without doubt that the public is at best dimly aware of the program - and even less aware of the proposed cut. This is precisely why it is a top target of the governor's budget cutters.

The RGGI experience should be instructive to policymakers and advocates pushing for congressional climate change legislation. Congress is debating climate change legislation that is similar to New York's RGGI. The congressional proposal caps greenhouse gas emissions and then reduces those emissions over time. The legislation would reduce greenhouse gases by at least 80 percent by the year 2050.

In order to succeed not only will the legislation have to pass, but it has to be designed to stay in place for decades. While congressional lawmakers have developed legislation that could pass, they have failed to offer plans that could stand the test of time. Like New York's RGGI program, congressional legislation proposed to spend the revenues generated by the sale of greenhouse gas emission permits for energy efficiency programs. If enacted, those revenues would be vulnerable to theft just like the RGGI.

Congress should heed the lessons of New York's RGGI and design its climate change legislation to build immediate popular support and keep that support for the long haul. The idea has been advanced by US Senator Cantwell and Congressman Van Hollen. The legislation, known as "cap and cash back," is similar to RGGI in that it caps greenhouse gas emissions and then reduces those emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. It also sells environmental permits to emitters of greenhouse gases.

But after that the programs diverge.

Unlike RGGI, the revenues generated under the Cantwell/Van Hollen legislation are sent back to American consumers. That's right, sent back to the American people.

The theory is that if Americans receive the benefits of the sale of the permits, they will care about the program. In addition, the revenues will help offset the increased energy costs that will result from charging polluters for permits to emit greenhouse gases.

The more the congressional approach mirrors the nation's Social Security program, the more likely it will stay have public support. The more public support, the more likely the program will be around in the year 2050 - no matter how hostile future Administrations or Congresses are to the idea of reducing greenhouse gases. And that means the program will be more likely to achieve its goal of saving the planet.

President Obama understood this. In his initial greenhouse gas reduction proposal, the lion's share of the revenues raised was sent back to the American people. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives legislation did little in this area. It's up to New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand to ensure that the Senate advances legislation that not only slashes greenhouse gases, but also designs a program that can last for the next 40 years.

Back to the Top

October 12, 2009: A VOTING SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Nowadays, much of what we do is conducted electronically. Americans increasingly rely on the Internet to conduct their business. Paying bills, registering for college classes, choosing hotels, to name a few, can all be done online.

Yet, when it comes to the nation's voter registration system, filling out paper forms are the norm. In addition, in order to participate, voters must affirmatively obtain the forms, fill them out and submit them - either through the mail or in person - to states' elections boards.

Not only are registration practices increasingly out-of-date and burdensome for would-be voters, the system itself doesn't work very well. Here are some of the problems resulting from the current voter registration system:

First, it costs a lot. To handle all of that paper costs taxpayers money. The costs of printing, the costs of hiring staff to sort and develop voter lists, the costs of issuing approved voter lists, all add up. And while it is well worth it to spend money in order to accurately register voters and run elections, if technology can reduce costs without undermining integrity, why not do it?

Second, it creates headaches for election workers and voters alike. Not only are there costs to a paper-based voter registration system, there are human costs as well. For example, sometimes voters' registration forms are misplaced, or information - like addresses - is inaccurately entered. Under those circumstances, the poll worker has to deal with an agitated voter. That voter is also unhappy that their registration is not available; meaning that he or she may have to go to a different polling place, or be prohibited from using the voting machine and instead vote on a paper ballot. Those on line behind this voter are unhappy too - it takes more time to vote.

These headaches can cause real chaos. For example, during the 2008 election cycle in New York, about 100,000 forms collected by "third-party" registration groups were sent to the State Board of Elections. The State Board had to spend countless staff hours sorting and forwarding them to the correct local office, where officials were already inundated with registration applications. After Election Day, a Board of Elections employee in New York City found a box containing approximately 3,500 registration forms that had been forwarded by the State Board in early September. Those 3,500 names did not make the registration rolls by Election Day.

Third, it creates obstacles that suppress voter participation. In addition to the inevitable mistakes that are made in a paper-based system run by humans, the requirement that voters actively register in order to participate leaves millions unregistered. According to the US Census Bureau, in New York's 2006 election, only 64 percent of the state's eligible voting age population was registered to vote.

The current registration system means that certain groups of voters are more disadvantaged. For example, in 2008, nearly a quarter, 23 percent, of experienced overseas voters had problems or questions with registering, a problem that occurs even more frequently with voters attempting to cast a ballot from overseas for the first time. Twenty-three percent of all veterans - 5.3 million veterans - were not registered to vote in 2006. Lastly, less than half of young voters were registered.

The current voting practice was designed for a paper-dominated system - one that is as relevant today as an 8-track music player. Why not follow the lead of the rest of society and modernize voter registration?

The nation's voter registration system is a patchwork relic of the 19th century. It's costly, inefficient and unreliable, overwhelming election officials with needless paperwork and expense and blocking millions of eligible American citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote. The outdated and cumbersome voter registration system is the single largest cause of election problems for voters and election officials.

There's a 21st-century solution that harnesses the power of technology to ensure that all eligible voters, no matter what age, can participate. Government should automatically register voters as soon as they turn 18 or move into the state. How could that be done? Government should tap into the immense amount of information it currently collects in its databases - drivers' licenses, college enrollments, tax filings, and the like - to verify the age, citizenship and other relevant information of voters. The nation already uses existing databases to verify young men for the selective service, why not use that as a model for voter registration? Other nations use such a system of automatically registering voters and have much higher voter participation rates.

The Congress has to lead the way. US Senator Chuck Schumer has already stated his intention to introduce legislation to modernize the nation's voter registration system. For Schumer to succeed in time for the 2010 elections, he has to get moving now.

Back to the Top

September 28, 2009: NEW YORK'S BUDGET WOES

Last week, Governor Paterson and the legislative leaders met to discuss the state's budget problems. They were joined by Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch, whose appointment by the governor was upheld by the state's highest court.

The meeting was informative and disturbing; informative in that it strengthened the case that actions are needed, and disturbing not only for what the budget deficit will mean - cuts to programs that some New Yorkers rely on - but the apparent lack of a plan on how to address the problem.

Here is a summary of some important moments of that meeting:

The state's budget is falling more out of balance over time. The governor estimated - and the leaders agreed - that the state is facing a $2.1 billion current-year budget gap. The governor further predicted that the deficit would swell to $3 billion by the end of the fiscal year, unless actions were taken.
Falling revenues were cited as a key reason for the deficit. For example, personal income taxes were off by 35 percent when compared to the previous year, and that shortfall is nearly $600 million lower than anticipated. Some of that drop off occurred due to an unprecedented decline in workers' wages and layoffs. In addition, shrinking business activities were reflected in a drop off in sales tax revenues, adding nearly $160 million to the unanticipated deficit.
There doesn't seem to be a plan. This one was the shocker of the meeting. The problem of eroding state revenues is not a new problem. As early as July, the Division of the Budget was predicting a budget shortfall of $2.1 billion. Yet at the leaders meeting, the governor did not unveil his plan for addressing this shortfall. Moreover, the governor seemed strangely passive on how to move the leaders' discussion.

At one point in the meeting, the governor asked the legislative leaders what they think should be done to address the budget deficit. While that request is hardly out-of-line, the governor stated that he did not feel comfortable laying out his own suggestions at the meeting. The governor argued that since he has in the past proposed cuts and been criticized for his plan, he would not offer his own suggestions. However, he then asked the legislative leaders to fill the gap with suggestions of their own. Shocking.

The governor is the most powerful political figure in the state, yet he refused to offer a plan for dealing with the deficit since he was concerned about being criticized - and then asked the leaders to "walk the plank" with proposals of their own.

Both the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate's Democratic leader, refused to offer proposals on how to respond. Both pledged their support to address the problem, but neither offered specifics. Republican leader Skelos offered a series of proposals to cut the size of the deficit and Assembly Minority Leader Kolb added an idea of his own. The governor responded by saying that the Administration would look at their recommendations.

The governor then asked how they should proceed. The governor did not offer his own procedural recommendations on how to deal with the budget, but asked the legislative leaders to offer theirs. Once again, Assembly Republican leader Kolb proposed that the Lt. Governor and the Administration's budget staff meet with the budget staffs of the legislature and develop recommendations on how to eliminate the budget deficit. The Lt. Governor also pledged that the legislative staffs would be receiving weekly state revenue and spending updates in the hopes that all would be able to agree on the magnitude of the problem.

And that was the end of the meeting. There was agreement to have further meetings and to share budgetary details. But there was no agreement to meet again, there was no agreement to bring the legislature back to approve whatever plan emerges, and there was no agreement on specific ways to cut the deficit.

Of course, that's not to say that nothing is being done. The Administration has been working with state agencies to cut spending and to encourage attrition of the workforce. But Administrative measures alone cannot close a $2 or $3 billion deficit - that will take action. And in Albany, action only occurs through leadership.

The governor must lead. Not only to offer his plans, but to make the case to New Yorkers that the problem is real and his solutions are best. Without that leadership, things will only get worse.

Back to the Top

September 21, 2009: DEMOCRATS IN TROUBLE?

What has become clear is that New Yorkers are increasingly unhappy with their state government. In a recent Marist College poll, nearly three-quarters of New Yorkers thought that the state is headed in the wrong direction. And New Yorkers blame the state government. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that over three quarters of New Yorkers believed that their state government is "the worst" or "among the worst" in the nation. Only 2 percent said New York has the "best" state government.

That unhappiness is now starting to impact on elections. In the primaries last week, few turned out at the polls. And what must have been most alarming to Democrats, only 11 percent of Democratic voters cast their votes in New York City - which is the party's base. And four city council incumbents lost their primary races.

Of course, we don't know for sure why Democratic voters would sit out the primaries this year. However, it's a safe bet that they aren't feeling motivated by their party's candidates and are probably unhappy about the state of things generally.

That dismal turnout stands in stark contrast to the elections last year. Democrats turned out in droves, they were motivated and showed it through their participation. Motivated voters helped install a Democratic President and gave the party big edges in both House of the Congress. New York Democrats swept into the governor's mansion and every other statewide position. The state Senate turned Democratic for the first time in decades.

So, it bodes poorly if registered Democrats are sitting on their hands. Small turnout could be a huge problem for the Democrats in what surely will be fiercely competitive elections in November 2010.

At the national level, support for the President is slipping, a recent Rasmussen Reports showed a 56-43 percent approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. Support for Governor Paterson is at rock-bottom and a majority of New Yorkers want to throw out all of the state's leaders.

The trends are all the more nerve-wracking for the Democrats, particularly when it's put into a historic context. Since 1934, in virtually every off-Presidential election, the President's party has lost seats in the House of Representatives. The election of 2010 is the next such election.

Democrats must be nervous, and they should be. Obviously some of their problems are out of their control - the nation's hobbled economy, the world's trouble spots.

But if Democrats want to continue to lead, they must regain their political footing. And to do that, they have to deliver on their promises.

In Washington, the Congressional leadership must approve health care, banking reforms and global warming legislation. They ran on those issues in 2008 and they must deliver on those promises.

Back to the Top

September 14, 2009: THE ETHICS SAGA CONTINUES

Last week, New Yorkers were told by the State Senate that they intended to approve ethics reform legislation. The Senate said it would approve legislation passed by the Assembly in late June and then add provisions to bolster oversight of ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws.

The prognosis for Senate action looked positive. The Senate Republican minority stated their desire to vote in support of the Assembly-backed measure.

And then things went south.

One Senate Democrat had to miss the session due to the death of his father. For the Democrats, losing one vote was catastrophic since they need every one of their members to approve legislation - or hope for support from the Republicans.

The Democrats chose to offer up first the second of their two bills - the one that expanded the reforms passed by the Assembly. It turned out that Republicans had a problem with those changes. One provision created a new campaign finance enforcement unit, something badly needed in New York. However, Republicans were concerned by that provision.

The new enforcement unit would be headed by an executive director who would be chosen by a nine-member panel. The panelists would be chosen by the governor, the attorney general, and the comptroller - all of whom are currently Democrats, as well as appointees of the four legislative leaders, two of whom are Democrats. The Republicans were concerned that, as Republican Senator Padavan described, the proposal would amount to a "hit unit," and warned that the campaign enforcement unit would be used for political purposes.

That point was debatable, but the outcome was not. Without Republican votes, the legislation was not approved and so the Democrats pulled back the bill approved by the Assembly. They pledged to meet with the Republicans and try to bridge their differences.

So far, so good. If the Senate returns soon and has a bipartisan agreement that overhauls the state's ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws, that would be good news.

And then Governor Paterson decided to weigh in.

The governor described the current bill as "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." The Assembly bill doesn't go far enough, the governor said. Paterson argued that elected officials shouldn't make appointments to commissions charged with looking into the people who do the appointing.

The governor's comments on the ethics bill were interesting and disconcerting. First, the legislation - if enacted - would be a substantial improvement over the status quo. Second, the governor has been absent from the ethics debate for months, only now threatening to block the legislation under consideration.

In the Spring, the state's Inspector General issued a report detailing what he described as unethical and irresponsible actions by the Commission on Public Integrity, the state's top ethics watchdog. After the IG report, the governor called for the resignation of the members of the Commission. They refused.

Then, the governor issued a bill that would eliminate the Commission on Public Integrity and the failed Legislative Ethics Commission, which oversees legislative ethics. The governor's plan created a new, independent ethics agency that combined the authority of both Commissions. At that time, no legislator introduced the governor's plan and he never pushed it.

In June, when the Assembly passed its bill, the governor said nothing. During the months of June and July when the Senate was paralyzed by the "coup," the governor every day forced the Senate to take up his "priority issues," yet never once put his own ethics bill on one of those lists.

Now he says the ethics bill that was the subject of hearings in both houses and approved by the Assembly with bipartisan support is too wimpy. Essentially he says he would veto the bill if it comes to his desk. If he does, then New York would be stuck with the status quo -- supposedly one the governor disapproves of. For months the governor has exerted no leadership and now may derail the momentum for reform.

Is this just a way for the governor to force himself into the debate, or a way to "deep six" ethics reform in order to keep pressure on the legislature? Hard to know for sure, but it is maddening.

Enough of the games. End the ethics status quo: A status quo in which campaign finance laws are rarely enforced, ethics laws are ignored and a state watchdog is found to have violated the public's trust.

Back to the Top

August 31, 2009: SHOULD NEW YORK HAVE A "CON-CON"?

Should New York State convene a constitutional convention? Wonks, political junkies and advocates periodically think about that question because of the problems with the New York State constitution.

But recently the discussion has moved into the public arena. After the recent scandals and the near-collapse of the state Senate in June, New Yorkers are increasingly coming to the view that their state government is completely dysfunctional. Uncertainty about whether it's possible to fill a vacancy in the Lieutenant Governor's office has added to the call for revisiting the state's basic charter.

Seeking to capitalize on that sentiment, advocates of a constitutional convention are urging that the state re-write its constitution to address the state's maladies.

Leading political figures are getting in on it too. The political odd couple of former New York City Mayor Giuliani and former Governor Cuomo called for a constitutional convention to overhaul Albany. And in a recent Quinnipiac Poll, by a margin of 62 to 24 percent, New Yorkers agreed that a convention was a good idea.

But is it? Let's review the rules of calling a constitutional convention.

Every 20 years, the state constitution requires that New Yorkers be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want to convene a constitutional convention. The next opportunity is scheduled for the year 2017. Given the mess in Albany, there are some who are arguing that it should be held sooner. The state constitution says a convention can be held at any time, if the Legislature and the public approve the idea.

Here's how it would work:

Voters would choose three delegates from each of the state's 62 Senate districts and 15 delegates to be chosen in a statewide election. The convention would convene on the first Tuesday in April after the election. It would continue to meet until the work was done, which could take months or even years.

Every delegate would get paid at the level of a member of the Assembly (currently $79,500). The delegates have the power to hire their own staff, set their own rules, and develop whatever constitutional changes they can agree on.

Once their work is done, the proposals are submitted to all voters for approval.

So what are the problems?

First off, choosing the delegates would be an election just like any other one. Candidates would have to circulate petitions to get on the ballot, they would have to raise campaign contributions to slug it out with their opponents, and they would have to recruit volunteers and hire staff. Who is best positioned to do that?

Our currently elected officials.

New York State law has no restrictions on who can run to be a delegate. So, given the time commitment (people would have to regularly go to Albany for meetings) and the logistics of running a political campaign, our state legislators are the people most likely to run and win. (And double their base salary to boot!)

Second, current state constitution protections would be at risk - the constitution grants the delegates the authority to consider any changes. For example, the current state constitution contains a right to a jury trial, a requirement that the state provide a sound, basic education for schoolchildren, forever wild provisions for the Catskills and Adirondacks, a safety net requirement for the poor, and pension and organizing protections for workers.

Even if a delegate ran on a promise to avoid changing those popular provisions, there is no guarantee that issues would be left off-the-table.

You can see why some are concerned about a constitutional convention. However, what if the rules were changed so that it wasn't a lock that politicians and special interest groups would run the convention?

How about if legislation passed that created a voluntary option of public financing for delegates so that anyone could run? How about if the petitioning process was liberalized so that average citizens would not have to hire an army of lawyers to keep from getting thrown off the ballot? How about if legislation was passed to ensure that legislators could not collect two paychecks - one for being a legislator and one for being a delegate?

So it's possible to change the delegate selection process so that New York could have a "people's convention." After all, the convention is supposed to reflect and protect the needs of all New Yorkers. If new rules were enacted, why not allow them to meet and re-write their own constitution?

It's the critical first step - the delegate selection process must be changed in order to ensure that a constitutional convention is truly a "people's convention."

Back to the Top

August 24, 2009: NEW YORKERS ARE FED UP

Given the most recent antics in Albany, we should have known this was coming. According to a Quinnipiac Poll released last week, 77 percent of New Yorkers believed that Albany is dysfunctional and 58 percent said it is "the worst" or "among the worst" in the nation.

Quinnipiac also found that that by a whopping 72 - 18 percent, New Yorkers felt that the State Legislature was not doing its job, the Legislature's lowest overall score ever.

In addition, 49 percent said that almost everyone in the State Senate - including their own state senator - deserves to be thrown out, while 40 percent say their state senator should be reelected.

The erosion of public support for state government is particularly startling when you remember that the Spitzer/Paterson team was elected in 2006 by the greatest margin in New York history based on its pledge to restore integrity to Albany and to enact fundamental reforms in the way the state government conducts its business.

Unfortunately, the wheels started to come off almost immediately. In early 2007 then-state Comptroller Alan Hevesi resigned after pleading guilty to government corruption. By the summer, the Spitzer Administration found itself embroiled in the so-called "Troopergate" scandal.

And then Spitzer himself resigned in March 2008 due to his dalliance with prostitutes.

Things were heading south.

David Paterson was dealt a tough hand when he became governor - Spitzer's quick exit in the middle of budget season left no transition period and the state's eroding fiscal situation limited Paterson's options. Initially, the governor benefitted from public goodwill, but that started to unravel with his treatment of Caroline Kennedy after she withdrew from consideration for the US Senate seat formerly held by Hillary Clinton.

From there, public support for the governor dropped like a rock.

On the Legislative side of the equation, in 2008, voters gave Democrats control of the State Senate for the first time in four decades after they ran under a banner of reform. But voter support for Senate Democrats started to erode when the Republican-led coup attempt in June fueled public outrage.

Clearly, while the public revolt found in the Quinnipiac Poll was triggered by this summer's coup, voter frustration had been building for years.

As a result, New Yorkers are considering taking things into their own hands. According to Quinnipiac, by a 64 - 24 percent margin, voters say there should be a state Constitutional Convention to reform New York State government. Voters also support by a 70 - 21 percent margin creating a commission independent of the State Legislature to redraw legislative district lines.

So how should Albany's political elite react? By acting on their pledges to reform Albany. If Democrats want to turn things around, they should begin to fulfill their promises to fix Albany. Here are some measures to get them started:

Pass ethics reforms. The Senate is due back on September 10th. As a first order of business, they should approve ethics reform legislation already passed by the state Assembly. The Assembly bill creates more independent oversight, strengthens enforcement and bolsters ethics disclosures. If they want to strengthen the measure - a good idea in my opinion - they should hammer out an agreement in advance. They should not pass legislation that doesn't match the Assembly's and then play "chicken" with their Assembly Democratic counterparts. Action speaks louder than words; the public wants action.
Fix the campaign finance system. Again the Assembly has acted. New York's system allows sky-high contributions, has weak disclosure requirements and non-existent enforcement. Given the Assembly's actions, the Senate can act to establish a system of public financing that allows grassroots challengers resources to take on incumbents. But the Senate should strengthen the Assembly legislation by creating a new enforcement agency, lowering contribution limits and plugging loopholes.

Once those actions are taken, the Senate should begin to discuss other measures - state government reorganization, changing the way delegates are chosen to a constitutional convention and creating an independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission.

If the governor and the Legislature fail to live up to their promises to reform Albany - as they had vowed to do - then they deserve to face the wrath of voters next year.

Back to the Top

August 17, 2009: THE CONTINUING ESPADA SAGA

The report that Pedro G. Espada, the son of the powerful Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada who took at $120,000 senate staff position soon after his father was named Senate Majority Leader, has resigned from the Senate staff raises more questions than it answers. Once again New York's ethics watchdog agencies appear to be missing in action.

Reading New York State law makes it clear that the senior Espada cannot legally intervene to line up a state job for his son. Here's what state Public Officers Law says:

"No statewide elected official, state officer or employee, member of the legislature or legislative employee may participate in any decision to hire, promote, discipline or discharge a relative for any compensated position at, for or within any state agency, public authority or the legislature."

When the Attorney General intervened and underscored the possibility that there could be a finding of a violation of the law, magically the younger Espada decided to resign from his post.

However, key questions still remain:

One defense offered on behalf of the Espada hiring is a version of the "everyone's doing it" defense, that previous practices allowed similar hires. Yet the law clearly states that such a practice is a violation. The LEC is charged with oversight of the Public Officers Law for the legislative branch. How has the Legislative Ethics Commission set standards for hiring? If it is true that in the past officials advanced family members for jobs, how could the LEC have allowed this practice?
Will the Legislative Ethics Commission begin an investigation? The Attorney General only has narrow jurisdiction. Will the LEC investigate?

For years, the LEC has done little other than collect the ethics filings of members of the legislature. As far as anyone knows, they have never investigated or punished anyone for violations of the state's ethics law - despite scores of controversies, investigations and convictions of state legislators that were launched by federal and local district attorneys.

The lack of a meaningful internal ethics watchdog probably contributes to the incredible number of scandals that Albany has seen over recent years. If there are no cops on the roadside, everyone speeds.

Albany's latest ethics fiasco underscores the need for reforms. The Assembly has passed legislation (A.9032) that improves ethics oversight in New York by:

Eliminating the Commission on Public Integrity, the agency that is supposed to oversee lobbying and executive branch ethics (and which has been the subject of controversy since its inception, including that the governor's appointments dominate the Commission).
Creating a new executive branch ethics commission. Under the new proposal, the new commission would not be dominated by one elected official as is now the case with CPI and the old ethics commission.
Re-creating the old lobbying commission to over see lobbying. As in the old lobbying commission, no one elected official would dominate appointments.
Adding a new investigative ethics office to monitor the legislative branch. This new entity would be charged with investigating ethics complaints and issuing reports to a new legislative ethics commission. The investigative office's board would not include legislators and no one legislator would dominate appointments.

Lastly, any business relationships between lobbyists and public officials would have to be publicly disclosed.

While reformers advanced a stronger measure, the Assembly's bill improves ethics oversight. It was introduced by Assembly Speaker Silver and Minority Leader Kolb and passed unanimously. Senators Squadron and Bonacic have introduced companion legislation (S.6064).

New Yorkers should hope that the governor and the Legislature hammer out an overhaul of ethics laws when they return this September.

Back to the Top

August 10, 2009: THE TWO SIDES OF THE PATERSON ADMINISTRATION

Last week, the Paterson Administration advanced two executive orders. These two orders, which have the force of law, show two different sides of the Administration - one side fact-focused and progressive. The other side is more political, looking to present itself as more centrist to New Yorkers.

The progressive proposal was an order for New York State to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. This goal follows the research of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is an organization of the world's leading atmospheric experts. Their goal has been to monitor the impact that greenhouse gas emissions has had on the world's climate. In 2007, the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize for its research on global warming.

In its 2007 report, the IPCC determined that the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), over the past 250 years has led to higher global temperatures. The IPCC argued that average global temperature increases of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit would lead to catastrophic impacts on the environment and public health. In order to keep temperature increases under that number - and to steer clear of catastrophic environmental damage - industrialized nations must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.

Governor Paterson relied on the IPCC's report to offer scientific justification for his plan to slash greenhouse gases emitted in New York. Once implemented, New York will join seven other states that have embraced the 80 percent target. In fact, right now the Congress is debating legislation to establish this goal for the nation.

The governor's plan is based on scientific analysis, meets the standards identified by experts and puts the state on the cutting edge of policy formulation.

However, on the next day the governor issued an executive order establishing a regulatory review and reform program. In his order, the governor argued that "outdated, inadvisable or unwise rules and paperwork requirements imposed on regulated entities" must be eliminated in order to bring about good government.

Of course, no one could argue with that statement, but why the executive order? Shouldn't it be considered basic to the government that it review its regulations on an ongoing basis to make sure that "outdated, inadvisable or unwise rules and paperwork requirements" don't exist? The governor has been in charge of Albany for about a year and a half, what sparked this concern now?

It turns out that the governor was considering a similar plan last August. At that time, it was clear that powerful interest groups were viewing the governor's then-proposal as a way for them to eliminate regulations that were in place to protect the public's health and the environment. Environmentalists feared that the first regulation on the "chopping block" was to be the state's program to reduce air pollution.

Surely, the Administration could offer evidence to bolster the need for their plan and to show that it was designed to improve the government's ability to deliver services. Advocacy groups, including the one I work for, requested the Administration's evidence.

It turned out that they had no evidence. No report had been done, nothing.

The governor's staff said that they would continue to review the issue and pledged to work with the groups and the public as they moved forward.

After a year of silence, the governor advanced his new plan, again in August.

This time the governor must provide evidence to justify his action. No one is opposed to a review of regulations that are merely designed to remove outdated regulations. But why not just tell the agencies to check?

If there is no such evidence, it will fuel the suspicion that the governor's order is really a favor to powerful interest groups, groups that are looking to weaken public protections.

If there is evidence, we will soon see if the executive order is designed to fix the problem.

Back to the Top

July 27, 2009: CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION IN THE CONGRESS

Last month, the House of Representatives passed climate change legislation, the American Climate and Energy Security Act, or "ACES." ACES places an economy-wide cap on carbon and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050. In addition, it provides incentives for the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies and helps usher in a new renewable energy economy by creating millions of renewable energy jobs.

The legislation significantly advanced the debate over how best to battle climate change. And for the first time, it based the nation's climate change policy on the scientific consensus that industrialized nations must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by mid-century.

However, the bill has serious shortcomings. Here are three big loopholes in the House bill that must be closed in the Senate - led by New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand:

Loophole 1, the House bill relies on utilities to protect consumers. The bill sets a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation and other sectors that would decline slowly over time until it reached at least an 80 percent reduction in the year 2050. Large polluters would have to either obtain an allowance for each ton they emit, or buy "offsets" from the U.S. or abroad based on carbon removed from the atmosphere. The plan envisions allowing polluters to "offset" carbon emissions with projects that "suck up" those emissions, like planting trees. Allowances and offsets could be traded freely between companies to meet their targets. Hence the "cap and trade" concept.

The House bill relies on utilities to help mitigate consumers' increasing energy costs that would result from the "cap and trade" system. The bill does this by handing utilities a majority of all allowances for free on the premise that utilities will pass down these savings to consumers.

Relying on utilities to pass along all of the benefits to consumers makes little sense. Why not a more straightforward approach and have the government send the benefits directly to all Americans as consumer advocates have argued?

Loophole 2, the bill gives an advantage to power generated by coal - the worst greenhouse gas emitter. The good news is that new coal plants permitted after January 1, 2009, would be required to cut their emissions in half no later than 2025. But the bad news is very bad: the bill exempts the huge fleet of America's oldest and dirtiest coal plants from any Clean Air Act requirement to either retrofit or reduce carbon, or retire and make way for cleaner energy.

The tilt toward coal in the House bill means that other sectors - including the bankrupt auto industry, now largely owned by the taxpayers - will have to bear a heavier responsibility for greenhouse gas reductions, if the nation is to get anywhere close to the legislation's economy-wide target of a 17% reduction in all greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Loophole 3, the House bill eviscerates the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The House energy bill stripped the authority of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions from coal powered plants. You heard correctly, the bill greatly limits the authority of the EPA. New York Senator Gillibrand has already identified this weakness and is pledging to restore the EPA's authority. Senator Gillibrand sits on the important Agriculture Committee and can play a key role in strengthening the House bill. New Yorkers should applaud her position and urge Senator Schumer - who sits on the powerful Senate Finance Committee - to weigh in as well.

The House deserves the nation's thanks for moving one step closer to national legislation that would regulate greenhouse gases for the first time. But while the stakes are high, it is too early to conclude that the only way to pass a climate bill is to agree to these three big loopholes. Senators Schumer and Gillibrand should use all of their influence to strengthen the House bill.

Back to the Top

July 20, 2009: THE COST OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

The President has made it clear that he intends to enact sweeping health care reform to ensure that virtually all Americans have health insurance coverage. And he has good reason to demand action: The Census Bureau estimates that some 45.7 million Americans lacked health coverage in 2007. And it is likely that the situation has only worsened as the economic downturn has taken its toll. According to the national health reform organization Families USA, at least 6.9 million more Americans will lose their health coverage by the end of 2010.

Naturally, the debate in Washington has been over the cost of expanding the nation's health care system to cover the uninsured. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the emerging House legislation would increase deficits by $239 billion over a decade.

My question is, why should it cost more? Right now the United States spends more on health care than any nation on earth. Yet, the United States stands alone among the major industrialized nations in not providing universal coverage. Since the U.S. does not provide universal coverage, do we at least get the best possible health care as a result of all of this spending?

The answer is no.

Recently, the World Health Organization carried out the first ever analysis of the world's health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it found that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

The WHO found that the U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country, but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance. In case you are interested, Costa Rica was ranked 36th!

So the United States spends more than any nation on earth, yet ranks behind Costa Rica in terms of delivering quality care.

And France is ranked number one.

The World Health Organization rated France's health system the best in the world because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The French system is expensive. It costs $3,500 per capita to provide coverage, which makes it is one of the most costly in Europe. Yet that amount is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

The French have developed their system in ways that protect patients' choice of practitioners and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. The French system discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get.

Despite these benefits - better insurance coverage, broader choice of providers and allowing doctors to control medical decisions - the French system still costs a lot less than the United States' system. How do the French do it? There are a lot of differences with the American system, but essentially the French government negotiates lower costs on behalf of it people - and passes the savings on.

So why assume that universal health coverage must cost more? Why not examine structural changes -- changes modeled on the "best practices" found in other nations?

Too often policymakers end up debating issues within a "frame" established by the powers of the status quo. There is a real danger that the health care debate in Washington is currently stuck in that sort of frame.

Instead of following the dictates of special interests that are only willing to agree to additional spending on top of a system that is inefficient, costly and offers substandard care, Congressional lawmakers should look abroad. And develop a new higher-quality health system that provides universal care and costs no more than what the nation currently spends on health care.

Back to the Top

July 13, 2009: THE SENATE RETURNS TO WORK, AT LEAST FOR NOW

After more than one month of inactivity, the state Senate got back to work last week. Amazingly, the Senate returns to the same situation that existed on June 8th, the day the Republican-led coup began. The Democrats once again have a razor thin - and fragile - majority, thanks to the return of Bronx Senator Espada. Like the pre-coup situation, the Democrats have a 32 to 30 edge over Republicans.

But some things have changed. Senator Espada was able to play both sides off of each other and now is the Majority Leader of the Senate. Senator Malcolm Smith remains as President of the Senate, but the real power in the Democratic Conference lies with Senator John Sampson.

On June 8th, the Senate was about to vote on the allocation of so-called member items - state spending that is directed by Senators to favored projects. The Democrats were poised to drive 90 percent of the $85 million to their own projects, while Republicans - with nearly the same number of Senators - were to be left to parcel out the remaining 10 percent.

Last week, the Democrats appeared to be ready to allocate the member items and once again were poised to control the overwhelming portion of the spending. Republicans launched an attack on the plan and stopped it.

Member item spending is likely to be a top item for the Senate when it returns - which could occur as early as this week.

When the Senate returns, it must embrace reforms. And these reforms must not only establish fairness in the Senate, but must also respond to the serious problems facing the state. The public is justifiably outraged over the antics of the past month. And the public deserves to have its Senate focused on making changes that better the state.

Here are some ideas:

Establish fairness in the Senate. Every Senate district has roughly the same number of constituents. So, every Senator must be entitled to equivalent resources. Every Senator should have the same amount to spend on staff and office space. Every district should receive the same amount of member item spending. Of course, minor staff and other resources adjustments should be made for those Senators in key leadership positions. Equivalence in resources is the litmus test of the Senate's commitment to institutional reform. In addition, rules must be enacted to ensure that every Senator has equal opportunity to have his or her legislative proposal considered in committee or on the floor.
Bolster electoral competition. Since 1982, only 39 incumbents have lost in their re-election bids in the general election. That's 39 losses in roughly 2,600 general election races! The state Assembly has passed campaign finance reform legislation that creates a voluntary system of public financing. Public financing is the best way to ensure that challengers have the resources to mount a serious challenge against an incumbent. The Senate Democrats have long-stated their support for this legislation - now is the time to act.
Overhaul ethics oversight. Albany has been awash in scandals. Some legislators are under investigation, others have been sent to jail. Some high-ranking public officials have resigned due to ethical violations. Even more troubling, the state's top ethics watchdog has been found to have violated ethics guidelines. The state Assembly passed legislation that dramatically overhauled ethics and lobbying oversight. It created a system of oversight that should be more independent and accountable than the current system. The bill passed with unanimous bipartisan support. Legislation that matches the Assembly legislation has been introduced by Democratic Senator Daniel Squadron and Republican Senator John Bonacic. Action on this legislation should be the top legislative priority of the Senate when it returns.

The recent actions by the Senate have tarnished the reputation of that institution. And while the partisan bickering has ended - at least for now - Senators have a responsibility to begin to restore the public's trust.

The only way for them to do that is to act on key reforms. Reforms that enhance the fairness of the Senate's proceedings and reforms that begins to repair the public's trust in Albany.

Back to the Top

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.

Back to the Top

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.

Back to the Top

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.

Back to the Top

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.

Back to the Top

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:

Enact legislation that curtails lobbyists' involvement in campaign fundraising. Virtually every night that lawmakers are in Albany, they solicit lobbyists for campaign contributions. This brazen practice of listening to the pleas of lobbyists during the day and then accepting campaign checks at night is one of the most blatant examples of what's wrong with state government. The governor and the legislature should take lobbyists out of the campaign fundraising game.
Establish a voluntary system of public financing of elections. Someone has to pay for candidates' campaigns. Right now, candidates either have to be rich or have rich friends, like lobbyists and their clients, in order to run for office. That system leaves out 99 percent of New Yorkers. A system of public financing would allow New Yorkers of average means, as well as those outside the major political parties, to mount serious electoral efforts. Competitive elections would help ensure that lawmakers are more sensitive to the needs of the public, not Albany's elites.
Create a New York State "C-SPAN." Most people get their information from television. The Congressional C-SPAN provides unbiased policy information. New Yorkers need a "seat at the policymaking table." A New York "C-SPAN" would open up state government so that the people would be able to more closely monitor policymaking.

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.

Back to the Top

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:

According to a March 2009 Families USA report, there were over 86 million US residents under the age of 65 who went without health insurance for some or all of the two-year period from 2007 to 2008.
Of the uninsured individuals, three in five (60.2 percent) were uninsured for nine months or more.
Nearly three-quarters (74.5 percent) were uninsured for six months or more.
One quarter (25.3 percent) were uninsured for the full 24 months during 2007-2008; nearly 20 percent (19.5 percent) were uninsured for 13 to 23 months. A small percentage (5.4 percent) were uninsured for two months or less.

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.

Back to the Top

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.

Back to the Top

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.

Back to the Top

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:

Too few prices are included. The Health Department relies on the state's Medicaid database to obtain prices (as required by law). Unfortunately, many pharmacies do not frequently dispense medications to Medicaid beneficiaries. As a result, NYPIRG's analysis found that none of the state's pharmacies reported drug prices for the top 150 drugs that are supposed to be available on the website.
Prices may be inaccurate. A one month supply of Ambien at one Long Island pharmacy was priced at $860,000! While it's possible that the price is accurate, it's hard to believe that it's not an error.
It was rare that pharmacies posted the website address as required by law. NYPIRG volunteers spot checked compliance with the legal requirement that pharmacies post the Health Department's website address. Those signs existed in only 7 of 55 pharmacies examined.

NYPIRG's report focused on three recommendations:

Require that pharmacies report the prices for all of the top 150 drugs, either through the Medicaid database or directly from the store, to the Health Department.
Give the Health Department the authority to verify and, if necessary, sanction pharmacies that report inaccurate information.
The State Education Department (which regulates pharmacies) should vigorously enforce the current law's requirement that pharmacies post the Health Department's drug pricing website address.

For too many New Yorkers, purchasing medicines is expensive. In some cases, if the costs are too high, consumers do not purchase the medications they need. The state's laudable effort to help these individuals has fallen short and needs to be reformed. Hopefully, the governor and the Legislature will take heed of these results and work to strengthen this important program.

Back to the Top

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.

Back to the Top

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:

The state's projected $17 billion budget deficit was erased.
There will be a temporary tax hike for single New Yorkers making over $200,000 and couples making over $300.000.
Cuts to education and health care were essentially restored.
Expansion of the state's returnable bottle deposit law was included in the package and the state will help fund environmental programs by recouping some of the nickels not redeemed by consumers.

In addition, lawmakers agreed to reform the way it punishes non-violent drug criminals and there are negotiations on how to fund the mass transportation needs of New York City.

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.

Back to the Top

March 23, 2009: ANOTHER SCANDAL ROCKS ALBANY

In Albany it was d�j� 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.

Back to the Top

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.

Back to the Top

WAMC Newsroom Based Programs:
Midday Magazine
The Roundtable
Vox Pop
The Legislative Gazette
The Media Project
The Capitol Connection
Northeast Report

Other Resources
Commentators
WAMC Conversation
WAMC Blog
WAMC Speakers Corner
NPR
BBC
Marketplace
PRI

WAMC/Northeast Public Radio, 318 Central Avenue, Albany, New York 12206