Live Video

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

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

• 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

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

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

• Make publicly available on the Internet line-by-line accounting of state agencies' spending and with specificity that affords the public detailed access to underlying budgetary information.
• Once the Legislature acts on the budget, the DoB should issue an updated financial plan summary before the Legislature begins voting on budget bills. This would ensure that lawmakers have the latest budgetary information prior to consideration.
• Analyze and publish any significant budget changes, or potential significant changes, to the state's finances within 72 hours. In addition, the Division should offer a detailed analysis of the Legislature's proposed changes to the executive budget within 72 hours. The Division also should ensure that the proposals are published in a format that allows for easy comparisons to the executive budget.

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

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

• an end to the "pay to play" system which allows elected officials to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists and those seeking government contracts;
• full disclosure of lawmakers' outside income;
• creation of an independent ethics watchdog;
• establishment of independent redistricting; and
• a voluntary system of public financing of elections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Use the budget crisis to reorganize the government. New York's sprawling government of departments, agencies, offices and authorities is simply too vast and cumbersome to adequately monitor and afford. In addition, the new governor will be deciding staffing decisions for the administration. The new governor must take steps to overhaul government, before he puts his new team in place.
2. Combat interest group opposition to budget changes by opening up the process. The battle over the budget is typically negotiated in secret. Into that information vacuum, interest groups often advance information on the impacts of the governor's budget - sometimes those impacts are accurate and sometimes they are simply false. There is only one way to respond to this situation - by filling the budget information vacuum with facts.
   
   The new governor should issue an executive order opening up the budget books. That will put pressure on the legislature's own budget process and allow the public to form educated opinions on the governor's proposals to deal with a $9 billion deficit.
3. Coax lawmakers to act on ethics. Had it not been for Governor Paterson's veto, positive ethics legislation would be on the books now. During the election, the vast majority of legislative candidates stated their support for ethics changes. The new governor should take them at their word. Good faith negotiations should result in independent oversight with meaningful disclosure about lawmakers' outside income.
4. Play hard ball on redistricting. The new district lines must be in place by the 2012 elections. As part of the budget, the state funds a redistricting commission that is staffed by legislators and their employees. The new governor must draw a line in the sand and signal his willingness to oppose the funding for the legislative-controlled redistricting commission. In doing so, the governor will force the debate in 2011, not 2012 when it may be too late to enact real changes.
5. Build public confidence in government by creating a transparent state government. The new governor has proposed an "Open NY" plan to use new technologies to offer unprecedented public access to government records. He must order agencies to begin that process now and build it into his reorganization plans.
   
   The governor's honeymoon period will be short and he must have a budget in place by April 1st. Through shrewd use of his executive powers, tough tactics and smart negotiations, Albany can once again deliver for the people.

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

---

November 1, 2010: VOTING REFORM IN NEW YORK

Why is it that just when New Yorkers get interested in elections, they often find out it's too late to register and vote? With everything else going on in their lives, voters are most likely to "tune in" to candidates' campaigns within weeks - not months - of Election Day.

However, New York requires that voters register at least 25 days before an election. In 2008 election, the Presidential debates had not ended by New York's registration deadline. This year the only governor's debate was on October 18th - 10 days after the voter registration deadline. So, just as some citizens become interested in an election and may wish to vote, they are prohibited from doing so due to New York's voter registration deadline.

Historically, New York has had one of the worst voter turnouts of any state in the nation. In the recent 2008presidential election, a paltry 50.8% of the voting age population turned out at the polls - one of the worst state turnouts. This turnout stands in stark contrast to the rest of the country. The national average voter turnout was 56.9% .

New York's voter registration deadline is not the only reason why its participation rate is so dismal, but it's a factor. According to a recent analysis, states with shorter registration deadlines tend to have higher voter turnouts than states with longer ones. And states that allow voters to register and then vote on Election Day tend to have the highest voter turnouts. In the 2008 election, states that allowed Election Day Registration (EDR) averaged 7% higher turnout than states without EDR.

Here is how EDR works: eligible citizens who are not registered are allowed to register at polling places on Election Day. Once their identification is verified, the voter is eligible to vote on the voting machine. If their identification cannot be verified, the individual can vote by affidavit or provisional ballot, pending later verification of their residency and eligibility to vote.

As I mentioned earlier, a number of states do allow registration and voting on Election Day: Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. These states tend to have higher voter turnouts. In fact, Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin - all EDR states - were ranked in the top five states with the highest "voter participation" rates. New York State was ranked 35th.

So, if New York State enacted Election Day Registration, what would be the impact? There would likely be a higher voter turnout, particularly from first-time voters (those with the least voting experience). Researchers at Demos have estimated that a system of EDR would increase voter registration and turnout, especially among young voters and traditionally disenfranchised populations.

EDR would also dramatically reduce the number of affidavit and provisional ballots that are too often the source of controversy and litigation when determining the winners of tightly contested elections.

One of the main concerns raised about an EDR system is "Will it raise the possibility of voter fraud? There has been no evidence of serious problems in the states that currently allow EDR. In addition, currently voters are required to present identification as part of the registration process. Also New York's statewide voter database put in place to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act after the 2000 Florida recount debacle is an important anti-fraud safeguard.

Making it happen is a big problem though. The New York State constitution forbids voter registration within 10 days of the election. State law raises that deadline until 25 days prior to the election. If an Election Day Registration system is to be put in place, the constitution would have to be amended. Until then, however, lawmakers can help increase voter participation by lowering the voter registration deadline to the constitution minimum.

After Election Day, there will undoubtedly be a debate over how to improve New York's system of elections. Reducing the voter registration deadline should be on that list.

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

---

October 25, 2010: THE FAILURES OF THE PATERSON ADMINISTRATION

Last week offered two more examples of the abject failures of the Paterson Administration. The first example is found in last week's blistering report from the state's Inspector General. The Inspector General (IG) investigated the actions of public officials in the ill-fated - and ultimately rejected - decision to choose Aqueduct Entertainment Group (AEG) for a multi-billion dollar contract to operate Video Lottery Terminals at Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens.

The report was particularly harsh in its review of the actions of the leaders of the state Senate. The IG described a chaotic and ultimately doomed process that was without formal rules or objective criteria, and was awash in "unrestrained political considerations," lobbyists and targeted campaign contributions.

Citing possible violations of ethics laws, the IG said he was referring the report's findings to federal and state prosecutors and the Legislative Ethics Committee. Here is what the IG had to say, "At each turn, our state leaders abdicated their public duty, failed to impose ethical restraints and focused on political gain at a cost of millions to New Yorkers. Shamefully, the public's best interest was a matter of militant indifference to them."

But the report also brutally criticized Governor Paterson and his top aides. It was the governor's decision that resulted in the chaotic process that contributed to the scandal. The governor's top aides, his Secretary and Counsel, were blasted in the report. The governor's Counsel never disclosed to the governor that the State Lottery office, which was responsible for evaluating the bids, had deemed Aqueduct Entertainment an unacceptable bidder. In addition, the Governor's Secretary ignored official vetting data gathered by professionals within the executive branch.

Seemingly indifferent to the firestorm of criticism from the IG report, two days later the governor decided - with two months to go in his tenure - to fire the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, "Pete" Grannis. The reasons cited were that Grannis had a subpar performance and was insubordinate. Of course, you have to wonder why after nearly three years as governor, Paterson just now notices these supposed problems.

But the pattern of executive chaos plays out in the Grannis firing just like it was described in the IG report. In both cases, the governor was shut off from information. In the IG report, his Counsel failed to give the governor key information. In the case of the Grannis firing, the Secretary refused to allow Grannis to speak with the governor directly.

In the IG report, the Secretary ignored the advice of the professional staff that was advising the Administration. In the case of the Grannis firing, the real reason for the action was because Grannis and the DEC wrote a frank assessment of how the governor's budget was hurting the agency and the environment that became public. So, the governor's staff fired Grannis for doing an honest assessment of the governor's plans - once again not only ignoring the advice of professionals, but punishing them for doing it.

While we can never know who is right or wrong regarding the Grannis firing, it's fair to look at each one's history. Grannis is a long-time public official who was considered one of the most progressive and reform-minded legislators over his three decades of service. For nearly four years, Grannis did an admirable job running the DEC.

On the other hand, the governor is under investigation for lying under oath, he approved the Administration's smearing of Caroline Kennedy when she withdrew from consideration for the US Senate seat that ultimately went to Kirsten Gillibrand. The governor also violated the state's gift ban when he hit up the Yankees for free tickets to the World Series last year. And he and his top aides were harshly criticized in the IG report for behaving unprofessionally and incompetently when it came to looking out for the state's best interests in the letting of a multi-billion contract.

I guess you know where I stand.

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

---

October 18, 2010: ALBANY'S "PAY TO PLAY" CULTURE

New Yorkers got a "bird's eye" view into Albany's pay to play culture with guilty plea entered by former state Comptroller Alan Hevesi last week. Hevesi admitted that he had approved $250 million in pension investments in exchange for nearly $1 million in benefits from an investor. According to the findings of the Attorney General's investigation, Hevesi received hotel and travel accommodations for himself and his family during trips to Israel and Italy, $380,000 in sham consulting fees paid to a friendly lobbyist and more than $500,000 in campaign donations.

This is the second guilty plea by Hevesi. In 2006, he pled guilty to a felony and resigned from being Comptroller after he admitted that he had used state workers to chauffeur his ailing wife.

Hevesi's resignation in 2006 was the first in what was to turn out to be a series of unbelievable scandals: the resignation of Governor Spitzer, the conviction of former Senate Majority Leader Bruno, the convictions of former Assemblymembers McLaughlin, for stealing millions of dollars that were supposed to go to community groups and Seminerio for shaking down hospitals with promises of getting them favors in Albany. Even Governor Paterson is operating under an ethical cloud - he's charged with lying under oath by the state ethics watchdog.

But the Hevesi conviction offers a unique look into what been described as a "pay to play" system. A "pay to play" system links policymaking decisions to either personal or political benefits - not the public's. In Hevesi's case, he used his control over the pension fund to enrich himself personally and politically.

New York's comptroller is the sole trustee overseeing the investments of the state pension fund. Hevesi used that unchecked power for his own benefit. In the courtroom, Hevesi admitted that he steered $250 million in pension funds to a specific investment firm. In exchange, that firm gave Hevesi $75,000 worth of travel benefits and funneled more than $500,000 in campaign contributions his way. In short, the investors were able to "play" in the state's lucrative pension system by "paying" to benefit Hevesi personally and politically.

Unfortunately, the Hevesi case is not the only instance of "pay to play" corruption. Some might say it's the tip of a large iceberg. For example:

In 2003, Bronx Assemblywoman Gloria Davis was forced to resign after she was allegedly caught taking $24,000 as part of a deal to fix a nearly $900,000 contract in her district. Davis also allegedly accepted free rides between Albany and New York City from Correctional Services Corp., a Florida company that operates two New York City halfway houses and had received millions of dollars in state contracts.

In 1997, the Silverite Construction Company was on the verge of losing in a competitive bid for a $100 million government contract to repair the Queens-Midtown tunnel in New York City. Silverite was able to revamp its bid and win the contract after it made campaign donations to key Republican campaign committees.

The Vanderbilt Group won a state contract to build dormitories on SUNY's Old Westbury campus. As the result of a Newsday report and follow-up state investigation that revealed the Vanderbilt Group had allegedly misled the state about its qualification and had delivered poor quality work, the Dormitory Authority cancelled that $27.9 million contract. Newsday reported that the group's owners had funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to important Republican political committees.

Of course, there are other instances of "pay to play." But the Hevesi scandal should tip the scales in favor of reform. Once the new governor and the new legislature come back in January, they must tackle the "pay to play" system. An important step is to prohibit campaign donations from those seeking government contracts.

This year, all candidates are running as reformers. And the list of needed reforms is long. But ending "pay to play" is critical to restoring public confidence in Albany.

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

---

September 27, 2010: "CITIZENS UNITED" HITS NEW YORK

Earlier this year the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations -- and by extension unions -- should be allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose candidates. The Court's decision, known as "Citizens United," struck down federal restrictions on corporate spending on candidates and issues - as long as the spending is not coordinated with those candidates.

At that time, observers wondered what impact the decision would have. Of course, the decision will lead to more campaign spending. And it has.

Beyond more money into the system, the Court's decision has triggered more legal efforts to further weaken public oversight of campaign financing. In states across the nation, efforts are underway to undermine existing state campaign finance laws.

Those efforts have now reached New York. A group called National Organization for Marriage filed a lawsuit last week challenging New York's law that requires disclosures of the names of campaign donors. Under state law, any individual, corporation, union or other entity that wishes to spend money to influence an election must file disclosure reports with the Board of Elections.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) wants to impact on elections in Western New York, but doesn't want the public to know who's behind their efforts. The NOM is a group that lobbies in opposition to same sex marriage and presumably wants to bolster the election efforts of those who agree with them.

NOM wants to raise and spend campaign money this fall through independent political committees that aim to bolster candidates, but they won't coordinate directly with allied campaigns. Their suit makes reference to the "Citizens United" case as justification for their claim that they are exempt from the state's disclosure requirements.

The case gives you an idea just how fragile the nation's regulations of campaign financing have become. Even required public disclosures are now under attack.

While we have no idea how the New York case will play out, there is reason for hope. A similar case was recently brought in Minnesota. In that case, Minnesota's campaign financing disclosure requirement was upheld. The US District Court ruled that voters have "an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate on the eve on an election" and refused to strike down the Minnesota campaign finance law that requires a corporation to disclose when it spends money to support or defeat a candidate.

Three groups - Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and Minnesota and Coastal Travel Enterprises had challenged the law, arguing that it infringed on their speech rights. They sought an injunction in hopes of not having to comply with the reporting requirements in the upcoming November 2 election.

But the Court disagreed, holding that it was unlikely they could prove that disclosing their identity in campaign spending would hamper their right to free speech. To the contrary, the Court said that the law serves "an important government interest" in transparency. That transparency "assures that the electorate will be able to make informed decisions and properly evaluate the speakers and their messages."

Of course, New York's law is not the same as Minnesota, and the NOM lawsuit was filed in a different court. Yet the success in Minnesota should give hope to those who wish to see more disclosure of campaign spending. Minnesota's decision - hopefully followed by success in New York - will help bolster the case nationally that campaign spending must be publicly reported.

At a minimum the public has a right to know the sources of money used to influence American elections.

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

---

September 20, 2010: NEW VOTING IN NEW YORK

Reports from across the state told the same sad story: Last week's election was marred by late openings of polling places, poorly-trained polling clerks, long lines, missing poll books, a lack of privacy and problems with the new optical scan voting system. These contributed to needless voter confusion and stress - in some cases disenfranchisement.

In fairness, New Yorkers should not be surprised that there were problems. Last week's primary election was the first large-scale vote since the introduction of new voting machines. As a result of the federal "Help America Vote Act," New York had to get rid of its old lever voting machines.

In order to be in compliance with the federal requirements, New York chose an optical scanning system of voting. Voters are required to fill in circles on a paper ballot to signify their choice. Voters then feed their paperwork into a scanner. The optical scanner then tabulates the votes and the paper ballots are available to re-check the outcome.

In theory, it makes sense. But the first major rollout had its problems. The introduction of a brand new voting system represented a sharp learning curve for both poll workers and voters. Reports from across the state reported problems - technology problems, bad design of the ballots, failures to open up polling places on time, poorly trained staff, among other complaints.

New Yorkers deserve to know why these problems happened, how widespread they were and what can be done to prevent them in future elections. How many brand new scanners failed to function properly on their first day? And why? What can be done to recruit a stronger pool of poll workers? Was the management of the counties' Boards of Elections well prepared and adequately funded for the task of running the election? Will these problems re-occur in the November general election?

Here are some steps that the state should take:
• The State Board of Elections and local boards across the state should compile and publicly release records of all reported machine problems and identify their origin as machine problems or due to poor poll worker training;
• The state should issue an educational mailing to voters before the General Election describing how the new voting system works; and
• The State Comptroller should audit the performance of new voting systems and poll worker training and staffing levels at poll sites.
• But even if all of these steps are taken and the General Election goes reasonably well, deeper questions still remain.
Should New York rely on the political parties to run elections? New York's elections are overseen jointly by representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties. The theory is that the parties watch each other to the betterment of the public. But what happens when the parties have a joint interest in limiting voter participation? After all, politicians in both parties get elected with the voters that go to the polls now - they may not want new ones to show up. The major parties also have every incentive to limit the role of minor political parties. Who says that the major political parties will always make decisions in the public's best interests?

While the new technology holds the potential to enfranchise voters, reduce lines and create an actual audit trail of New Yorkers' votes, the underlying issue of who controls the process must be addressed. Voting in New York should be run by nonpartisan and well trained civil servants, not the political parties.

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

---

September 13, 2010: A FAT CAT ATTACK ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Last week, the Americans for Prosperity (AFP) held a rally opposing New York State's effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. New York's effort, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative program, "RGGI," is an agreement between ten northeastern states (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) to reduce pollution from power plants. The pollution reductions are achieved by limiting the amount of carbon that polluters can emit. RGGI sells permits to polluters; polluters must buy enough permits to cover the amount of pollution they release. Over time, fewer permits will be made available so that less pollution can be emitted.

To date, the RGGI auctions have raised more than $300 million and that money has been used to make energy efficiency and clean energy technology more affordable for homeowners and small businesses. It is expected that RGGI will also generate clean energy jobs as a result of those investments. For example, an analysis by Environment Northeast found that the efficiency programs driven by RGGI could deliver as much as 14,000 jobs per year and boost gross state product (GSP) by nearly $2 billion. Finally, since RGGI was enacted, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector have declined, and wholesale electricity prices are down.

Why would Americans for Prosperity rally in opposition? The protesters claim that RGGI and other cap and trade agreements like it are nothing more than a "secret tax" that will "kill jobs" and "cap our energy production." They also claim that RGGI does nothing to protect the environment and therefore, "even environmentalists should rise up against RGGI."

So, Americans for Prosperity argues that RGGI will "kill jobs" and it doesn't protect the environment. But the facts are that RGGI is working like it's supposed to - reducing greenhouse gases while generating jobs. Who's wrong?

First, let's look at who the "Americans for Prosperity" really are. According to their website, http://americansforprosperity.org/about, "[They are] an organization of grassroots [italics added] leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal levels."

Sounds innocuous enough, right? Well, think again. While claiming to speak for the public, AFP represents special interests that will benefit if RGGI, and other programs like it, cease to exist. For example, one of AFP's donors is Koch Industries, one of the top ten air polluters in the country. While Koch has a diverse portfolio, their largest source of revenue comes from petroleum refining. According to opensecrets.org, starting in 2008 the company has spent over $35 million in lobbying the U.S. Congress to advance their interests including preventing the passage of climate and clean energy legislation.

Koch Industries' money helped bring about one hundred sign-wielding protestors - who arrived in two luxury charter buses bearing the name "Citigroup" - to urge elimination of the RGGI program.

I know it's not news that deep-pocketed, wealthy interests attempt to bamboozle the public in order to change public policy. But since the failure of climate change legislation in the Congress, Americans who care about environmental issues - and that is the huge majority - have retreated from the policymaking debate. As a result, the winners in the Congressional debate - the coal, oil and gas industries - are on the march. They are looking to eliminate environmental programs at the regional and state levels.

Yet, scientific entities across the globe agree that climate changes are the result of human activities. The only way the fossil fuel industry can counter this overwhelming scientific opinion is through deception - setting up fake "grassroots" groups and making stuff up.

New Yorkers should not be fooled by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda. Climate change is real and must be addressed.

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

---

August 30, 2010: ANOTHER SHOE DROPS

Last week, the former Chief Judge of the state's highest court Judith Kaye released the second of two devastatingly critical reports on allegations of unethical conduct by Governor Paterson and his staff. According to the former Chief Judge, despite being under oath, Governor Paterson gave "misleading and inaccurate" testimony about his efforts to obtain free tickets from the Yankees for the opening game of last year's World Series. The Chief Judge recommended that the Albany District Attorney review her findings to determine if the governor should face prosecution for lying under oath.

Governor Paterson had said under oath that he intended to pay for those Yankee tickets. However, the Chief Judge was harshly critical of the governor's sworn testimony to the state's ethics watchdog, the Commission on Public Integrity. She stated, "Contrary to the governor's testimony, he had not formed an intent prior to the game that the tickets other than his own would be paid for."

"Evidence indicates that his decision to pay for the tickets for his son and his son's friend was made following a press inquiry the day after the game."

To sum it up, the Chief Judge believes that despite the governor's sworn testimony that he intended to pay for the World Series tickets he scored from the New York Yankees, that the evidence proved that he intended to get them for free.

The controversy originated with media reports that the governor had obtained five free tickets from the Yankees for the first game of last year's World Series at Yankee Stadium. The choice seats close to the field behind home plate had a face value of $425-but on the day of the game those tickets were going for $2,000. Under New York State law, it is prohibited for a public official to solicit or accept gifts from lobbyists. The governor is a public official and the Yankees are registered lobbyists, making it clear that the governor violated the gift ban when he solicited and accepted the World Series tickets.

Apparently, once caught, the governor gave "misleading and inaccurate" statements to cover up his efforts to obtain these gifts from the Yankees.

The Albany District Attorney has not publicly stated whether he will bring charges against the governor, but even if he doesn't the governor is still in hot water. The Commission on Public Integrity is currently weighing how much to fine the governor for his violation of the state's gift ban, and the governor could have to pay fines totaling nearly $100,000.

Last week's report is the second issued by the former Chief Judge. About a month ago, she issued a report highly critical of the governor's role in an effort to squelch allegations of domestic abuse against one of his top staffers. In that report, the Chief Judge found that the governor had misled the public on his role, but she stated that the governor had not violated criminal laws. Those involved still face potential sanctions from an investigation by the state's ethics watchdog.

These latest reports are built upon a reputation the governor has developed for twisting the facts. Recall that after the 2008 election, New York Senator Hillary Clinton was appointed US Secretary of State and it fell to the Governor to appoint a replacement. In response to Caroline Kennedy's withdrawal from consideration for appointment as Clinton's replacement, members of the Paterson Administration spread false rumors as part of an effort to smear Ms. Kennedy.

There have been other instances as well, but the bottom line is that Governor Paterson's legacy will forever be tarnished by his failures to be completely truthful. Some cynics may say that all politicians are untruthful. That's no excuse. If true, the public should be vigilant and unforgiving when they catch public figures misstating the facts.

And they should absolutely demand the straight truth from their elected officials. These individuals are, after all, the public's servants - not the other way around.

As the election season heats up, demand that those asking for your votes unequivocally pledge to be truthful about their public decisions. And once they make that pledge, it's up to us to make sure they keep it.

Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns.

Back to the Top

---

August 23, 2010: HAPPY 75TH ANNIVERSARY TO SOCIAL SECURITY

Seventy-five years ago, Social Security was born. The program was established during the Great Depression as a way to help protect the elderly and the poor from the ravages of poverty. As President Roosevelt said that the time, the nation had seen changes that "has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last.

"This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health."

At that time, critics attacked the idea. The Republican Party's 1936 presidential candidate called it a "fraud on the working man." A former president of both the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it was part of President Roosevelt's attempt to "Sovietize the country." The American Medical Association denounced it as a "compulsory socialistic tax."

They were wrong. It has become the nation's most successful - and popular - domestic program.

Today, Social Security provides more than $600 billion in benefits to over 52 million Americans. Nearly 14 percent of people 65 and older rely on Social Security for 100 percent of their family income. About 50 percent of seniors count on benefits for 50 percent of their income.

And the program helps non-seniors as well. In December 2009, 15 percent of Social Security beneficiaries were disabled workers; 8 percent were children; 8 percent were widows, widowers and parents; and 5 percent were spouses. The remaining 64 percent of beneficiaries were retired workers.

Yet the anniversary celebration comes with concerns.

According to this year's report of the Social Security Board of Trustees, there are financial concerns on the horizon. The assets of the Social Security Trust Funds will be exhausted in 2037. The Trust Funds consist of Social Security tax revenues that have been collected in years when those revenues exceeded the program's expenditures.

The reason for this shortfall? Two major reasons, one short-term and the other more long-term. According to the Trustees, the worsening of the short-term outlook for the Social Security Trust Funds is due in large part to the recent economic downturn. In effect, just like lower interest rates have hurt the interest rate you get on your bank account, the Trust Funds of Social Security are now getting less a rate of return than expected.

When the economy picks up, the returns on those assets should too. But there are longer-term problems. The revenues generated by the Social Security taxes we all pay will be less than the expected Social Security payments starting in 2015. So, if nothing is done, the Trust Funds will be exhausted in 2037. At that time, there will be sufficient tax revenue coming in to pay about 78 percent of benefits.

This is not the first time that such concerns have been raised. Funding for the program was boosted in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and most recently in 1983, with changes that were designed to protect the program through the retirement f the "baby boomers."

Twenty-five years later, changes should be considered once again. Tinkering with the retirement age and raising the cap on income that is subject to the Social Security tax (the tax is collected on income up to - but not exceeding the first $107,000) would go a long way toward easing the crunch.

With some work now, Americans should be celebrating Social Security's 100th anniversary with little cause for concern.

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

---

August 16, 2010: THE EARTH IS HEATING UP

It's now clear that the Obama Administration has given up on climate change legislation. And unfortunately, the New York State Senate looks like it too will fail to act on legislation to cap the state's greenhouse gas emissions. The reasons in both cases stem from intense opposition from the oil, coal and gas industries and nearly unified Republican ideological opposition.

Despite political failures that brought climate change to a standstill, the scientific data continued to stream in.

Each month the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issues an analysis from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. The NOAA analysis is based on records going back to 1880.

NOAA found that June 2010 was the warmest June on record and the average temperature for April through June and January through June were the hottest on record.

NOAA also found that the worldwide average land surface temperature was the warmest on record for June and the April-June period, and the second warmest on record for the year-to-date (January-June) period, behind 2007. (See: www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html)

In addition, NOAA found that:
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 61.1°F, which is 1.22°F above the 20th century average. The previous record for June was set in 2005.
• June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.
• Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.
That's right; each of the previous three decades has been hotter than the previously record hot decade before. And 2010 looks to be the hottest year on record.

Despite these facts, policymakers remain terrified of partisan and political opposition and do nothing to advance climate change legislation.

It makes you wonder what it takes to get federal and state lawmakers to move to action. Instead, they knuckle under to an obviously well-financed public relations campaign that has successfully sown doubt into the American people about whether global warming even exists.

During the winter, the gigantic snow storms that hit the East Coast were well- covered by the media and used by climate change deniers to underscore their point that global warming is a hoax. Of course, they failed to mention that the Winter of 2010 was the hottest winter on record.

There is mounting evidence of a planet that is heating up. There is also mounting evidence that the well-oiled disinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry has succeeded in freezing up environmental policymaking.

Try to keep the facts in mind as you mull over whom to vote for this November. If the fossil fuel industries' deceptions impact on who gets elected in 2010, runaway global warming may prove irreversible to future, more enlightened and independent lawmakers.

Don't get fooled by the spin. Vote based on facts not fiction.

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

---

August 9, 2010: THE REFORM "REPORT CARD"

The 2010 legislative session started with Governor Paterson's promise to enact strong ethics legislation. The governor was right to urge action on ethics as well as other reform measures. Now that the budget is done and the session is complete, it's fair to review Albany's reform achievements.

First, the accomplishments. The governor and the legislature were able to work out agreements in the area of openness. Legislation was approved that granted the courts the power to declare that when a public body violated the open meetings law, the actions taken by that public body can be voided.

A new law passed that required that governmental meetings are conducted in facilities that are accommodating to all members of the public that wish to attend. Lastly, the open meetings law now allows that meetings of public bodies can be recorded, photographed or broadcast by any member of the public.

When it comes to ethics, big promises were made. Recent events focused public attention on Albany's ethical failures: the former Senate Majority Leader was convicted of corruption, Governor Paterson was charged with perjury and his Administration been plagued with other scandals. These events came on the heels of the resignations of the former Comptroller, the former Governor and the convictions of some legislators.

It has been a terrible few years.

In response, the legislature approved ethics reform legislation that would have created independent oversight, required greater disclosure of the outside income of public officials, among other measures. In February, the governor vetoed the legislation, saying he wanted a stronger bill. Unfortunately, after that action, the governor did nothing, leaving the status quo in place.

The events that led to the growing voter disgust with Albany were not unprecedented. From time to time, there have been controversies and scandals at the state Capitol. Government is composed of human beings, most of whom are honest and hard working and a small number who are neither and often get into trouble.

For example, during the Cuomo Administration, New York was rocked by a scandal stemming from misconduct in New York City government. At the state level, the some state lawmakers were alleged to have been involved in offering "no-show" jobs to their political friends.

As a result, some prominent public officials were sent to jail and others resigned. In response, the governor and the state legislature debated new measures to bolster ethics and other reforms. In 1987, they agreed to big changes in the state's ethics laws.

In the early Pataki years, tobacco giant Philip Morris illegally offered gifts to top public officials. Once that scandal erupted, the governor and the legislature scrambled to toughen the state's ethics and lobbying laws.

There were controversies regarding misuse of public authorities, which also led to reforms. Of course, not all of the controversies of the Pataki years resulted in reforms, but the point is that there were some efforts that did succeed. Government acted.

That's what's different about this year. There were big scandals, but nothing happened - no reforms were enacted. Despite the rhetoric of commitments to reform, the governor torpedoed the one serious effort to boost the ethical standards of public officials and did nothing to raise the bar.

So, the governor deserves a reform "F" for not only being personally involved in scandal, but also for doing everything he can to stop reform efforts. The legislature isn't much better, but they did try, so a "D" is appropriate. Had it not been for the cynical gubernatorial veto and its support by the Senate Republican leadership, real ethics reforms would have been enacted.

Instead, we have to wait.

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

---

August 2, 2010: ANOTHER NEW YORK ETHICS DISASTER

Last week, New York's former Chief Judge Judith Kaye's long-awaited report on Governor Paterson was released. Judge Kaye was appointed as an independent prosecutor by the Attorney General to investigate allegations of the governor's possible witness-tampering in a case of domestic abuse involving one of the governor's top aides.

Here is some background on the report: One of the governor's closest aides was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend. The victim filed a complaint against the aide. After that complaint was filed, she alleged that the State Police and the governor and his top aides tried to pressure her to drop her complaint.

When these allegations surfaced earlier this year, the governor empowered Attorney General Cuomo to investigate the woman's allegations. Since Cuomo was a possible competitor to Paterson for the 2010 Democratic nomination for governor, the Attorney General appointed former Chief Judge Kaye as an independent prosecutor.

The Kaye report found that the governor did not violate any criminal laws. However, the report was not an exoneration of the governor's actions. The report shows that - at best - the governor exhibited incredible lack of judgment. He misled his own staff and deceived the public. And the report states that the Administration failed to cooperate "fully" in the investigation by taking too long to produce requested evidence and that the governor's office inappropriately shared information with the governor's private attorneys.

The report paints a picture of a governor who is cavalier at best in terms of his ethical standards.

Sadly, the report is just the latest installment in the Administration's ethical miscues. First, in late 2008 and early 2009, the Administration used public resources to smear Caroline Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy was hoping to be appointed to the US Senate seat that was vacated when Hillary Clinton left to become US Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. When Ms. Kennedy chose to withdraw her candidacy, the Administration leaked false information about her.

Second, on the heels of the Inspector General's finding that the state's chief ethics watchdog - the Commission on Public Integrity - had behaved unethically, the governor called for an overhaul of ethics laws and introduced a bill in March of 2009. But the governor then did nothing to achieve reforms and even vetoed a modest ethics measure that passed the legislature in early 2010. At that time, the governor argued that a stronger measure was needed, but he has done nothing to advance the issue since then.

Third, in October 2009 the governor's staff hit up the New York Yankees for five free tickets to the opening game to the World Series. It's an ethics violation for public officials to solicit gifts from lobbyists. Since the Yankees are registered lobbyists, the fact that members of the Administration had solicited tickets was a likely violation of the state's gift ban.

When the Commission on Public Integrity - which monitors lobbying and ethics - investigated the possible gift ban violation, they requested that the governor testify. The Commission was hoping to find out the truth in the matter, since the governor's office originally stated that the World Series tickets were offered by the Yankees, not solicited by the Administration. During the course of the interview with the governor, the commission concluded that the governor lied under oath. That case has also been forwarded to the Attorney General's office and Judge Kaye is still examining the facts.

Combining the actions of the Administration with the seemingly unending series of controversies and scandals in the legislative branch makes the case for ethics reform legislation. Unfortunately, the governor refuses to initiate action - and as I mentioned before, even created obstacles to action.

New York State faces two crises - one fiscal and the other ethical. The budget's late and the governor has killed the modest ethics reform that passed earlier.

It's bad news. Hopefully, both issues will be addressed before the end of the year. If not, the governor's political legacy will be one of ethical lapses, misjudgments and scandals.

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

---

July 26, 2010: A BURIED TREASURE: INTERNET SHOPPING FOR BANK FEES

New York State government holds a treasure trove of information - some if it incredibly important. Whether that information is used to help the public is often up for debate. Sometimes those efforts bear fruit - and consumers can benefit.

Over the past two weeks, I referenced state-provided websites that can help New Yorkers to save money - prescription drug prices and auto insurance premiums. The topic this week is bank fees.

Unlike other financial services companies, banks are federally-insured depository institutions backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government and in some cases have access to the "lender of last resort credit services of the Federal Reserve System at favorable rates and terms." And as we've painfully learned, taxpayer funds can be called upon to make sure that banks don't fail.

The special relationship the banking system has to American citizens comes with certain obligations. Banks are obligated to meet the convenience and needs of the communities in which they operate and are required to assure the availability of all financial services to all people in that community, especially low and moderate income people. When institutions charge high maintenance or service fees on banking accounts, they undermine the special mission that federal deposit insurance implies since most banks charge no fees on accounts with high balance requirements.

Banks are different from other financial industries, even more so now that the public has bailed out many of these institutions.

New York offers consumers information on some bank services. If you go to the New York State Banking Department website, you will see information on "fees and interest rates." The Department offers information on mortgage rates, credit card fees and bank fees.

To check out the Department's information on bank fees, go to www.money-rates.com/bank_fee_survey/. The information is updated semi-annually.

The website offers the user information on checking account fees, fees on debit cards and ATMs. The range on fees charged can be significant. In the Albany area, Trustco Bank offers a basic checking account that requires a $25 minimum deposit and does not charge fees for the account. Most banks charge $3 per month for the same account.

ATM surcharges can range from a low of $1 at Adirondack Trust to a high of $3 at Key Bank. Virtually all banks are required to offer a low cost "basic banking" account, so if you are struggling to keep up with bank fees, ask your bank about the account.

The New York State Banking Department enacted regulations in 1994 that set guidelines for banks required to offer basic banking accounts. The elements include: (a) an opening deposit of no more than $25; (b) a minimum balance of no more than one penny; (c) a monthly maintenance charge of no more than $3; (d) eight free withdrawal transactions per month, including checks, bank withdrawals and withdrawals from a bank's own automated teller machine (ATM); and (e) unlimited deposits at no charge.

But the state should do more. It should require that banks advertise the site in their account statement. The best time for a consumer to think about comparison shopping is when the bill comes due. Unless the state requires such marketing, consumers will not know of the Department's website and will not be able to benefit from its existence.

Until New York's website is adequately advertised, consumers should use the website to help to shop for the best banking services. That address is www.money-rates.com/bank_fee_survey/.

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

---

July 19, 2010: A BURIED TREASURE: INTERNET SHOPPING FOR AUTO INSURANCE

New York State government holds a treasure trove of information - some if it incredibly important. Whether that information is used to help the public is often up for debate. Sometimes those efforts bear fruit - and consumers can benefit.

Last week, I began to discuss state-provided websites that can help New Yorkers to save money. The topic last week was how the state can help consumers to shop smart for and save real money on prescription drugs. The topic this week is auto insurance.

A closer look at auto insurance trends shows that not only are premiums in New York high relative to the rest of the nation, but that there have been huge disparities in insurance costs for drivers that have similar driving records and live in the same area.

For example, according to the Insurance Department, drivers in the Bronx typically pay the highest auto insurance premiums in the state, while drivers in the suburban Rochester region pay essentially the lowest.

The exact same insurance coverage within counties can differ greatly. In the Poughkeepsie region, for example, some 35 year-old male drivers are paying over $1,000 more than others for identical auto insurance coverage!

The auto insurance premium information is available on the New York State Department of Insurance website www.ins.state.ny.us/auto/AutoSelect.htm.

The website offers limited information to help consumers comparison shop. The Department's premium cost information allows a website visitor to choose among six "generic" driver categories - 20 year old unmarried male and female drivers; 35 year old married male and female drivers; and 69 retired, married male and female drivers.

The user can then choose among various upstate and downstate regions. Once the choice is made, the user gets a listing of all of the auto insurance companies that offer policies in that region and the prices reflect how much they would charge the "generic" driver in each category.

Given the huge range in drivers' ages, experiences, type of cars and driving records, it's not surprising that the Department offers these "generic" drivers.

But more can, and should, be done. Drivers should be armed with more accurate premium information when they shop in the marketplace. As mentioned earlier, there can be a significant range in premiums paid by drivers - for the exact same coverage.

New York State should make it easier for consumers to comparison shop. Other states - notably California - make far more pricing information available on the Internet. Unlike New York's Auto Insurance Consumer Guide - and its scenarios for only six generic drivers - California offers an interactive website with pricing information based on a detailed listing of communities, driver experience and type of vehicle. New York State can learn from the California experience.

And it could require that auto insurers advertise the site in their billings-as New York requires for credit card features and rates. The best time for a consumer to think about comparison shopping is when the bill comes due. Unless the state requires such marketing, drivers will not know of the Department's website and will not be able to benefit from its existence.

As gas prices continue their upward climb, the state should be looking for ways to help reduce the cost of owning a car. Making it easier for drivers to shop smart for auto insurance is one key way that the state can help New Yorkers to save big bucks.

Until New York's website is expanded, drivers should use the existing information to help to shop for auto insurance. That address is www.ins.state.ny.us/auto/AutoSelect.htm.

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

---

July 12, 2010: A BURIED TREASURE: INTERNET SHOPPING FOR PRESCRIPTION

New York State government holds a treasure trove of information - some if it incredibly important. Whether that information is used to help the public is often up for debate. Sometimes those efforts bear fruit - and consumers can benefit.

Starting this week and over the coming weeks, I'm going to focus on state-provided websites that can help New Yorkers to save money. This week the focus is on prescription drugs.

For most of us, the cost of prescription drugs is more of a nuisance than a big hit to our wallets. After all, most New Yorkers have health insurance coverage and only pay a relatively small co-pay for the medicines that we need.

However, for millions of New Yorkers who lack any kind of health insurance or who have health insurance, but lack coverage for prescription drugs, the cost can literally mean life or death.

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 rx.nyhealth.gov. 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.

If you go to the website, you can search for the prescription you need to fill. The website then offers you options - you can search by name of city, name of county, or zip code. You can then set the number of miles from that address that you want to search.

The website will then identify the pharmacies in that geographic location and show the prices that are charged. You can even click on the option to "view" and it will give you a map and allow you to get directions to the pharmacy that you are interested in!

The Department's website provides a useful tool for consumers and one that can save big money.

The website has its limitations, however - the database it uses is not complete. But it gives New Yorkers a good place to start.

Another failing has nothing to do with the website itself, but concerns an enforcement failure. All pharmacies are required to post the website address at or near their cash register. Next time you are in a pharmacy, take a look and see if there's a sign. In most cases, there will be nothing.

Of course, an informative website is only useful if people know of its existence. The state should be enforcing the law and requiring pharmacies to post the sign.

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: According to surveys conducted by NYPIRG, in some parts of the state the range consumers can pay from one pharmacy to another for the same exact same prescription is in the hundreds of dollars!

If you are a New Yorker who pays full retail prices for prescription drugs, go to the Health Department's website rx.nyhealth.gov. It could save you a lot of money.

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

---

July 5, 2010: TICKETS SCALPING AND THE FAILURE OF NEW YORK LAW

The state's historic anti-ticket scalping law, first enacted in 1920 and in effect through 2007, was based on the belief that average New Yorkers-not just the wealthy-should be able to have within their reach the cost of admission to popular events. This policy recognized that working people and their families need the outlets provided by sports and entertainment and that most-if not all-of the stadiums, arenas and other venues that host these events are supported in one way or another by those very working people.

For example, there are public venues such as the Nassau Coliseum (the home of the NHL's Islanders), Jones Beach Theater, Citi Field (the homes of the NY Mets), Yankee Stadium and the Capital Region's Times Union Center-which are places that taxpayers paid to build and continue to pay to subsidize.

The state's anti-ticket scalping law also recognized that the marketplace for tickets to popular events is monopolistic: there are a limited number of teams, sporting events, concerts and other cultural occurrences and seats for those events. As a result, the marketplace cannot truly be competitive: if you're a fan of the Yankees, seeing another baseball game or sports event won't do; if a teen is in thrall of Miley Cyrus, seeing another performer simply won't do.

But in 2007 that all changed. After a big push by lobbyists representing so-called ticket brokers and event promoters who understood that the anti-scalping law was impinging on their profits, then-Governor Spitzer and the state legislature agreed to an experiment: end the anti-scalping law for a short period of time and then re-examine deregulation's impact.

What was clear was that deregulation would mean that New Yorkers of average means could be priced out of the market. According to a New York State Attorney General's report, Why Can't I Get Tickets? an unfettered secondary market for ticket re-sales pitted average consumers against corporate expense accounts for tickets to popular events. In that report, developed through documents obtained by subpoena, one Wall Street brokerage firm purchased in excess of $360,000 in scalped tickets in a single year!

This year the deregulation law was up for renewal. Unfortunately, Governor Paterson and the legislature agreed to changes in the law that fell far short of protecting consumers. During the last day of the legislative session, the governor issued a "message of necessity" to allow lawmakers to vote on the new law without having to wait three days to review the proposal's impact.

They should have waited.

The bill failed to address the key problem-which is the illegality and lack of transparency in the ticket sales marketplace. It contained no new fraud fighting measures or ticket tracking provisions - other than banning computer software - to reduce ticket diversion, box office fraud, including payoffs, bribes and other ticket procurement schemes. And it failed to cap the amount that tickets could be scalped for.

While the nature of ticket distribution will evolve with technology, the basics of live entertainment will not: there are only so many venues, sports teams and popular entertainers.

Hard working New Yorkers shouldn't have to compete against Wall Street corporate expense accounts in a bidding war for tickets to events in forums that taxpayers subsidize.

New York needs to restore sanity and fairness to the ticket marketplace to protect fans of average means when they want to see a ballgame or a concert.

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

---

June 28, 2010: HIGHER EDUCATION UNDER ASSAULT

The battle over New York State's already long-overdue budget may be wrapping up. For weeks, lawmakers were enacting emergency "extenders" - budget plans that keep the government in business. Starting a few weeks ago, the governor began to include major provisions of his budget plans into those extenders. The extenders included plans to cut spending on programs like Medicaid, the health insurance for the poor. If the Legislature failed to enact the governor's plan, there would be no money to operate the state.

The governor was giving the Legislature two choices - either approve my proposal or shut down the government.

Last week the governor proposed that he would include the remainder of his budget plans in the June 28th extender - meaning that once that extender was approved, the budget would be done.

The governor's plan included big changes to the state's higher education programs. The governor proposed to hike public college tuition for this year and for the next four years after that. In his plan, the governor increases SUNY and CUNY senior college tuition by 2 percent next year and by as much as 8 percent per year in the following four years. The governor proposes to help low-income students afford the tuition hikes by increasing aid from the state's Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) at half the rate of the tuition hikes and then requiring that SUNY and CUNY make up the difference for the poorest students.

His plan also cuts state aid to community colleges by $60 per full-time student.

The governor's plan to hike tuition coupled with increases in financial aid were well intentioned, but they offer only the illusion of tuition predictability and continued college access. Under New York State law, budget decisions made in 2010 are not binding on the decisions made in future budgets. Thus, future lawmakers will be able to ignore today's financial aid promises and raise, change or ignore the tuition hike caps or the financial aid promise anytime they want by simply changing that particular provision of law. Ironically, the governor's proposed cuts in community college funding violate an earlier enacted state law mandating a higher level of state support!

If the governor's plan is approved, tuition for the 2014-2015 academic year at the most expensive SUNY colleges could be as much as $6,897 (a nearly $2,000 increase over current levels). Moreover, under the governor's formula, that tuition would be as much as $949 over the proposed maximum TAP award. CUNY tuition could rise to $6,381 over the same period (roughly $1,500 more than now) and $433 more than the proposed maximum TAP award.

Of course, the plan raises a key question - why did the governor propose tuition hikes of up to 8 percent? That increase would exceed the current higher education inflation rate. As a result, students would be paying more than the increase in the cost of education, why?

While it is true that the governor's plan requires SUNY and CUNY to make up the difference for the poorest students, no such requirement exists for students with slightly higher incomes, but who still struggle to pay for college. They are stuck.

In addition, nothing in the bill obligates the state to maintain funding for SUNY or CUNY. So students could end up paying more every year, while the state reduces public funding for higher education. In fact, future lawmakers may actually have an incentive to shift state funds away from SUNY and CUNY, since the colleges can hike tuition to make up the difference. This is exactly what has happened in states that have created similar programs.

In the last two years, average public allocations for higher education decreased 34 times faster in states where public colleges set their own tuition than in states where legislatures set tuition rates.

No one denies that New York State, like the rest of the nation, is trying to balance its budget during extremely difficult times. And this past year students and families did their part by paying a $620 tuition hike at SUNY and a $600 hike at CUNY. It may have been reasonable to increase the cost of public college tuition once in a plan in which the pain was shared by all. But to propose tuition increases for years to come, coupled with an unenforceable "promise" to offset those increases with assistance is too much.

The Legislature doesn't have much power to change the governor's plan, but they must do all they can to block the governor's plan to radically undermine the "public" part of public colleges.

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

---

June 21, 2010: A SYSTEM FAILURE

Doctors get licenses to practice. The license is the way for the public to know that the doctor has met minimum standards of competence and skill in practicing their profession. That license allows patients the comfort of knowing that a doctor should be capable of handling their care.

It also means that the state must monitor doctors to ensure that they continue to meet at least the standards of minimal care required of licensure.

In New York State, that job belongs to the Department of Health. The Department receives complaints against doctors, investigates those allegations and when appropriate takes action against questionable doctors.

Consumer groups released a study showing that New York State took the fewest disciplinary actions against doctors since 1995, despite an increase in the number of complaints and an increase in the number of physicians. The report, "System Failure," reviewed New York State Department of Health actions against doctors between the years 1995 and 2009.

The report found that the number of doctors being sanctioned by New York has declined to a fifteen-year low. They also found that nearly 60 percent of Department's actions were based on sanctions taken by other states, the federal government or the courts, not directly as the result of a Health Department-initiated investigation. Moreover, of those punished by the Department due to the negligence of the doctor, most continued to practice in the state of New York with little or no requirement that patients be notified. (If you want to check out the background of a doctor, go to www.nydoctorprofile.com, the state's website.)

The report went further and examined data obtained from the federal government. Since 1990, the federal government has collected information on the amount of money doctors pay out due to a medical malpractice case. The report identified three key findings:
• The aggregate amount paid to injured patients in New York for malpractice judgments and settlements has dropped dramatically since 2006.
• A small minority of doctors are responsible for more than half of all malpractice payments.
• New York is near the top of the nation when it comes to the amount paid out by the small number of doctors with repeat malpractice payments.
According to the report, New York State has the third highest per capita number of doctors in the nation and that number is growing at a significantly higher rate than the state's overall population.

Why does this matter? The big increase in complaints filed against doctors and the substantial increase in the number of New York doctors should have resulted in an increase in the number of sanctions against doctors. Doctors are, after all, human and a small percentage of them will offer substandard care. The Health Department's shrinking number of sanctions could be the result of a jump in the number of good doctors. More likely, budget cuts have reduced the amount of resources the Department has to police the medical profession.

The medical malpractice data underscores the need to monitor doctors. A tiny percentage of doctors are responsible for more than half of all medical malpractice payments - that result from the unnecessary injuries of patients. A robust oversight system would identify and - if appropriate - reduce the number of problem doctors. Thus, medical malpractice insurance premiums would go down and the number of patient injuries would be reduced.

Cutting the number of police often results in an increase in crime. Cutting back on doctor oversight may lead to devastating consequences for patients.

The Paterson Administration should boost its support for the Health Department's efforts. If it doesn't, New Yorkers will pay the price.

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

---

June 7, 2010: "PAYING TO PLAY" IN ALBANY

Lobbyists kicked in at least $2.2 million in campaign donations to state lawmakers since the 2008 election, according to a new analysis released by the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). NYPIRG reviewed the state's 50 largest lobby firms and found that nearly $1.5 million came directly from these firms or their PACs, and another $760,000 was given by individual lobbyists. The state's biggest lobbying firm (Wilson, Elser) topped the list and spread around a cool $274,000 in campaign donations, either from the firm directly or from individual lobbyists that work there.

These top 50 lobbying firms represented 75 percent of all lobby campaign donations (despite the fact there were 329 contract firms in 2009). These figures are likely to be very conservative since lobbyists not only donate their own money, but also "bundle" or deliver contributions from their clients and others to candidates.

Why does this matter? In New York State, as in the rest of the nation, lobbyists have unique relationships with policymakers - relationships that are often exploited to benefit lobbyists' causes. And in Albany, those relationships are often brazenly shown. Lobbyists are paid to influence lawmakers. They attend committee meetings, buttonhole legislators and their staff, always asking for favors.

But the relationship runs deeper. During a typical legislative session, for example, lawmakers are scheduled to be in Albany for 65 days and 40-plus nights. During that time, in the neighborhood of 200 campaign fundraising events are held in Albany - or as many as a half-dozen per night.

Who do you think lawmakers expect to attend the events taking place a stone's throw from the Capitol? Albany's lobbying corps. As it turns out, lobbyists are giving money to legislators during the evenings, while asking for favors - in return - during the day. At best, it is an unseemly practice. And it's at the heart of Albany's "pay-to-play" culture.

In most of the rest of the nation, states have placed unique restrictions on lobbyists' campaign giving in order to more clearly separate advocacy from contributions. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures which identified states that restrict lobbyists' campaign activities, thirty-one states restrict - or outright prohibit - lobbyists' involvement in campaign fundraising. New York is one of the nineteen states that place no unique limitations on lobbyists' campaign giving.

While most of these states prohibit campaign fundraising during the legislative sessions, many states go further. The state of California, for example, bans campaign contributions from lobbyists, their spouses, their dependent children as well as any committee controlled by the lobbyist, the spouse or dependent children. Lobbyists in Massachusetts are limited to no more than $200 in campaign contributions during a calendar year.

NYPIRG's analysis also found that former elected officials who are now lobbyists donated nearly $143,000 from the political committees that were originally established to fund their electoral campaigns. Now they are used to help peddle influence. What do the donors of those funds think about how their contributions are being used now?

As New York begins its election season, candidates are starting to make noises that they support reform and some have specifically argued that limits on Albany's "pay to play" culture are needed.

But why wait for next year?

Legislation has been introduced this year, and New Yorkers should expect the governor and legislative leaders to approve legislation designed to limit the "pay to play" activities of the state's lobbyists. It's more than fair for New Yorkers to demand that public officials produce real reforms now before they ask for our votes in November.

Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns.

Back to the Top

---

May 31, 2010: "PAYING TO PLAY" IN ALBANY

Lobbyists kicked in at least $2.2 million in campaign donations to state lawmakers since the 2008 election, according to a new analysis released by the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). NYPIRG reviewed the state's 50 largest lobby firms and found that nearly $1.5 million came directly from these firms or their PACs, and another $760,000 was given by individual lobbyists. The state's biggest lobbying firm (Wilson, Elser) topped the list and spread around a cool $274,000 in campaign donations, either from the firm directly or from individual lobbyists that work there.

These top 50 lobbying firms represented 75 percent of all lobby campaign donations (despite the fact there were 329 contract firms in 2009). These figures are likely to be very conservative since lobbyists not only donate their own money, but also "bundle" or deliver contributions from their clients and others to candidates.

Why does this matter? In New York State, as in the rest of the nation, lobbyists have unique relationships with policymakers - relationships that are often exploited to benefit lobbyists' causes. And in Albany, those relationships are often brazenly shown. Lobbyists are paid to influence lawmakers. They attend committee meetings, buttonhole legislators and their staff, always asking for favors.

But the relationship runs deeper. During a typical legislative session, for example, lawmakers are scheduled to be in Albany for 65 days and 40-plus nights. During that time, in the neighborhood of 200 campaign fundraising events are held in Albany - or as many as a half-dozen per night.

Who do you think lawmakers expect to attend the events taking place a stone's throw from the Capitol? Albany's lobbying corps. As it turns out, lobbyists are giving money to legislators during the evenings, while asking for favors - in return - during the day. At best, it is an unseemly practice. And it's at the heart of Albany's "pay-to-play" culture.

In most of the rest of the nation, states have placed unique restrictions on lobbyists' campaign giving in order to more clearly separate advocacy from contributions. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures which identified states that restrict lobbyists' campaign activities, thirty-one states restrict - or outright prohibit - lobbyists' involvement in campaign fundraising. New York is one of the nineteen states that place no unique limitations on lobbyists' campaign giving.

While most of these states prohibit campaign fundraising during the legislative sessions, many states go further. The state of California, for example, bans campaign contributions from lobbyists, their spouses, their dependent children as well as any committee controlled by the lobbyist, the spouse or dependent children. Lobbyists in Massachusetts are limited to no more than $200 in campaign contributions during a calendar year.

NYPIRG's analysis also found that former elected officials who are now lobbyists donated nearly $143,000 from the political committees that were originally established to fund their

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

---

May 24, 2010: ONCE AGAIN, EVERYONE IS RUNNING AS A REFORMER

Last week, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo threw his hat into the ring and announced that he was running for governor this year. The Attorney General - the sole Democratic candidate for governor - joins three Republican candidates, former Congressman Rick Lazio, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy and Buffalo businessman Carl Paladino.

And while there are significant differences among these men, one thing is clear: reforming Albany will be at the top of the 2010 election agenda. All four are pledging to make changes in the way Albany operates.

That's good news for all New Yorkers. It's clear New Yorkers want change. But they've heard this music before. What New Yorkers want and deserve are the details of the candidates' policy recommendations and the tactics they will employ to succeed. It's easy to promise reform, but it's hard to achieve. And given the problems of Albany, fixing it will be difficult and require hard work and smart strategies.

Unfortunately when it comes to reform, there's no "magic bullet," no single solution to Albany's ethical woes, campaign finance scandals and prolonged policymaking gridlock. However, there is one key measure that promises beleaguered New Yorkers "game changing" reform.

Redistricting.

New York's political culture is kept in power by gerrymandering, the practice of allowing the majorities in both houses to draw the district lines every ten years. This allows legislators to choose their voters, rather than the other way around-the ultimate conflict of interest.

For decades, mapmakers have "rigged" district lines in favor of the majority parties in each house to ensure incumbents' re-election prospects. Historically governors, who must ultimately approve the new district lines, have not put up significant resistance to this rigged system.

Reformers have long argued that the drawing of legislative and congressional district lines is undemocratic and in need of reform. New district lines must be drawn in time for the 2012 elections. And whatever lines are drawn, the decision to approve them will lie with the new governor elected in November.

With the clock ticking down, reformers have been pushing lawmakers to enact redistricting changes. Those changes include the creation of an independent redistricting commission, tighter standards and more public involvement. Reform-minded legislators state Senator David Valesky of Syracuse and Assemblyman Gianaris of Queens have advanced a plan for independent redistricting, but the prospects for success this session are dim.

Whether the system will truly change will likely hinge on the decision of the next governor. Will he veto gerrymandering and force reform? Or will he go along to get along? Voters have a right to know what candidates for governor plan to do.

Right now, all of the candidates have promised to fight for redistricting reform and to veto any plan that's rigged for incumbents. Good for them. Let's hope that is a promise that will not be broken.

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

---

May 17, 2010: THE RIGHT WAY TO CURB GLOBAL WARMING

At last, U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) have released their long-awaited climate change legislation. The bill contained good news and bad news.

First, the good news. The Senate has a bill. The issue of energy reform has been languishing since last June, when the House of Representatives passed their climate change and energy reform legislation.

The Senate bill, named the American Power Act, is big, 987 pages in its draft form. The bill includes a cap and creates a price on greenhouse gas emissions. The bill sets targets for reducing carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The bill also proposes to invest $6 billion annually to increase energy efficiency and decrease oil consumption in the transportation sector; $6 billion for industrial energy efficiency and clean energy manufacturing; and $7 billion for clean vehicle production. That's the good news. The bad news is what is in the rest of the bill:
• It diminishes the EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act regarding carbon emissions;
• It allows consumer and taxpayer money to be diverted to the coal, oil, nuclear and other energy industries;
• It carves out special protections for electric utilities by giving them billions of free pollution permits;
• It provides federal incentives to build 12 nuclear power plants; and
• Despite the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the bill expands offshore oil drilling.
Lastly, it's not even clear if the Kerry/Lieberman bill can pass!

The overwhelming majority of Americans want energy reform. Voters correctly believe that energy legislation can help stimulate job growth, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the nation's reliance on foreign oil.

Both the House and Senate bills are needlessly complicated, offer indefensible giveaways to the fossil fuel industries and have not garnered bipartisan support.

Instead of moving another fatally flawed bill, the Senate should look to a simpler bill - one that already has received bipartisan support.

Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have offered the simplest, most transparent way to price carbon, spur economic growth and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Their 39 page bill, the "Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act" or CLEAR, slashes greenhouse gas emissions by charging a fee for the "right" to emit greenhouse gases. By hiking the cost of carbon, it creates a real incentive to move the nation away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources.

In addition, CLEAR then takes virtually all of the money generated by these fees and gives it back to the America people. The remainder is used to help areas of the country that would be hurt by the increased costs to be borne by the coal industry.

In a recent The Washington Post editorial, the Post argued that the CLEAR Act's 100 percent auction and rebate to households "would not hurt most Americans' budgets…making the vast majority of them whole if not better off." The Economist magazine referred to the CLEAR Act as "promising" and "honest."

There is a broad consensus that America must transition to a lower carbon "green" energy economy - to wean the country from its addiction to foreign oil, to spur jobs, generate economic growth, and to avoid climate change catastrophe. The CLEAR Act is a new bi-partisan bill that would cut global warming emissions, create jobs and put money in consumers' pockets.

It's a bill that should be supported by New York's Congressional delegation.

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

---

May 10, 2010: WHY NEW YORKERS ARE ANGRY

More evidence of New Yorkers' unhappiness emerged last week. The Marist Institute released a poll with unsurprising news about the extent of voter anger. According to Marist, New Yorkers are fed up with the way things are done in Albany. A whopping seventy percent believe state government needs major change, while sixteen percent have given up and think that Albany is broken beyond repair.

New Yorkers have good reasons to be unhappy. Not only has the economy gone bad, but the state's political leadership appears inept and, in some instances, corrupt.

Just how corrupt was reinforced when former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was sentenced to two years in prison. Bruno, as you may recall, was found guilty of corruption in late 2009. During his trial, it was revealed that Bruno had used taxpayer-provided resources to help enrich himself. The fact that one of the most powerful men in New York was using his public office for private gain was shocking.

While Bruno was found guilty, other widespread practices became public. In what the judge described as "one of the most eye popping" things he had heard, sworn testimony reveals that some legislators avoided mailing in their public financial disclosure forms. Instead, they chose to hand-deliver them. The stated reason was that these legislators were concerned that if they were caught violating the law, they could be subject to mail fraud - a federal offense.

So, by walking their disclosures over, they could not be charged with a federal crime.

When elected officials have to think about violating federal law when reporting their legally-required ethics forms, you know things have gotten bad.

After Bruno's conviction, New Yorkers have experienced the resignations of the former Comptroller, the former Governor and the convictions of several state legislators. The list continues to grow, even the current Governor and other top legislators are now under investigation.

When you look at Albany, and all that has been - and is - wrong, it's hard not to be depressed. And it's hard not to be angry.

New Yorkers pay billions of dollars in taxes for a state government, and millions to fund state-based ethics oversight units. When you spend money on a service, you expect good service. New Yorkers' anger stems from the failure of too many public officials to provide competent, ethical stewardship.

And it's even more galling when times are tough.

Earlier in the year, the Legislature passed ethics reform. The bill achieved much: overhaul of the oversight system, better reporting requirements, clearer standards, and improved enforcement. The Governor vetoed the legislation and the effort to override the veto was blocked by the Senate Republican leadership.

At that time, the Governor was saying that he had a better way -- and many supported his call. Yet three months later, the issue has dropped off Albany's radar. The Governor has done nothing to publicly advance his proposal -- or any proposal for that matter -- and New York is left with the status quo.

The Bruno sentencing should be a stark reminder that the status quo does not work. How could anyone believe that they could use their public office to run their personal business for private gain? And even if they wanted to, where were the state oversight and enforcement systems that would have identified such misuse and acted on it? New Yorkers should not have to wait for the FBI to take an interest in Albany. New Yorkers currently pay for an ethics system, they deserve one that works.

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

---

May 3, 2010: PUTTING ON THE RECORD FOR REFORM

Years of scandals, legislative gridlock and imbalanced budgets are taking their toll. A recent Marist Poll found that only less than a fifth of New Yorkers believe that the Legislature is doing an "excellent or good job." Governor Paterson's approval rating is at an all time low. An overwhelming percentage of New Yorkers believe that Albany is broken.

No doubt much of voters' anger stems from the economic pressures resulting from the recession. Home foreclosures, rising unemployment and losses in the value of retirement nest eggs have put voters on edge across the nation.

During a time of economic uncertainty, the public looks to government for help. And they expect that to see competence and responsiveness. In Albany, New Yorkers have seen neither.

Instead they have seen a state Capitol dominated by unrelenting petty partisanship, legislative gridlock, fiscal failures and scandals.

Last summer, New Yorkers saw a failed attempt by Republicans to take over control of the Senate Chamber by wooing two disaffected Democrats. The fight over control of the Senate brought Albany to a standstill for months. Even now, the razor-thin Democratic majority needs every one of its members to agree in order to overcome unified Republican opposition.

For their part, the Democrats refuse to hold open bipartisan budget talks and cannot cobble together a budget agreement one full month after the state deadline. Adding to the view that Albany cannot solve problems, the governor himself has publicly complained that no one can handle the state's budget woes.

Over-the-top partisanship and legislative gridlock are not, however, new to Albany. What is new - and what fuels the overwhelming public unhappiness in New York - are Albany's seemingly daily reports of inappropriate and unethical behavior.

It's no wonder that New Yorkers are in surly mood. They expect a competent and honest government and they don't feel like they are getting it.

While New Yorkers have every right to be hopping mad, it is important to point out that the vast majority of elected and other state officials are honest and hard working. But the "rotten apples are spoiling the barrel."

Given the plummeting public confidence in their own government, it is important for the state's leadership to lay out their plans for fixing Albany. On May 5th, a nonpartisan event will occur at the state Capitol. Citizens from all across the state will convene an event, "Albany On The Record," that will offer a platform for the governor, the attorney general, the comptroller and the four legislative leaders to unveil what they plan to do over the following weeks to enact policies to reform state government.

Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns.

Back to the Top

---

April 26, 2010: RESPONDING TO BIG MONEY IN ALBANY

Last week, Albany made news. The amount of money spent on lobbying decreased. According to the Commission on Public Integrity - the state agency which monitors lobbying in New York -- $168 million was spent on lobbying in 2009, down $6 million from 2008. According to the Commission, this is only the second time there has been a decrease in lobbying spending since records began being kept in 1978.

The biggest declines in spending came from the real estate, communications and banking lobbying sectors. All three of these sectors were hurt the most by the "Great Recession." The real estate sector spent $3.6 million less in 2009, followed by the communications sector, which spent $1.7 million less, and the banking and financial services sector which spent $1.1 million less.

Otherwise the lobbying information reported by the Commission was typical. As usual, interest group spending was dominated by a small number of organizations.

The largest 50 groups - out of 3,500 interest groups overall - spent $40 million. These groups added $5 million in campaign donations in their efforts to influence public policy.

Health interests dominated all lobbying spending. The joint advocacy effort by the Greater New York Hospital Association and the health union Local 1199 topped the list, spending $3.8 million on lobbying. In addition, the Greater New York Hospital Association spent $2 million more in combined lobbying and campaign donations; the Health Care Association (a statewide hospital trade association) spent $1.7 million in combined lobbying and campaign donations; the Medical Society of the State of New York (the trade association for some doctors) spent nearly $1.5 million in combined campaign donations and lobbying; and hospital union Local 1199 alone spent $1.4 million, nearly all in campaign donations.

In lobbying spending alone, health interests represent half ($8.9 million) of all spending by the top 10 interest groups ($17.4 million). Teacher unions combined represent the second highest spending in the top ten ($4 million, nearly 25 percent).

Of course, this is not too surprising. Both the education and health fields are the most regulated by state government. As a result, those sectors tend to spend the most to influence policymaking.

Other than the public's informational interest in these numbers, what do they show? These numbers show that organized groups are willing to spend as much as necessary to influence policymaking. And while some may agree with the initiatives advanced by these groups, it is clear that interests that are not represented by powerful groups are far less likely to have an impact on policymaking.

That's the problem. It's not the spending per se, it's the fact that those groups with the resources speak - in a political sense - much louder than the rest of us. Money is the megaphone that allows the biggest spending groups to be heard loudest by New York's policymakers.

Is there anything that can be done to limit such spending? Not really. Due to US Supreme Court decisions, entities cannot be significantly restricted in spending money on their own advocacy.

Policymakers can require that advocacy groups "stand by" their messages - essentially that they tell the public who is behind the message. So instead of seeing an ad from, hypothetically, "New Yorkers for Food Choice," the public would know that the effort is really funded by the fast food industry.

Also, reforms could be put in place to ensure that any advocacy spending be publicly disclosed - beyond strictly lobbying expenditures and direct campaign donations which are disclosed now.

Ultimately, it's up to us. When you experience advocacy messages think to yourself, "Who is paying for it?" and "Why are they running the message?"

In short, think critically; don't react emotionally, when you see political advertisements. And demand that lawmakers take steps to ensure that such advocacy is accurately and honestly reported.

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

---

April 19, 2010: PROPOSING TO MAKE IT HARDER TO GO TO COLLEGE

Governor Paterson's proposed budget will hurt a lot of New Yorkers, but college students - particularly poor and moderate income college students - are in for quite a lot of pain from a budget double whammy.

The governor's proposed budget cuts state funding for the State University of New York (SUNY). While hiking the cost of going to college can hurt students, the governor can make a reasonable argument that raising tuition is a way that students and their families share in the pain that all New Yorkers will feel as the state deals with its $10 billion budget deficit.

One of the ways the governor makes students feel the pain is by raising tuition. The governor proposed giving SUNY authority to set differing rates of tuition by year, campus and major, and uncoupling tuition revenue from the budget allocation process.

Annual tuition hikes under this proposal could jump by 10 percent, or $482 in SUNY. In addition, the governor proposes allowing SUNY schools to set their own tuition rates on top of the increase. Once colleges are allowed to set their own tuition, it is likely that lawmakers - facing future deficits - will continue to cut state aid since they will know that colleges will make up the difference through raising their own tuition.

Essentially, the governor's plan to eliminate control of tuition rates will set the stage for a big and steady shift of state funding away from public higher education - and raising the cost to college students' families.

In addition to raising the cost of going to SUNY, the governor is proposing cuts to students' financial aid by cutting the state's Tuition Assistance Program (TAP). TAP is the state's biggest financial aid program. Here are three examples of the governor's proposed cuts:
• Reducing all TAP awards - even for the poorest students - by $75.
• Eliminating TAP eligibility for graduate students.
• Requiring that students only qualify for TAP maximum coverage if they take at least 15 credits in a semester - even though these students would pay full time tuition if they take 12 credits.
The governor proposes to "share the pain" for students and their families by not only raising the cost of going to college by boosting tuition, but also reducing financial aid for needy students. That's the double whammy.

All New Yorkers are well aware of the difficult fiscal situation of the state and the federal government. Yet in the 21st Century knowledge-based economy, making it harder for college students who need financial aid to get it makes no sense. Instead, lawmakers should reject the governor's plan and instead that students who are talented enough to be accepted to college have the resources to attend college.

It's now up to the Legislature to undo the governor's higher education budget double whammy and protect college students.

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

---

April 12, 2010: THE BUDGET BLUES

Two weeks into the new fiscal year and, once again, the governor and the legislature have not hammered out a budget agreement. It's not surprising that the budget is late: The "Great Recession" has had a terrible impact on the state's tax revenues, and budget making - never an easy task - is a lot more difficult.

Of course, you never know when the budget will get done. The negotiations are occurring out of public view, so it's hard to know if an agreement is right around the corner.

But the signs are bad.

First, as I mentioned earlier, the state's finances have taken a terrible beating from the recession. Last year's budget forced lawmakers to search every nock and cranny for revenues and savings. That has left them no easy options to deal with the state's estimated $9 to $10 billion deficit.

Typically, in tough times budget agreements occur when the political pressure on lawmakers becomes unbearable. This year, the pressure is different. The governor is not running for election this November and so feels no public pressure to compromise on his tough budget position.

Moreover, when the budget is late it is the governor that submits the emergency budget extenders. The legislature is then faced with approving the governor's short-term plans or shutting down the government. That's why the most recent budget extender includes the governor's plan to freeze pay increases for public workers.

So, the governor is feeling little pressure - he's immune from the normal political pressure state officials experience in an election year and the later the budget, the more he controls - and limits - state spending.

Legislators, on the other hand, are vulnerable. They are the ones up for re-election and it is they that must figure out how to balance the budget while minimizing the pain. For a while it looked like the legislature would arrive at their own budget and send it to the governor for his approval, but the slim Democratic majority in the Senate is simply too fragile to agree to any plan.

So the state is stuck.

The result? Well, if a budget agreement is struck soon, the impact of the late state budget will be minimal. New Yorkers that rely on state assistance will feel a lot of pain. The new budget will undoubtedly include significant cuts to state programs.

And all New Yorkers will feel the pain of increased costs - no matter what happens, the budget will increase costs - for those going to college, and for example, public college tuition will go up.

If the budget is very late, additional problems result. The governor is arguing that the state may run out of revenues in June. His budget director has stated that the state's finances are in the worst shape he has seen in his three decades of government.

The governor and the legislature are at odds over how much should be cut. The legislature - particularly the Assembly - wants to cut less than the governor. Lawmakers simply do not want to run for re-election having enacted deep cuts into popular programs - such as funding of state parks.

The governor is demanding deeper cuts because the state's finances are not going to be any better next year, in fact they could be worse. The governor argues that deeper cuts now, make next year's decisions easier.

It is pretty grim. New Yorkers will get a state budget, one that costs more and provides less. While the situation is bad, taxpayers at least deserve the truth. They need to hear the facts on the depth of the problems and detailed plans on how to close the deficit.

The governor should be convening public leaders meetings. At those meetings, the governor and the legislative leaders should offer detailed plans - that would be reviewed by financial experts - on how they wish to address the deficit. But they simply must not be allowed make vague public statements and hold secret meetings. The people who pay the bills deserve better.

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

---

April 5, 2010: WHAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE DOING ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The President's announcement to allow oil drilling off the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts may be the opening salvo in Congressional action on climate change legislation. Coupled with his authorization for billions of dollars in loan guarantees to help build nuclear reactors, President Obama has clearly staked out "centrist" (and bad, in my view) energy policies.

Why would he do that? Of course, this could be a huge tactical mistake. The President could be giving away positions he made need in future Congressional negotiations. Or maybe there is a plan.

Clearly, the Administration has made climate change a top domestic and international priority. By opening with proposals that could be embraced by some Republican members of Congress, the President may be positioning himself for a public debate over climate change in which it will be much harder for opponents to claim he is a "socialist" bent on undermining American security.

Assuming that there is a method to the President's approach, what might his climate plan look like?

It makes sense that he should jettison the climate legislation advanced by the House of Representatives last June. While an impressive step forward in many ways, the legislation was huge (well over 1,000 pages long), complicated and relied on deals with major industry groups. Such legislation is easy to criticize and opponents have trashed the legislation's "cap-and-trade" approach.

Instead, the President should focus on a clearer and smarter legislative approach - one that relies on legislative simplicity, clear environmental benefits, and addresses the public's concern that climate change legislation will inevitably result in higher energy costs.

Legislation that meets those goals has already been introduced. The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act, was recently introduced by U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Susan Collins, R-Maine. The bill is 39 pages long.

The CLEAR Act would establish a monthly auction in which fuel producers would bid for "carbon shares" - or permits to emit pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels. That bidding process would generate revenues for the federal government. Under CLEAR, 75 percent of the revenue resulting from these auctions would be distributed to every legal resident in the United States as a way to offset the increased costs of carbon-based fuel likely to be passed onto consumers by fuel producers.

The remaining 25 percent of the resulting revenue could be used to invest in research and development of clean energy resources, energy efficiency programs, reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gases and to address regional disparities in the transition to a clean energy economy.

This legislation would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

Every U.S. citizen would receive a monthly check from the government. A household family of four would receive a rebate from the government totaling an average of $1,100 per year, or $21,000 between 2012 and 2030.

According to a March, 2010 analysis by Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts, Amherst (see: http://supportclearact.com/sites/default/files/CLEAR_Economics%203.25.10.pdf), the vast majority of New Yorkers would derive a financial benefit under CLEAR. The researchers estimated that in 2020 New Yorkers, on average, would receive more money under CLEAR than they paid in higher energy costs!

CLEAR slashes greenhouse bas emissions, offers an easy-to-understand plan, and provides real benefits for American consumers.

CLEAR is precisely the kind of legislation President Obama should embrace. And precisely the type of legislation that that New York State's members of Congress should support.

Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns.

Back to the Top

---

March 29, 2010: A REVIEW OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

There has been a lot of over-the-top rhetoric about the Congressional debate over health care reform. Despite the talk of a "government takeover," there is none in this bill.

The legislation does strengthen federal oversight of health insurance. However, health insurance has been regulated by the states for decades, so enhancing the federal role hardly is a revolutionary step.

In fact, compared with Medicare, the government-run health insurance system for seniors, or Medicaid, which offers health insurance to the poor, the new legislation is quite modest. Yet given the needs - tens of millions of uninsured Americans, uneven quality of care and spotty public oversight - the legislation takes steps in the direction of universal access (covering as many as 95% of Americans).

The plan works off a model first adopted in Massachusetts. For most Americans, there will be little change. The new law requires:
• By 2014, virtually all Americans to have health insurance coverage or pay a fine;
• Many employers will also be faced with a requirement that they cover their employees or face fines,
• Families with incomes that are under $88,000 will be eligible for subsidies based on a sliding scale, and
• The Medicaid program would be available to more lower-income Americans.
And there will be additional costs for high-income Americans and for health insurance plans that offer expensive coverage ($10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families) starting in 2018.

Here are some of the immediate benefits that the new law will provide American consumers this year. It will:
• Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans (this benefit will expand to adult Americans in 2014);
• Until 2014, uninsured adult Americans with pre-existing conditions will have the choice of enrolling in insurance provided through a temporary high-risk pool;
• Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
• Help lower seniors' prescription drug prices by beginning to close the so-called "donut hole," which in when seniors have to pay the full cost of prescription drugs. The "donut hole" will be fully eliminated in 2020;
• Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26; and
• Medicare will cover annual checkups and seniors will not have co-pays for many preventive services and screenings. However, federal subsidies for Medicare's Advantage programs will be dramatically reduced.
None of these provisions are revolutionary.

These changes should, however, help many Americans in need. It should also boost the public's increasing skepticism that democracy can work. While it's been 45 years since the Medicare program required coverage for all Americans over the age of 65, it's still good to see that the Congress can tackle difficult problems and develop legislative remedies.

There is a host of important domestic issues still to be addressed - issues like financial services regulation, energy and jobs policies. Hopefully the successful experience of tackling health care will embolden Washington to enact achievements in all of these areas.

And maybe, just maybe, it will inspire state lawmakers in Albany to start getting things done here.

At least we can hope.

Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns.

Back to the Top

---

March 22, 2010: MEMBER ITEM MADNESS

Reform organizations issued an analysis of "member item "spending by legislators and found that the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are getting ripped off by the program.

First, some background. The member item program is discretionary spending typically controlled by legislators, or groups of legislators. Usually the recipients of such spending are not-for-profit corporations involved in delivering services to members of local communities. Historically, member items have been a source of controversy and scandal due to spending misuse by legislators and recipient groups.

For example,
• Former Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin was arrested in October 2006 for skimming member items that he sent to a little league program in Queens. McLaughlin ripped off the little leagues of $95,000, which he used to pay for his apartment in Albany and other personal expenses. McLaughlin was caught by federal prosecutors for this scheme as well as other racketeering, and has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.
• The trial of former Senate Majority Joseph Bruno disclosed how he used his power over awarding member items to bolster his political party. During the trial, it was revealed that Senator Bruno decided that only $8 million of the available $85 million in member items would go to the Democratic minority. Bruno then distributed the remaining $77 million to his Republican members, with adjustments for seniority. Despite the fact that Democrats had nearly as many members of the Senate as the Republicans did during Bruno's term as leader, the Republicans got 90 percent of the money.
But the political calculation by former Senator Bruno is the real scandal, since that system deprives the vast majority of New York taxpayers of their fair share of the member item system.

Sadly, the system is still in place. The Assembly Democratic leadership follows the same path that former Senator Bruno did. And the new Democratic Senate Majority has done the same thing too. Member item spending is allocated in both the Senate and the Assembly based on the seniority and political power. Those districts without such clout lose out.

The analysis calculated the "ideal" amount for each Assembly and Senate district by dividing the amount of member item spending per house divided by the number of legislators who participated in the program for the current fiscal year. Under this analysis, each Senator "ideally" would have awarded $1.2 million; each Member of the Assembly would have allocated $300,000.

This "ideal" makes sense since each Senate district contains roughly 300,000 constituents and each Assembly district 126,000. If districts have the same number of constituents, the groups argued, then why shouldn't each district get the same amount?

According to the analysis by civic groups, New Yorkers who live in 114 of the Assembly districts and in 43 of the 62 Senate districts received less than the "fair share" or average amount of the $170 million typically spent on member items.

Those districts that get less than the "ideal" represent an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers. In the Senate, the ratio means that roughly 2/3 of New Yorkers get less than they should. In the Assembly, that ratio is even higher, with roughly 80 percent of New Yorkers losing out.

When you think about it, the member item system uses taxpayer dollars to reward political fealty - not the needs of the public that picks up the tab.

It is a grotesquely unfair system.

Either lawmakers should reform the system or get rid of it altogether.

Reform legislation introduced by Senator Serrano and Assemblywoman Galef (S.7007/A.10116). The legislation would mandate that each legislator receive equal shares of member item spending. The legislation also sets standards for entities wishing to receive member items, and requires strict oversight of member item spending by state agencies and the Attorney General.

It is a reform that is long overdue.

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