|
|
Blair Horner
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
March 15, 2010: THE FIFTH "SUNSHINE WEEK"
This week marks the fifth "Sunshine Week": a national examination of government openness. Since 2005, advocates have focused on the level of secrecy in government and advance measures designed to pry open policymaking.
"Sunshine Week" has been largely successful in New York. Over the past five years, legislation has passed that has strengthened the state's Freedom of Information Law. For example,
- When state agencies develop new electronic information systems, they must build in measures that make it easier for the public to access information;
- State agencies are now required to accept public requests for information via the Internet, as well as in writing;
- It is now easier to bring legal action against agencies that stonewall the members of the public requesting government information; and
- State agencies are required to annually update their lists of publicly available documents.
However, not all changes have been positive. In 2008, a new law was passed that allows agencies to charge the equivalent of the actual cost of engaging a private professional service when they are retrieving electronic records. While that change has some logic, it can be used as an economic barrier to access.
Openness is a critical component of a well-functioning democracy. Without easy and comprehensive access to government, Americans cannot possibly give their "informed consent" to policy decisions. Yet an open government provides more than just information, it also fosters an environment in which public officials must behave more ethically and the public's trust in government increases.
Politically minded politicians and other officials have a public relations rationale for keeping things under wraps: it makes it hard for nosy reporters and advocates to identify problems within government. But it also means that the public can't access the information necessary to be active participants in their own government. That lack of access leaves the public poorly equipped to weigh-in on the policy debates of the day.
Governmental behavior that encourages secrecy leads to even more dire consequences. A closed government fosters a culture of ethical unaccountability.
It doesn't have to be this way. Here are five steps to let the "sun shine" in New York:
- The governor should demand that agencies maximize public access to data.
- The governor should modernize the law by ensuring that government information in which there is "substantial public interest" is available through the Internet.
- The Legislature should be covered by the Freedom of Information Law to the same extent as the executive branch.
- The governor and the legislature should create a New York version of "C-SPAN."
- And there must be new limits on the law that allows agencies to charge the equivalent of a private professional service to retrieve records.
Founding Father James Madison offered the most compelling rationale for government to operate in the open, when he said: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both."
Happy Sunshine Week.
Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns.
Back to the Top
March 8, 2010: SAVING ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Every year, skyrocketing prices make prescription drugs more unaffordable, especially for uninsured consumers. It is the uninsured that must pay the entire cost for their medicines, yet by shopping around they could save big bucks.
When New Yorkers who lack adequate health insurance go to the drug store, they can pay a huge additional price-sometimes hundreds of dollars more-for the exact same medicine, depending on the pharmacy they go to. For example, in the Capital District, the drug Prevacid had the greatest range in price, from a high of $272 to a low of $32 - a difference of $240.
Those particularly hard hit are the 2.6 million New Yorkers who lack health insurance. They pay the full retail price, yet typically have the toughest time paying those bills.
New York State law recognizes the difficulty in helping consumers to comparison shop for their prescriptions. New York has created a website (rx.nyhealth.gov) and requires that pharmacies prominently post that web address in their stores.
In theory, that should help. Consumers who must pay full retail could identify the pharmacy with the lowest price and save money.
But a recent report entitled - A Bitter Pill - issued by NYPIRG, AARP, Consumers Union and the Center for Medical Consumers identified two big problems.
First, many pharmacies do not post the web address as required under law. According to the report, only 46 of 256 pharmacies surveyed did prominently post the web address. Thus, consumers who are ignorant of the price differences may assume that drug prices are more or less the same among different pharmacies. As a result of that ignorance, they could be paying a lot more for their medicines.
Second, the state's database has holes. The database is made available on the Internet from information collected by the New York State Department of Health. The Health Department's pricing information comes from its Medicaid database. So if a pharmacy does not have a substantial number of Medicaid beneficiaries obtaining prescriptions at their store, the drug pricing information may not be collected by the Department.
So what should be done? First, the law must be enforced so that consumers know of the existence of the state website. The state Education Department enforces that requirement and the groups have called on the Education Commissioner to crack the whip and enforce the law.
Second, the holes in the Health Department's database must be filled. That can only be done through a change in state law.
But consumers must shop smart for their medications. Failing to shop smart can cost consumers big.
And the huge drug prices we've identified can also bring another cost. If consumers can't afford their medications, they can end up paying a terrible price - additional illness and pain from failing to obtain their necessary medicines.
Of course, ensuring that all New Yorkers have health insurance will help more than anything else. But until that day comes, state government should do its job and help New Yorkers to shop smart for their prescriptions.
Once more, if you want to check out the prices of your medications, go to rx.nyhealth.gov.
Blair Horner is Legislative Director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), a non-partisan, research and advocacy organization. In his over 25 years of work with nypirg, he has overseen community organizing activities and directed statewide issue campaigns.
Back to the Top
March 1, 2010: WHERE IS ETHICS LEGISLATION?
When Governor Paterson ended his election campaign, he argued that he would continue to work on behalf of the people of New York during the remaining 308 days that he is in office. Obviously, that is the correct posture. New Yorkers send public officials to Albany to solve problems.
Yet, as the governor laid out his top policy objectives, shockingly he made no mention of ethics reform legislation. One month ago, ethics reform was a big deal for the governor. The need for ethics reforms was at the heart of his State of the State message.
Following an unprecedented wave of scandals at the state Capitol, the Legislature had hammered out an ethics reform agreement that would have required lobbyists to disclose business relationships with public officials, created more independence in ethics oversight agencies and boosted penalties, among other changes.
Despite the action by the Legislature, the governor vetoed ethics reform legislation stating that it was simply not good enough. The governor claimed the mantle as Albany's leading reformer. He argued that he knew best and that any legislation that fell short of his standards was not worth enacting. Many editorial boards agreed with the governor and backed his veto.
But was the governor really the best agent of reform? The governor's strategy never made sense if truly wanted to get a bill passed into law. The governor's track record on ethics reform paints a picture of an executive with only a rhetorical interest in ethics reform.
In May of 2009, he put out his first ethics proposal with big public fanfare. But once the public's attention diminished, the governor let the issue drop. Even when he was empowered to set the state Senate agenda during the special sessions that he convened during the Summer and Fall, he never once put his own ethics bill up for consideration.
Then at the beginning of this year the governor made ethics reform the central theme of his State of the State message and used it to build editorial support for his new ethics plan. Despite the fact that he knew that the Legislature was negotiating its own ethics reform bill, the governor never pushed this second bill. Instead, he chose to veto the legislative agreement after it passed both houses and was sent to his desk.
Then, with the Legislature poised to override his veto, the governor proposed a third ethics bill. This time the legislation was part of a successful effort to join with the Senate Republican leadership to block the override.
Since the failure to override that veto, has the governor convened a public leaders meeting to discuss ethics reform? In his speech withdrawing from the gubernatorial race, did the governor mention ethics as a priority? Nope. He has dropped the issue once again.
Absent public declarations or open leaders' meetings, it is hard to know the status of private legislative discussions. However, the governor's silence on ethics coupled with his, at best, fleeting interest in his own proposals, strongly suggests that the governor viewed the fight over ethics reform in political terms, not in terms of problem-solving.
In order to enact legislation, the legislature must act - either in concert with the governor, or by overriding his veto. Hectoring the legislature, while ignoring their negotiations and then vetoing their work, only sets the stage for gridlock. And the status quo is maintained. New York State faces two serious crises - one fiscal and one ethical. Albany must act to respond to the ethical "crime wave" that has gripped the state Capitol. And the governor must lead in developing appropriate policy responses.
Now that it is clear that he is no longer a candidate, New Yorkers should hope - and demand - that the governor use his remaining time in office to focus on getting results. And one important result is to respond to the ethics failures of too many elected officials.
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
February 22, 2010: AMERICA'S ENVIRONMENT IS AT RISK
There has been a lot of noise from climate change doubters around the fact that the unprecedented winter storms that recently pounded the Eastern seaboard showed that global climate change is a myth.
Yet as I watched the Olympics' cross country competition, the announcer mentioned that the temperature in Vancouver, Canada was in the mid-50s, unusually warm for February. He stated that as a result, many competitors had to pull out of the race - it was too hot.
But nothing was said by the climate change doubters about the unusually warm Canadian weather in mid-February. You see, ignoring inconvenient facts is the hallmark of climate change doubters.
No one should ever say that one event bolsters scientific claims, trends are what matters. And the trends in climate change are unsettling - the earth's atmosphere is heating up and the last decade was one of the warmest. And according to the world's leading climate experts, unless actions are taken now to dramatically curtail the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, the world may experience runaway global warming that could be catastrophic.
The coordinated attacks of the climate change doubters on the science of global warming are not something to ignore. They are having a negative effect on public opinion and are undermining the prospects for federal legislation that would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that the nation is emitting.
Failing to act is bad enough, but the campaign to undermine climate change science is now targeting existing efforts to regulate air pollution.
Alaskan U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced legislation that would eliminate the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA already sets limits on certain pollutants - including greenhouse gas pollution - under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was initially passed in the 1970s and its successes led to strengthening of the law during the first Bush Administration.
According to the EPA, since 1970 air pollution from large industrial sources has been slashed by 70% and new cars are more than 90% cleaner under the Clean Air Act. At the same time, the U.S. economy has tripled in size, the nation's energy consumption has increased by 50%, and vehicle use has increased by almost 200%. Clearly, the regulation of air pollution has not harmed the nation's economy, but it has certainly made the air healthier to breathe.
Despite its clear authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide - a key greenhouse gas - the oil and coal producers and their allies are fighting to strip that power from the EPA. Senator Murkowski's bill would do just that - it proposes to strip away the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.
While EPA regulation is no substitute for comprehensive legislation, its authority under the Clean Air Act can help to reduce the harm that comes from the burning of fossil fuels.
Even if climate doubters can't bring themselves to agree that a rapidly warming planet is a problem to be avoided, they should think that the health hazards caused by air pollution and the security risks resulting from the nation's reliance on foreign oil are good enough reasons to curtail fossil fuel use.
But if they don't, Americans must demand that members of Congress oppose the Murkowski bill. In New York, that means that Senators Schumer and Gillibrand have to stand up to the polluter lobby. The good news is that Senator Gillibrand is already on record in opposing efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act. The bad news is that Senator Schumer has been silent.
New Yorkers must demand that climate change legislation be enacted. And they must demand that efforts to weaken an already inadequate status quo be rejected. Senator Schumer should get the message loud and clear, New Yorkers will not tolerate silence when it comes to protecting the public health.
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
February 8, 2010: THE GOVERNOR WORKS TO BLOCK ETHICS REFORM
On Saturday, the governor announced his third ethics reform proposal. Apparently, the proposal was developed without broad legislative consultation and it will be formally unveiled today -- coincidentally the day that the Legislature may consider overriding his veto of ethics legislation that passed both houses last month.
Let's review the governor's record in this area. His first ethics reform bill was announced in May. After the fanfare, the governor promptly dropped it as an issue. He never put the issue on any of the many extraordinary session agendas that he controlled during the summer and fall. In fact, he never even got the bill introduced.
During the months of negotiations between the houses on their version of the ethics bill, there is no evidence that the governor's staff bothered to seriously involve themselves.
Then, days before the Legislature was to wrap up months of negotiations - which followed public committee hearings and floor debates -- the governor proposed his second ethics plan. This one was cobbled together, as far as we can tell, without discussions with the Legislature or reform groups.
This "kitchen-sink proposal" included term limits, public financing of elections, even elimination of the Comptroller's authority over the state's pension fund system. He promised to veto the Legislature's plan, despite the plan's clear improvements over the status quo.
The legislative ethics reform established more independent oversight by ensuring that no one elected official controls a majority of the appointments to any of the ethics watchdogs and mandated that each of the executive directors would have protections from possible political pressures.
The legislative ethics reform included better disclosure requirements. For example, the value of public officials' outside income would be made public and it requires the public disclosure of any business relationships that lobbyists or clients may have with officials.
And the legislation included new measures to boost enforcement of ethics restrictions.
Yet, once the legislature followed through and passed the ethics reform bill, the governor vetoed it.
Now, as the Legislature considers an override, the governor proposes his third plan -- nearly three weeks after the legislation passed both houses. According to media reports, this plan had the input of the Senate Republican minority -- the group he needs to sustain his veto.
Apparently, he did not, once again, bother to roll up his sleeves and work with the Legislature to develop legislation that could pass. The governor did not call a leaders' meeting and he has done nothing to pave the way for passage.
Passing legislation can only be done with legislative participation. The bill that the Legislature approved had overwhelming bipartisan support. In contrast, the governor has merely issued a series of press releases and has acted as an obstacle to reform. The governor simply has not done the serious work necessary to influence the legislative process. And his track record makes it hard to believe that this time he means it.
New Yorkers need the enactment of ethics reform legislation. They do not need ethics reform to become a political football; that game should be over now.
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
January 25, 2010: THE US SUPREME COURT OPENS THE FLOODGATES
The US Supreme Court weighed-in on the issue of campaign spending and free speech last week and decided that more spending should be allowed. The Court ruled that corporations -- and by extension unions -- should be allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose candidates - and be able to tap into their corporate treasuries to do so.
Boiling the decision down to its essential element, the Court decided that corporate entities are entitled to the same free speech protections as individual human beings and restrictions on that free speech are unconstitutional.
How did the Court arrive at that position? Basically they relied are two notions: one, that money equals free speech, thus the constitution protects corporate political spending in the same way that it protects an individual's ability to say whatever they want (within reason); and two, that corporations -creatures of statute, economic entities - have the same political speech rights as flesh-and-blood human beings. Once you buy into those two views, it's not a stretch to end up with the Court's decision.
The decision strikes down the McCain-Feingold federal restrictions on corporate spending on candidates and issues - as long as the spending is not coordinated with those candidates. The Court upheld limits on campaign contributions from corporations to candidates, but for the first time held that corporate spending outside of those direct contributions cannot be limited.
What impact will it have? It will certainly mean more spending. The Courts have consistently ruled that individuals can spend money on political speech without limitation. We've seen that in New York City where billionaire Michael Bloomberg has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help get himself elected Mayor for three terms. We've also seen Rochester-based billionaire Tom Golisano drop big bucks in 2008 to get candidates elected to the New York State Senate.
We can now expect to see the same unfettered spending by "people" named Exxon/Mobil, Philip Morris, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. These corporate giants will now be able to spend as much as they want on behalf of, or in opposition to, candidates - as long as they do so without coordinating their messages with those candidates. Unlimited in their spending, corporations can now threaten and bully into submission legislators who disagree with their corporate agendas.
While many may disagree that corporations should have the same political rights as human beings and that money equals speech, that is the law of the land. So, the question now is, "What should be done?"
Amending the US Constitution to set it straight on the rights of humans versus the rights of artificially-created legal corporate beings would help, but it is unlikely to happen any time soon.
What then are more realistic steps?
The first is to make sure that such "independent expenditure" spending is subject to the same scrutiny as all other campaign spending. Luckily, in New York such disclosure is part of the ethics reform bill that was recently approved by both houses of the Legislature. If enacted into law, contributions to, and spending by, independent expenditure campaigns would become public.
The second step is to take measures to help average people participate in political free speech. If spending equals speech and the rich and powerful have access to lots of money, then they speak louder than those without money.
New Yorkers of modest means (that is, most of us) need to speak too. Currently, we speak through our own campaign donations, but realistically who will candidates listen to - those who make a $50 or $100 donation, or those who can spend millions, or even billions, of dollars on their behalf?
I think we know the answer.
Lawmakers should create a voluntary system of public financing of elections. Typically, public financing allows small donations to be matched with additional public dollars. So, a $250 donation could become $1,000 under a system that matched 4 public dollars for every private dollar raised from small donations. Under this system, small donations get amplified so the small donor speaks louder.
Of course, a system of public financing cannot balance the political-economic scales against an entity like Exxon/Mobil, but it can help. Unless a system of public financing - however it is structured - is established, small donors will speak with a political whisper while large corporations will speak up with a 10,000 watt megaphone. And the loudest voice gets heard best.
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
January 18, 2010: SUPPORT ETHICS REFORM
Last week, the legislative leaders unveiled their ethics reform bill. The event brought together the Democratic and Republicans leaders of the Assembly with the Senate Democratic leader to offer their agreed-to measure to enhance ethics oversight and to boost campaign finance enforcement.
This legislation represents a significant step forward from the status quo by eliminating the current ethics structure and replacing it with new enforcement entities in each of the following five key areas.
First, the ethics package includes critical changes to executive branch ethics, including the creation of a new ethics agency. Unlike previous executive branch ethics agencies, the legislation proposes that no one elected official chooses a majority of the appointments to the commission. In addition to restrictions on those who can serve on the commission (such as lobbyists), the legislation grants the executive director a three-year term, which will help to insulate him or her from political pressure. The legislation grants to the commission the crucial power to randomly review ethics filings to ensure honesty and accuracy.
Second, the ethics package includes critical changes to lobbying oversight.
With regard to lobbying, the bill "turns back the clock" and essentially restores the structure of the well-regarded lobbying commission that was eliminated in 2007. However, unlike the earlier lobbying commission, the legislation adds new protection for the executive director by granting a three-year term, which will help to insulate him or her from political pressure. Importantly, under the proposal all state and municipal lobbyists and their clients must report business relationships with state public officials.
Third, the ethics package includes critical changes to legislative branch ethics. One key addition is that the executive director, who currently serves at the pleasure of the commission, will now have a three-year term, which will help insulate him or her from political pressure. Significantly, the commission is granted the power to randomly review filings to ensure honesty and accuracy.
The legislation creates an office of legislative ethics investigation. This new entity would have a board that contains no lawmakers and no lobbyists, among other restrictions. The office will have an executive director with a three-year term. In addition, the new office has the powers necessary to fully investigate complaints.
Fourth, the ethics package includes critical changes to campaign finance enforcement. The State Board of Elections (SBOE) enforcement counsel and special counsel would have three-year terms. The enforcement counsel would have power to initiate investigations. The legislation makes it hard to stop an investigation once it has commenced.
Fifth, the ethics package includes critical changes to disclosure requirements. Currently, public officials are required to disclose the sources of outside income and the value of that income within ranges established in law. However, those dollar-figure ranges are secret and kept from public view. Under the legislation those dollar-figure ranges would become public.
Lobbyists and those who hire lobbyists - such as large businesses, trade associations and unions - would now have to report business relationships they may have with public officials. Such relationships are not currently disclosed.
Lastly, by mandating stable funding for each of the entities, the potential for political interference through the budgetary process will be limited.
Is this everything reformers had advanced? No. Is this proposal an across-the-board improvement in ethics oversight? Absolutely.
The measures offer reform, bolster oversight, and enhance independence. It is a package worthy of support.
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
January 11, 2010: STIFLING DISSENT
I have to admit, the State of the State was a head scratcher. After years of indicted politicians, agency scandals and resignations, Governor Paterson chose to voice concerns about "good government groups" in his State of the State message. Ironically, he chose to do so after the groups declared their support for the governor's call for reforms in Albany. Essentially, good government groups responded to the governor's reform message by saying:
- The governor is right that New York's ethics system is a disaster and needs a radical overhaul.
- The governor is right that New York's campaign finance system is a disgrace.
- The governor is right that the failures in ethics and campaign financing contribute to the state's policy gridlock.
Yet in his formal State of the State address the governor said that good government groups were a problem too and implied that they were acting improperly and running afoul of the law.
After his State of the State address, Governor Paterson kept up a constant attack on good government groups. He said that the groups needed to be regulated by the state, that they were partisan, and even that they are "drunk with power."
For the governor to say this, New Yorkers would assume that there was some evidence to back up his claims. But there are not.
In an Associated Press story that ran over the weekend, the governor's office continued its criticisms, but admitted to a reporter that it had no evidence-not even any complaints - of wrongdoing. As reported in the Associated Press, "The administration, however, has received no complaints. 'We're trying to prevent this before it happens ... rather than say gotcha.'"
What is the "this" that they are trying to prevent? They did not say.
What the governor appears to be doing is using the vast power of the government to smear perceived opponents - an outrageous misuse of public resources.
We've seen this type of misconduct before. The most celebrated example was during the Watergate scandal during which is was revealed that the government reviewed IRS filings, leaked false information on opponents and even - most notoriously - sent political operatives to break into the offices of the Democratic Party.
While there is no evidence of such misconduct now, it is clear that the Paterson Administration used the State of the State address to attack "good government groups," used government lawyers and press people to be part of the effort and used taxpayer dollars to travel the state to continue the attack. All without a shred of evidence of wrongdoing.
If there is a problem, government officials should fix it. And the state has plenty of problems -- fiscal imbalance, ethical failures and policy gridlock. But to go after a handful of groups, simply because of some perceived slight, is petty and dangerous.
Government has immense power; it should be used honestly, openly and responsibly. The governor's smear campaign is none of that. New Yorkers deserve better and should demand better.
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
January 5, 2010: ALBANY'S YEAR IN REVIEW
One year ago, New Yorkers were hoping for a good year. In 2008, things had gone bad and there was no way to go - but up.
In 2008, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton lost in her Presidential quest. Governor Eliot Spitzer had been forced to resign due to his involvement in a prostitution ring. And, of course, the all-too-familiar story of some legislators getting into trouble.
Democrats, who had run in 2006 as the party of reform, were trying to get their bearings after the resignations of Governor Spitzer and Comptroller Hevesi. Things did begin to look up for them. In 2008, their Presidential candidate won, for the first time in nearly half a century they seized control of the state Senate, and picked up a couple of New York Congressional seats. Despite the global financial meltdown, Governor Paterson was viewed favorably by a sizable majority of New Yorkers.
It seems so long ago. 2009 turns out to have been a very bad year.
Democratic control of the state Senate has, to put it charitably, been controversial. Their razor-thin majority made it extraordinarily difficult to cobble together enough votes to pass bills. It took a while to hire staff and to deal with the inevitable "shake out" that comes with a big change-after all, Republicans had controlled the Senate for more than 40 years.
And then there was the June coup. Democrats are hardly a politically homogenous group, an uneasy family of more conservative upstate and suburban legislators hitched to the conference's more liberal New York City base. During the session, tensions boiled to the surface when two Democratic Senators teamed up with Republicans to try to seize power in that House. It ultimately failed, but the Republicans-plus-two attempted power grab brought policymaking to a standstill. It was a moment in which all New Yorkers noticed just how bad things had become in Albany.
Governor Paterson had his own problems. The Great Recession forced him to attempt unpopular budget-cutting decisions. In addition, the governor's popularity took a beating as a result of the shabby - and unethical - treatment of Caroline Kennedy during her consideration as Senator Clinton's replacement. Moreover, the governor's recent effort to secure free World Series tickets further solidified the public view that the he is insensitive to public's need for top officials to operate at the highest ethical levels.
Not to be outdone, last month the Republicans got into the act when former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was convicted by a federal jury on corruption charges.
2010 has got to be better, right? Only if Albany takes steps to respond to the darkening ethics cloud that hangs over the Capitol.
In order to restore public confidence in state government, the governor and the legislative leaders have to take concrete steps to begin to repair Albany. In order to succeed, Albany has to respond to three big crises facing the state.
- Ethics. The political "crime wave" that has rolled through the state Capitol demands a response. The mushrooming number of controversies, scandals and convictions should shake Albany to its core. The incidents of unethical conduct, self-dealing and outright corruption has to lead to a policy response. This response should include a new structure of ethics enforcement. This new structure must rely on establishing independent agencies to police ethics, better disclosure requirements and clear standards for what's right and what's wrong.
- Government consolidation. The Great Recession has devastated the state's finances. It is clear that state government has to be reformed so that costs match revenues, while meeting the service needs of New Yorkers. Policymakers should focus on three areas: consolidation of local governments, steep reductions in the number of public authorities and reorganization of state government.
- Constitutional reform. New York's constitution needs to be re-worked. The best way to do that is through a constitutional convention, which allows delegates to re-examine every provision and ensure that it meets the needs of the 21st century. But the election of delegates to the convention is essentially rigged so that those with the most influence - current elected officials, interest groups and wealthy individuals - could easily win control. In order to ensure that any future convention is truly a "people's convention," new rules must be in place to limit the influence of the powerful and well-organized.
The first constitutional test will be redistricting. Will the individual elected governor in 2010 demand an end to lawmakers rigging legislative district lines?
Every New Year begins with hope. That's why we offer New Year's resolutions. Here's one New Year's resolution that Albany should fulfill - a new beginning that rejects the status quo and builds a state government that's honest, efficient and effective.
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
December 28, 2009: 10 REASONS TO ENACT ETHICS REFORM
Some prominent politicians have begun to argue that there has been too much focus on the need for ethics reform. I'm not sure what planet they're on: 2009 has been a terrible year for ethics. It seems like every day there is another assault on the public's fraying trust in their state government.
It's important not to forget how New York got to the sorry state it's in today. There have been serious scandals this year. Here are the "top ten" scandals that came to a head this year and should be the impetus for action when lawmakers return in the New Year:
Reason #10. Former State Senator Efrain Gonzalez pled guilty to ripping off taxpayers for his own benefit. In 2009, Gonzalez admitted that he had used hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to pay for Yankees tickets, financing a private cigar company, membership fees in a vacation club in the Dominican Republic and college tuition for his daughter.
Reason #9. Former Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin was sentenced to 10 years in prison for embezzlement, fraud and bribes from labor unions and contractors, even filching from a Little League team in Queens.
Reason #8. Governor Paterson solicited five free tickets from the New York Yankees for Game 1 of the World Series, which may have run afoul of the state's ethics law. The Yankees are a registered lobbyist and so the governor is prohibited from soliciting or accepting free gifts - including World Series tickets.
Reason #7. The Paterson Administration admitted to spreading rumors about Caroline Kennedy's "tax problem and potential nanny issue." When Ms. Kennedy withdrew from consideration for appointment by the governor to the US Senate seat formerly held by Hillary Clinton, members of the governor's office attempted to smear her by claiming she did so due to personal problems that emerged during their "vetting" process. Problems she denied.
Reason #6. State Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada failed to file his campaign finance disclosures and failed to pay the resulting fines. For years, Senator Espada ignored the state's campaign finance laws requirements that he publicly file reports of who his donors are. He also ignored $60,000 in fines from his failure to file.
Reason #5. Former Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio pled guilty in federal court to political corruption. Seminerio pocketed more than $1 million in 'consulting fees" by promising hospitals, nonprofits and others inside access to legislators. He is facing at least 10 years in prison.
Reason #4. Senator Hiram Monserrate attempted to use a secret loophole to create a legal defense fund to pay his lawyers to defend him of criminal charges related to the assault of his girlfriend. Under Monserrate's tortured interpretation of state law, rich individuals - even lobbyists with business before the Legislature - can give as much as they want to his legal defense.
Reason #3. The Inspector General found that the then executive director of the Commission on Public Integrity, the state's ethics watchdog, had secretly alerted the Spitzer Administration to the details of the Commission's investigation into the "Troopergate" controversy. As a result of the report, Governor Paterson called for the resignation of the Commission's membership (a request that was ignored) and the executive director resigned.
Reason #2. Since former Comptroller Alan Hevesi's resignation in late 2006, more scandals in his Office have come to light. Most recently, it has been reported that the former comptroller took $75,000 in gifts to pay for luxury trips from an investment banker. This banker has also admitted paying nearly $1 million in bribes for state pension fund business.
Reason #1. Last month, former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was convicted by a federal jury of depriving the public of "honest services" by using his position to reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and by failing to disclose his conflicts of interest. Bruno faces up to 20 years in prison on each count and a $250,000 fine.
It has been a bad year in Albany. So when you hear top officials arguing that there is too much emphasis on ethics in Albany, remember that in 2009 there at least ten reasons why they are wrong.
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
December 21, 2009: THE LT. GOVERNOR'S QUESTIONABLE FUNDRAISING
It was reported last week that Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch has come up with an interesting way to hire staff. According to the New York Daily News, the Lt. Governor has obtained commitments of $100,000 to $150,000 from foundations to allow him to hire staff. The plan is for the foundations to send money to an Albany-based "think tank," the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, which would then hire staff. While technically paying those staff - who are now being recruited by the Lt. Governor - once hired they would report directly to the Lt. Governor's office.
It's an interesting way for the Lt. Governor to hire staff. The Lt. Governor is the first appointed LG in New York State history. He will have a hard time hiring staff. He has stated that he will not run for election in 2010, so his political future is limited. The state is facing serious financial problems, so he won't have easy access to money to pay for staff. As a result, the LG apparently chose to reach out to his contacts in the foundation and "think tank" worlds to hire consultants to act as his staff.
But the entire enterprise raises serious questions. Questions like, how should the sources of money be reviewed? And since the individuals hired will be acting as the LG's staff, what ethical restrictions will exist for them?
New York has an entity that would review the plan. The Commission on Public Integrity should review the plan in advance of any action. Apparently, the Lt. Governor agreed and initially sought, and received, guidance of the Commission. Yet, the Lt. Governor then decided that such guidance was not necessary. Why he decided that way is unclear. Is it that he didn't like the Commission's answers? Who knows.
According to news reports, the LG has gone ahead, set up his plan, started raising money and lining up staff without the explicit approval of the Commission.
The public should expect that prior to implementing his plan, the Lt. Governor should have received the Commission's approval.
Of course, we have no way of knowing which entities are actually funneling money to pay for the Lt. Governor's staff. Yet, it is important for the Commission to thoroughly review which entities are providing the funding for this project.
The problem is not an academic one. In 1995, then-Governor Pataki's trips to Europe were funded by a not-for-profit - the Hungarian-American Chamber of Commerce. At that time, the Commission's predecessor, the State Ethics Commission, approved this unique fundraising since it had received assurances from the Governor's staff that the Chamber had no business before state government. However, in 1999 it was revealed that the Chamber was merely used as a conduit for funds from lobbying entities, most notably Philip Morris, to pay for the then-Governor's trips. It was revealed that representatives of Philip Morris met with the Governor in Budapest. That lack of thorough review led to one of the biggest lobbying scandals in New York history. Ultimately, the State Ethics Commission admitted it had erred in failing to thoroughly review the relationship.
Moreover, the arrangement raises other important issues. It is clear from the news reports that the Lt. Governor views these staff as his own. If so, that relationship raises concerns. State law prohibits public servants from accepting freebies from lobbyists, contacts with them are reportable under the lobby law, they must comply with "revolving door" restrictions to limit their ability to "cash in" after government service, and their correspondence are considered public documents.
Will the Lt. Governor's newly-"hired" staff be covered by the state's lobbying rules and ethics restrictions? What about the Freedom of Information Law? To ensure ethical government, they must. But with regard to ethics, only the Commission has the authority to make this determination and to monitor its implementation.
The Lt. Governor erred in plunging ahead on his plan without the Commission's prior, and public, approval. He should immediately stop and seek guidance from the Commission.
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
December 14, 2009: LESSONS FROM THE BRUNO FELONY CONVICTIONS
The biggest news out of the Capital last week was the conviction of former Senate Majority Joseph Bruno stemming from charges of political corruption. The federal court jury convicted Bruno on two felony charges and the former Senator faces years behind bars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
The Bruno legal proceedings gave New Yorkers an insider's view of how the politically powerful can operate. And while Bruno was convicted of corruption stemming from his business dealings with a local businessman and lobbyist, equally nauseating testimony emerged during the trial.
According to those closest to the Senator, including his former staffmembers, Bruno essentially ran his private business dealings out of his public office. Senate lawyers did private work for the Senator, his public secretary ran his personal affairs on public time and even some private business meetings were conducted in his public office in the Capitol and Legislative Office Building.
Like former Comptroller Hevesi and former Health Commissioner Novello, Bruno used his public resources for his own private benefits. Unlike those other two, however, Bruno was not convicted for his misuse of taxpayer dollars. And he was found guilty of violating federal law, not state.
Like many others, Bruno was caught because his personal greed trumped his public responsibilities. Yet, the Bruno case highlighted another problem - the vagaries of state law.
It turns out that there is no explicit prohibition on misusing public funds for personal gain. Obviously, the convictions of Hevesi and Novello make it clear that you should not misuse public resources, like running a private business out of your taxpayer-funded public office, but the language of state law does not explicitly state that "Thou shall not use public resources for private gain."
Clearly, the law should.
The aftermath of the Bruno conviction presents state legislators and the Governor with a critical test. Will lawmakers be able to fashion a legislative agreement to respond to the revelations uncovered during the Bruno trial? Will they be able to respond to the spate of guilty pleas and convictions of other lawmakers? Will they be able to respond to the Inspector General's report that found that the state's ethics watchdog - the Commission on Public Integrity - was itself found to have acted unethically?
Right now, Albany's political establishment is saying that it will respond. Both the Senate and Assembly leadership have publicly stated that they are negotiating a new law - one that will overhaul and strengthen the state's ethics standards. The governor - who has talked about the need for ethics reform, but done virtually nothing to make it happen - now insists that he too wants reform.
In Albany, talk is cheap. What matters is whether the governor and the legislative leaders can fashion an agreement that actually responds to Albany's scandals with meaningful changes. So far, the rhetoric is good, but to date there has been no action.
The Bruno conviction ups the ante for what needs to be in an ethics reform package. The media has reported that lawmakers are pledging to act early next year. If they do, their package should include:
- New ethics standards that make it clear lawmakers cannot use taxpayer resources for their own private gain.
- The establishment of new, independent oversight and enforcement of these new standards.
- Meaningful disclosures of lawmakers' outside income. It is only through such disclosures that New Yorkers can be realistically ensure that conflicts of interest are adequately monitored.
Hopefully, New Yorkers will see concrete actions taken by lawmakers in response to the cascading scandals that have rocked Albany. If nothing happens, New Yorkers should "remember in November," 2010, when all state lawmakers stand for reelection.
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
December 7, 2009: COPENHAGEN AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Starting today, the world will turn its attention to a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. It's the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference. The Conference was originally planned to negotiate a new climate change treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol set binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol was approved by 184 nations that are part of the UN Climate Convention. Despite agreeing to the protocol, the United States Senate never granted final approval of the treaty, and as a result, the US has not followed the protocol's provisions.
The Kyoto Protocol was rejected by the US for two main reasons. First, it did not involve action on the part of major developing countries - such as China and India. Second, it was felt by the then newly-elected Bush administration that Kyoto would be harmful to the US economy.
In addition to sponsoring these 15 conferences, the United Nations also created a panel of climate experts to review the scientific evidence relating to climate change and the human impact on global warming. This group, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has been responsible for evaluating the available international scientific, technical and socio-economic literature on climate change. For the most recent report - the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007-over 1200 independent scientific authors and 2500 reviewers participated.
It was that 2007 report that argued that human activities are a primary driving force in global warming. The report laid out various scenarios for the projected devastating impacts from climate changes resulting from a warming planet. This report is the basis for pending Congressional legislation and policies around the world.
The IPCC found that many of the effects of global warming have been well-documented, and observations from real life are very much consistent with earlier predictions. Among the predictions are:
- More droughts and more flooding. As heat builds up, many areas will become arid and the loss in vegetation will make areas susceptible to floods.
- Less ice and snow. As glaciers recede, drinking water supplies will be affected, according to the IPCC, up to a sixth of the world's population lives in areas that will be affected.
- More extreme weather incidents. There will be more heat waves, more cases of heavy rainfall, and increased intense storms.
- Rising sea levels. Sea levels will rise due to melting ice and snow, as well as the thermal expansion of the sea - which could raise sea levels as much as 3 feet.
The hope has been that the IPCC's research would drive the Copenhagen conference to begin the process of approving a new treaty, one with global, binding greenhouse gas reductions. In order for that to happen, the Obama Administration's plan was for the Congress to have approved climate change prior to the President's trip.
Unfortunately, the legislation has not yet made it to the President's desk. In June, the House passed legislation, but the Senate has not acted. There are key reasons for the Congressional failure - the Congress has been tied up in the health care debate, the legislation has run into stiff resistance funded by the oil and coal lobbies, and there has been a massive public relations effort by those industries to undermine the findings of the IPCC.
Since the President is going to Copenhagen without Congressional action, the goals have changed. The hope is that the Copenhagen Conference can achieve global agreement on broad principles that will lead to a treaty agreement next year. Success will hinge on the answers to the following four questions:
- How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?
- How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
- How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
- How is that money going to be managed?
It's disappointing that the immense power of special interests have slowed the pace of climate change legislation in the U.S. Hopefully, agreement on key principles will break the logjam and lead to a global agreement that will help turn down the heat on global warming.
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 23, 2009: THE FIRST CONVICTION IN THE BRUNO TRIAL
The trial of former Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno is supposed to wrap up soon, but the first conviction is in. We don't yet know if Mr. Bruno will be found guilty of any crime for his use of taxpayer dollars to pay for staff, office space and other support to subsidize his personal business activities and any conflicts created by his business interests. But we do know that a system that could allow Mr. Bruno to think what he was doing was ethical, is a system that is rotten to its core.
According to court testimony, Mr. Bruno's taxpayer-funded, public servant secretary spent as much time on his private activities as she spent on being a public servant. Senator Bruno used office space in the Capitol for personal business activities, and he had Senate lawyers giving him free legal advice on his businesses, including drafting and reviewing his business contracts. He even had his business correspondence and consultant payments sent to his legislative office. As a result, federal prosecutors charge that Mr. Bruno used his public position as one of the state's most powerful lawmakers to make millions of dollars and failed to disclose his business dealings as required under law.
For his part, Bruno says that he is innocent. "It's a citizen Legislature, and that's what the public has to remember and I think will remember," Bruno said. "We broke no laws, and that's what's important."
Of course, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but we'll soon find out if Mr. Bruno is right. Yet it is amazing that such a scheme could even be contemplated. How could this be so?
For years, the legislature's adherence to ethics was overseen by the Legislative Ethics Committee. The Committee operated in secret and its membership were all legislators chosen by the leadership in both the Senate and the Assembly. And while the Committee had a few of its own staff, it relied heavily on the staff provided by - you guessed it - the legislative leaders, like former Senator Bruno.
In addition, under New York laws, very little information about lawmakers' outside business dealings was made publicly available.
It was within this system that Mr. Bruno began his business activities that ultimately led him into the hot water he's in today. Even the changes made in 2007 to the oversight of legislative ethics, probably would have done little to curb legislators' excesses.
Today the Legislative Ethics Commission (which replaced the old Legislative Ethics Committee in 2007) continues to operate in secrecy, continues to rely on lawyers from the legislature, and continues to disclose very little information about lawmakers' outside business activities. Are other lawmakers doing what Senator Bruno is alleged to have done-using public resources to run a private business and concealing it? We don't know.
The system simply does not work. New Yorkers deserve a new system, one that allows for the public to meaningfully examine potential conflicts-of-interests that may exist when a lawmaker has an outside job, a system that relies on independent investigation and enforcement of ethics; and clear ethics guidelines for what is allowed and what is not.
The Bruno case has pulled back the curtain on how Albany operates. It has shown to the public just has weak the state's ethics restrictions really are.
Regardless of the outcome, the Bruno case has made another compelling case for reform.
Supposedly both houses of the legislature are negotiating new legislation that would help boost ethics oversight. If nothing else, the public's revulsion to Albany's antics should spur those negotiations and produce a new law.
Keep your fingers crossed.
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 16, 2009: CREATING A NEW YORK STATE "C-SPAN"
As any seasoned TV watcher knows, there is a cable channel known as C-SPAN. C-SPAN stands for the "Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network" and was started 25 years ago, as a public service offered by the cable industry. C-SPAN offers cable-viewing Americans unedited access to Congressional proceedings, as well as coverage of conferences, news events, journalist roundtables, call-in shows and other programming designed to educate the public.
And it has worked. According to the 2008 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press "Biennial News Consumption Survey," the Congressional C-SPAN has achieved much:
- C-SPAN ranks among the top five TV news organizations (joining CNN, 60 Minutes, Local TV news and NPR) in believability ratings.
- 71% of C-SPAN's regular audience follows international news "Most of the Time."
- Regular C-SPAN viewers scored 6% higher than the national average (24% vs. 18%) when tested on political knowledge and tested higher than audiences of the four cable news networks.
Due to its popularity, there are now three C-SPAN channels.
Unfortunately, there is no similar equivalent offering coverage of New York State government. Since 2006, New York has offered some limited coverage of legislative floor discussions, but not much else. In addition, the current channel does not offer coverage of executive branch proceedings, such as the deliberations of the Public Service Commission, the entity which regulates electric utilities.
There is a move afoot to change that and to expand the current state channel and expand its coverage. Both Houses of the Legislature have passed resolutions committing them to expanding the current channel. The Senate and Assembly created a Joint Senate-Assembly Task Force that is scheduled to issue a report on the topic soon.
While we don't know for sure what the Task Force will call for, we do know what they should use as a model - the Congressional C-SPAN. The new state channel should not only include the actual coverage of legislative and executive actions, but it should also provide coverage of conferences on state issues, committee hearings, issue roundtables, events sponsored by non-governmental organizations and other programs generally found on the national C-SPAN.
Since most New Yorkers get their information from television and cable TV, granting them easy access to governmental proceedings will enhance their understanding of, and interest in, state policymaking.
A robust cable TV channel that combines independent, non-partisan, gavel-to-gavel coverage, coupled with enhanced programming such as "Roundtables" and coverage of events sponsored by non-governmental organizations would help educate New Yorkers on state government and engage them in the important policy debates of the state.
It is important that a New York State "C-SPAN" be created.
The absence of unbiased, unedited televised coverage of state actions is an impediment to building public confidence in governmental proceedings. Into that void powerful interests spend money on slick media relations efforts to "spin" the public toward goals - actions that are not in the state's best interests.
As a result, New Yorkers have grown more cynical that state government can ever respond to the public's needs. An important antidote to that voter cynicism is openness - and a state "C-SPAN" is critical.
Let's hope that the Task Force focuses on expanding New York's current state channel to more closely resemble the highly successful Congressional C-SPAN. It works in educating Americans and its success has spawned two additional national channels. It is exactly what New Yorkers need to understand and monitor their own state government.
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 2, 2009: SECRECY AND GOOD ETHICS DON'T MIX
Two and a half years ago, then-Governor Spitzer and the Legislature enacted a package of ethics reforms claiming that the changes would lead to higher standards of ethics by public officials. Sadly, that prediction did not come true. Since passage of those changes, the state has been rocked with scandals, including a report by the Inspector General that the new ethics watchdog established by Governor Spitzer was itself guilty of ethical misconduct.
Last week, two new incidents underscored the need for sweeping changes to that law.
First, the Commission on Public Integrity, which is supposed to monitor the ethics of public officials in the executive branch, issued its response to a complaint filed in the Caroline Kennedy case. As you may recall, earlier this year Governor Paterson was considering Ms. Kennedy as his appointed replacement for the US Senate seat held by Hillary Clinton after Clinton was appointed US Secretary of State by President Obama.
As part of the appointment process, Governor Paterson required that all applicants fill out a confidential questionnaire and allow the state to review confidential tax returns. The governor repeatedly promised that all information collected would be kept secret.
Just before the governor was to announce his pick, Ms. Kennedy withdrew from consideration. According to news reports, the governor was furious with Ms. Kennedy's withdrawal. In retaliation, members of the Paterson team then leaked misleading and false personal information in an effort to smear Ms. Kennedy.
That was bad, but the ethical question was - and is - who leaked the confidential information? It is a violation for public officials to leak confidential information. So who is to be held accountable for the damaging Kennedy leaks?
News reports tagged a campaign consultant as the person behind the leak, and she was fired. However, who gave confidential governmental information to a campaign staffer? The situation was the basis for the complaint filed in February by four government reform groups.
Last week, more than seven months after the complaint was originally filed, the Commission on Public Integrity issued its two sentence response. It concluded, "After a factual and legal inquiry, the Commission on Public Integrity has unanimously determined to close this matter with no further action."
The letter leaves many questions unanswered. For example, who did the Commission interview, if anyone, in order to investigate the complaint? Under current law, the Commission is restricted from making public statements. They conduct their activities in secret. Of course, to some extent that is appropriate, however the excessive secrecy undermines public trust. How can the public judge whether a real inquiry was undertaken or if it was just a political cover up?
Last week, a second ethics issue came to a head. State Senator Hiram Monserrate's legal troubles, which led to his recent conviction on assault charges, have resulted in huge financial costs.
To pay his legal bills - which may reach as much a $1 million - Senator Monserrate has created a "legal defense fund." According to the Senator's attorney, "He's got some supporters, I think, who are high-net-worth individuals, helping."
But how can rich individuals secretly donate money to pay Senator Monserrate's bills? Under the state ethics laws it's illegal to give gifts that exceed more than a "nominal" amount.
According to the Legislative Ethics Commission, Senator Monserrate has never asked them for approval to create a legal defense fund outside of the gift ban. However, they have carefully refused to state that whether any "informal advice" was given to the Senator and whether approvals have been given in years past.
Of course, if there are previous approvals allowing the creation of "legal defense funds," the public would never know anything about it. All of the Legislative Ethics Commission's decisions and policies are secret.
Apparently, no one will get punished for leaking Caroline Kennedy's personal information and we have no idea if the legislature's ethics watchdog has secretly created, illegally in my opinion, a million dollar loophole in the state's gift ban.
These two issues underscore the need for ethics reforms that create new independent oversight agencies and which operate in the open, rather than behind closed doors.
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 19, 2009: MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS WORK
Last week, Governor Paterson unveiled his plan to slash the state's $3 billion budget deficit. Part of his plan would take $90 million from an energy efficiency program to apply to the deficit. While a compelling case can be made that the governor's proposal is bad policy, the governor's action highlights the importance of designing legislation to build and maintain public support to safeguard important programs from short term pressures.
The state's energy efficiency program is called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or "RGGI." The Initiative is designed to cap the overall amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted by the state's power plants. The RGGI program then reduces the amount of carbon dioxide power plants are allowed to emit. Power plants that want the right to emit greenhouse gas must pay the state for a permit. The revenues that are raised from the sale of these permits are supposed to be used to pay for energy efficiency programs. The state recently collected $220 million in its permit sales.
It is from that pot of money that the governor proposes to divert the $90 million.
While the governor's scheme is controversial, it is without doubt that the public is at best dimly aware of the program - and even less aware of the proposed cut. This is precisely why it is a top target of the governor's budget cutters.
The RGGI experience should be instructive to policymakers and advocates pushing for congressional climate change legislation. Congress is debating climate change legislation that is similar to New York's RGGI. The congressional proposal caps greenhouse gas emissions and then reduces those emissions over time. The legislation would reduce greenhouse gases by at least 80 percent by the year 2050.
In order to succeed not only will the legislation have to pass, but it has to be designed to stay in place for decades. While congressional lawmakers have developed legislation that could pass, they have failed to offer plans that could stand the test of time. Like New York's RGGI program, congressional legislation proposed to spend the revenues generated by the sale of greenhouse gas emission permits for energy efficiency programs. If enacted, those revenues would be vulnerable to theft just like the RGGI.
Congress should heed the lessons of New York's RGGI and design its climate change legislation to build immediate popular support and keep that support for the long haul. The idea has been advanced by US Senator Cantwell and Congressman Van Hollen. The legislation, known as "cap and cash back," is similar to RGGI in that it caps greenhouse gas emissions and then reduces those emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. It also sells environmental permits to emitters of greenhouse gases.
But after that the programs diverge.
Unlike RGGI, the revenues generated under the Cantwell/Van Hollen legislation are sent back to American consumers. That's right, sent back to the American people.
The theory is that if Americans receive the benefits of the sale of the permits, they will care about the program. In addition, the revenues will help offset the increased energy costs that will result from charging polluters for permits to emit greenhouse gases.
The more the congressional approach mirrors the nation's Social Security program, the more likely it will stay have public support. The more public support, the more likely the program will be around in the year 2050 - no matter how hostile future Administrations or Congresses are to the idea of reducing greenhouse gases. And that means the program will be more likely to achieve its goal of saving the planet.
President Obama understood this. In his initial greenhouse gas reduction proposal, the lion's share of the revenues raised was sent back to the American people. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives legislation did little in this area. It's up to New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand to ensure that the Senate advances legislation that not only slashes greenhouse gases, but also designs a program that can last for the next 40 years.
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 12, 2009: A VOTING SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Nowadays, much of what we do is conducted electronically. Americans increasingly rely on the Internet to conduct their business. Paying bills, registering for college classes, choosing hotels, to name a few, can all be done online.
Yet, when it comes to the nation's voter registration system, filling out paper forms are the norm. In addition, in order to participate, voters must affirmatively obtain the forms, fill them out and submit them - either through the mail or in person - to states' elections boards.
Not only are registration practices increasingly out-of-date and burdensome for would-be voters, the system itself doesn't work very well. Here are some of the problems resulting from the current voter registration system:
First, it costs a lot. To handle all of that paper costs taxpayers money. The costs of printing, the costs of hiring staff to sort and develop voter lists, the costs of issuing approved voter lists, all add up. And while it is well worth it to spend money in order to accurately register voters and run elections, if technology can reduce costs without undermining integrity, why not do it?
Second, it creates headaches for election workers and voters alike. Not only are there costs to a paper-based voter registration system, there are human costs as well. For example, sometimes voters' registration forms are misplaced, or information - like addresses - is inaccurately entered. Under those circumstances, the poll worker has to deal with an agitated voter. That voter is also unhappy that their registration is not available; meaning that he or she may have to go to a different polling place, or be prohibited from using the voting machine and instead vote on a paper ballot. Those on line behind this voter are unhappy too - it takes more time to vote.
These headaches can cause real chaos. For example, during the 2008 election cycle in New York, about 100,000 forms collected by "third-party" registration groups were sent to the State Board of Elections. The State Board had to spend countless staff hours sorting and forwarding them to the correct local office, where officials were already inundated with registration applications. After Election Day, a Board of Elections employee in New York City found a box containing approximately 3,500 registration forms that had been forwarded by the State Board in early September. Those 3,500 names did not make the registration rolls by Election Day.
Third, it creates obstacles that suppress voter participation. In addition to the inevitable mistakes that are made in a paper-based system run by humans, the requirement that voters actively register in order to participate leaves millions unregistered. According to the US Census Bureau, in New York's 2006 election, only 64 percent of the state's eligible voting age population was registered to vote.
The current registration system means that certain groups of voters are more disadvantaged. For example, in 2008, nearly a quarter, 23 percent, of experienced overseas voters had problems or questions with registering, a problem that occurs even more frequently with voters attempting to cast a ballot from overseas for the first time. Twenty-three percent of all veterans - 5.3 million veterans - were not registered to vote in 2006. Lastly, less than half of young voters were registered.
The current voting practice was designed for a paper-dominated system - one that is as relevant today as an 8-track music player. Why not follow the lead of the rest of society and modernize voter registration?
The nation's voter registration system is a patchwork relic of the 19th century. It's costly, inefficient and unreliable, overwhelming election officials with needless paperwork and expense and blocking millions of eligible American citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote. The outdated and cumbersome voter registration system is the single largest cause of election problems for voters and election officials.
There's a 21st-century solution that harnesses the power of technology to ensure that all eligible voters, no matter what age, can participate. Government should automatically register voters as soon as they turn 18 or move into the state. How could that be done? Government should tap into the immense amount of information it currently collects in its databases - drivers' licenses, college enrollments, tax filings, and the like - to verify the age, citizenship and other relevant information of voters. The nation already uses existing databases to verify young men for the selective service, why not use that as a model for voter registration? Other nations use such a system of automatically registering voters and have much higher voter participation rates.
The Congress has to lead the way. US Senator Chuck Schumer has already stated his intention to introduce legislation to modernize the nation's voter registration system. For Schumer to succeed in time for the 2010 elections, he has to get moving now.
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 28, 2009: NEW YORK'S BUDGET WOES
Last week, Governor Paterson and the legislative leaders met to discuss the state's budget problems. They were joined by Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch, whose appointment by the governor was upheld by the state's highest court.
The meeting was informative and disturbing; informative in that it strengthened the case that actions are needed, and disturbing not only for what the budget deficit will mean - cuts to programs that some New Yorkers rely on - but the apparent lack of a plan on how to address the problem.
Here is a summary of some important moments of that meeting:
- The state's budget is falling more out of balance over time. The governor estimated - and the leaders agreed - that the state is facing a $2.1 billion current-year budget gap. The governor further predicted that the deficit would swell to $3 billion by the end of the fiscal year, unless actions were taken.
- Falling revenues were cited as a key reason for the deficit. For example, personal income taxes were off by 35 percent when compared to the previous year, and that shortfall is nearly $600 million lower than anticipated. Some of that drop off occurred due to an unprecedented decline in workers' wages and layoffs. In addition, shrinking business activities were reflected in a drop off in sales tax revenues, adding nearly $160 million to the unanticipated deficit.
- There doesn't seem to be a plan. This one was the shocker of the meeting. The problem of eroding state revenues is not a new problem. As early as July, the Division of the Budget was predicting a budget shortfall of $2.1 billion. Yet at the leaders meeting, the governor did not unveil his plan for addressing this shortfall. Moreover, the governor seemed strangely passive on how to move the leaders' discussion.
At one point in the meeting, the governor asked the legislative leaders what they think should be done to address the budget deficit. While that request is hardly out-of-line, the governor stated that he did not feel comfortable laying out his own suggestions at the meeting. The governor argued that since he has in the past proposed cuts and been criticized for his plan, he would not offer his own suggestions. However, he then asked the legislative leaders to fill the gap with suggestions of their own. Shocking.
The governor is the most powerful political figure in the state, yet he refused to offer a plan for dealing with the deficit since he was concerned about being criticized - and then asked the leaders to "walk the plank" with proposals of their own.
Both the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate's Democratic leader, refused to offer proposals on how to respond. Both pledged their support to address the problem, but neither offered specifics. Republican leader Skelos offered a series of proposals to cut the size of the deficit and Assembly Minority Leader Kolb added an idea of his own. The governor responded by saying that the Administration would look at their recommendations.
The governor then asked how they should proceed. The governor did not offer his own procedural recommendations on how to deal with the budget, but asked the legislative leaders to offer theirs. Once again, Assembly Republican leader Kolb proposed that the Lt. Governor and the Administration's budget staff meet with the budget staffs of the legislature and develop recommendations on how to eliminate the budget deficit. The Lt. Governor also pledged that the legislative staffs would be receiving weekly state revenue and spending updates in the hopes that all would be able to agree on the magnitude of the problem.
And that was the end of the meeting. There was agreement to have further meetings and to share budgetary details. But there was no agreement to meet again, there was no agreement to bring the legislature back to approve whatever plan emerges, and there was no agreement on specific ways to cut the deficit.
Of course, that's not to say that nothing is being done. The Administration has been working with state agencies to cut spending and to encourage attrition of the workforce. But Administrative measures alone cannot close a $2 or $3 billion deficit - that will take action. And in Albany, action only occurs through leadership.
The governor must lead. Not only to offer his plans, but to make the case to New Yorkers that the problem is real and his solutions are best. Without that leadership, things will only get worse.
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 21, 2009: DEMOCRATS IN TROUBLE?
What has become clear is that New Yorkers are increasingly unhappy with their state government. In a recent Marist College poll, nearly three-quarters of New Yorkers thought that the state is headed in the wrong direction. And New Yorkers blame the state government. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that over three quarters of New Yorkers believed that their state government is "the worst" or "among the worst" in the nation. Only 2 percent said New York has the "best" state government.
That unhappiness is now starting to impact on elections. In the primaries last week, few turned out at the polls. And what must have been most alarming to Democrats, only 11 percent of Democratic voters cast their votes in New York City - which is the party's base. And four city council incumbents lost their primary races.
Of course, we don't know for sure why Democratic voters would sit out the primaries this year. However, it's a safe bet that they aren't feeling motivated by their party's candidates and are probably unhappy about the state of things generally.
That dismal turnout stands in stark contrast to the elections last year. Democrats turned out in droves, they were motivated and showed it through their participation. Motivated voters helped install a Democratic President and gave the party big edges in both House of the Congress. New York Democrats swept into the governor's mansion and every other statewide position. The state Senate turned Democratic for the first time in decades.
So, it bodes poorly if registered Democrats are sitting on their hands. Small turnout could be a huge problem for the Democrats in what surely will be fiercely competitive elections in November 2010.
At the national level, support for the President is slipping, a recent Rasmussen Reports showed a 56-43 percent approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. Support for Governor Paterson is at rock-bottom and a majority of New Yorkers want to throw out all of the state's leaders.
The trends are all the more nerve-wracking for the Democrats, particularly when it's put into a historic context. Since 1934, in virtually every off-Presidential election, the President's party has lost seats in the House of Representatives. The election of 2010 is the next such election.
Democrats must be nervous, and they should be. Obviously some of their problems are out of their control - the nation's hobbled economy, the world's trouble spots.
But if Democrats want to continue to lead, they must regain their political footing. And to do that, they have to deliver on their promises.
In Washington, the Congressional leadership must approve health care, banking reforms and global warming legislation. They ran on those issues in 2008 and they must deliver on those promises.
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 14, 2009: THE ETHICS SAGA CONTINUES
Last week, New Yorkers were told by the State Senate that they intended to approve ethics reform legislation. The Senate said it would approve legislation passed by the Assembly in late June and then add provisions to bolster oversight of ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws.
The prognosis for Senate action looked positive. The Senate Republican minority stated their desire to vote in support of the Assembly-backed measure.
And then things went south.
One Senate Democrat had to miss the session due to the death of his father. For the Democrats, losing one vote was catastrophic since they need every one of their members to approve legislation - or hope for support from the Republicans.
The Democrats chose to offer up first the second of their two bills - the one that expanded the reforms passed by the Assembly. It turned out that Republicans had a problem with those changes. One provision created a new campaign finance enforcement unit, something badly needed in New York. However, Republicans were concerned by that provision.
The new enforcement unit would be headed by an executive director who would be chosen by a nine-member panel. The panelists would be chosen by the governor, the attorney general, and the comptroller - all of whom are currently Democrats, as well as appointees of the four legislative leaders, two of whom are Democrats. The Republicans were concerned that, as Republican Senator Padavan described, the proposal would amount to a "hit unit," and warned that the campaign enforcement unit would be used for political purposes.
That point was debatable, but the outcome was not. Without Republican votes, the legislation was not approved and so the Democrats pulled back the bill approved by the Assembly. They pledged to meet with the Republicans and try to bridge their differences.
So far, so good. If the Senate returns soon and has a bipartisan agreement that overhauls the state's ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws, that would be good news.
And then Governor Paterson decided to weigh in.
The governor described the current bill as "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." The Assembly bill doesn't go far enough, the governor said. Paterson argued that elected officials shouldn't make appointments to commissions charged with looking into the people who do the appointing.
The governor's comments on the ethics bill were interesting and disconcerting. First, the legislation - if enacted - would be a substantial improvement over the status quo. Second, the governor has been absent from the ethics debate for months, only now threatening to block the legislation under consideration.
In the Spring, the state's Inspector General issued a report detailing what he described as unethical and irresponsible actions by the Commission on Public Integrity, the state's top ethics watchdog. After the IG report, the governor called for the resignation of the members of the Commission. They refused.
Then, the governor issued a bill that would eliminate the Commission on Public Integrity and the failed Legislative Ethics Commission, which oversees legislative ethics. The governor's plan created a new, independent ethics agency that combined the authority of both Commissions. At that time, no legislator introduced the governor's plan and he never pushed it.
In June, when the Assembly passed its bill, the governor said nothing. During the months of June and July when the Senate was paralyzed by the "coup," the governor every day forced the Senate to take up his "priority issues," yet never once put his own ethics bill on one of those lists.
Now he says the ethics bill that was the subject of hearings in both houses and approved by the Assembly with bipartisan support is too wimpy. Essentially he says he would veto the bill if it comes to his desk. If he does, then New York would be stuck with the status quo -- supposedly one the governor disapproves of. For months the governor has exerted no leadership and now may derail the momentum for reform.
Is this just a way for the governor to force himself into the debate, or a way to "deep six" ethics reform in order to keep pressure on the legislature? Hard to know for sure, but it is maddening.
Enough of the games. End the ethics status quo: A status quo in which campaign finance laws are rarely enforced, ethics laws are ignored and a state watchdog is found to have violated the public's trust.
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 |
|
|
