By Henry J. Stern
July 6, 2006
Over the past four years, I have written over three hundred columns about
public issues in New York City and State. (You can find them on our
website, www.nycivic.org.)
Certain themes repeat themselves, in part because they describe recurring
events. One major observation, reinforced annually, is that the State
of New York is financially irresponsible. Every year the governor submits
an unreasonably high budget, not covered by recurring revenues. Then
both the Republican and the Democratic houses of the legislature add billions
of dollars to it. The public debt of New York State is increasing rapidly,
and is only surpassed by California, which has borrowed 47 billion dollars
in the last two years under its Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The problem is bicoastal, both megastates are plunging into ever-heavier
debt, with interest eating up an increasing portion of their tax revenues.
New York's debt is largely concealed in the debt of public authorities, just
as Enron's liabilities were hidden in off-budget entities.
Another continuing problem is that the legislature is thoroughly dominated
by its leaders, Senate Majority Leader Bruno and Assembly Speaker Silver.
Although these men are partially responsive to their members' wishes, particular
if the members' seats are in jeopardy, they are laden with conflicts of interest
and exercise undue influence through their power over members' salaries,
committee appointments, and ability to pass bills.
The state government has been corrupted by 'pay to play' lobbyists and campaign
contributions from special interests to both the governor and the legislative
majorities. The money goes to Republicans in the Senate and Democrats
in the Assembly. Governor Pataki has been on the receiving end for
twelve years.
The Governor is particularly appreciative of the man who plucked him from
legislative obscurity in 1994 and made him the Republican candidate for governor,
former Senator Alfonse D'Amato. Although gratitude is an appealing
personal characteristic ('
How
sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child), one
may wonder how many decisions made for that reason have impacted the State
of New York, and what costs the taxpayers have borne to fulfill these obeisances.
The city government is much more fortunate in this regard because we have
the unique circumstance of a mayor who is self-financing, and accepts no
contributions. When this idyll ends in 2009, the likelihood is that
we will revert to the conventional way of funding campaigns; through friends,
would-be friends, ideologues, lobbyists, job-seekers and contractors, with
taxpayers providing the lion's share through public financing. Yet
integrity, intellect and wealth are not guarantors of good judgment, especially
when one must rely on information collected by staff. No one can be
right on all the issues, but it helps to listen to contrary views before
making decisions. Nonetheless, the quality of our city government far
exceeds that of the state, and things are better than they are likely to
be for some time.
A variety of procedural reforms were approved this year in Albany, as a result
of vigorous newspaper editorials, intense activity by civic groups, focusing
on the Brennan Center report which called the New York State legislature
the most dysfunctional in the United States. Nonetheless, the basic
dynamic of the legislature was unaffected; months of sloth followed by a
flood of last minute activity and dominated by the majority leader and the
speaker, with the influence of their staffs exceeding that of many elected
legislators, who are little more than salaried spectators.
The failure to publish the particulars of what is called 'the 007 budget',
which consists of an estimated 200 million dollars worth of member items
which are allocated to pet projects of individual legislators, is particularly
indefensible. The situation merits an immediate lawsuit, followed by
a Court of Appeals decision requiring full disclosure of who put the money
in and who is going to take it out. Every member item should be subject
to pre-audit by the Comptroller.
Rather than continue to enumerate the multitude of outrages, large and small,
caused by corruption, favoritism, cronyism, conflict of interest and other
classic vices of individuals high and low, the issue most relevant to us
is why these conditions, which are not new, remain essentially unchanged
despite years of carping by critics and columnists.
Indeed, no one outside a circle of grifters seems to have a good word for
the men (there are no visible women) who run the State of New York.
We have yet to read anywhere that Albany is just, fair or efficient, although
it is quite possible that those are the views of the teachers unions, the
tort lawyers and the SEIU (service employees international union, which just
had a potential 52,000 members handed to them) and assorted additional beneficiaries
of pension improvements, no-bid contracts and other political largesse.
These insiders are the people who have the keys to the golden door (not
Emma Lazarus' vision
of the one beside which the Statue of Liberty lifts her lamp).
DIGRESSION: The Roman senator,
Cato the elder, used
to rise in the senate to intone: "
Cartago Delenda
Est.” Carthage, an ancient city, was on the eastern side of Lake
Tunis, across from modern Tunis. Eventually, Carthage, once considered
a rival to Rome, was destroyed during the Punic Wars. It is not widely
known today that Hannibal, whose army employed elephants in charges to trample
the enemy, was a Carthaginian general.
In our popular culture, Cato (spelled with a K) is the sidekick to the Green
Hornet and a former houseboy to Mr. Simpson (not Homer). Hannibal is
the first name of a character, played by Anthony Hopkins, who roasts and
eats other people in a series of motion pictures. The character's name
derives from rhyme.
We digressed to Cato because there is no one like him today, preaching the
destruction of the Albany colossus. Critics bite away at bits and pieces
of it, provided they are involved in no other activities which may be injured
by state action or inaction. Since social service agencies and other
non-profits are partially state and city funded, and many decent people are
trustees of these groups, the number of those available to speak freely on
government misconduct is lessened substantially.
In 2006, we are at an impasse between corruption and idealism, with many
people holding positions somewhere between the two poles. Rule 33W: Where
you stand depends on where you sit. Conditions are not worsening, except
financially where debt piles on debt, but neither are they significantly
improving. We observe the status quo, possibly the
status quo ante
bellum.
In January 2007 we will have a new governor, and we will soon learn what
impact he will have on the pigsty over which he will preside. It will
be relatively easy for him to clean up the executive branch, except for the
buddies that Pataki has appointed to long terms on state commissions, some
of which will last as far into the future as 2012.
The concept that the chairman of the MTA, in effect the state's chief transportation
official, should be the appointee of a previous governor, serving two years
beyond the term of the new governor, and six years beyond the term of the
one who appointed him, is utterly ridiculous. Whoever is governor should
have the right to name his own MTA chair. After Governor Pataki took
office in 1995, Peter Stangl resigned and Pataki designated his successor,
a bank president. We foresee Peter Kalikow clinging to office, possibly
with the aid of a Brunonian State Senate and the Public Officers Law.
A bit of good news is that 2006 saw co-ordination between civic good government
groups, and advocates of financial responsibility. In the past, the
googoos have been concerned only with procedure, and the business people
involved only with their economic issues. Realization is slowly dawning
that legislative rules won't mean much if the state goes broke, and that
advocating a balanced budget does not signify a desire to bring back slavery.
New York's situation is ironic. We are bound by the decisions of a
self-serving gerrymandered, pampered, life-serving phalanx of legislators
who are elected in name only because their leaders insulate them from contests.
Yet we enjoy a free press, now augmented by irreverent bloggers, so we can
let all of you know what is happening without being required to own a printing
press or rely on the U.S. postal service. Technology can frustrate
tyranny here, just as it is straining to do in China.
The continuing dilemma is how people can use the information they now more
easily receive to unfasten the straitjacket in which self-serving politics
has bound us. It will require increased public and editorial demand
for reform, and leaders to carry on the struggle. The last generation
of reformers have taken their places in the constellation of the existing
order. The recent rebels (Michael Bragman and company in 2000) were
beheaded. No rational legislator would throw away the work of a lifetime
to tilt at a windmill.
At this time, we are, as
Samuel Taylor
Coleridge wrote, "as idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean."
Whence, we ask, will the winds of change blow? And whither will they
take us. (That's not Coleridge.)
We await the November election with both hope and trepidation. Historically,
the bad guys have been shrewder than the good guys. And they have behind
them the power of the dollar. The system can swallow up those who seek
to change it. It will require superb leadership to subdue the oligarchs.
Think of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The State of New York has now endured a generation of political and economic
stagnation. After the profligate campaign promises of 2002, stagnation
became slippage. A day of reckoning lies ahead, which you will hear
about in due time. Remember Governor Hugh Carey in 1975, "
The
days of wine and roses are over." The sooner the elected leaders
of New York State accept that fact, and make realistic plans to deal with
it, the less onerous the solution will be.
We have not yet said a word about the 4-1 decision of the Court of Appeals
last year in the CFE (Campaign for Fiscal Equity) case, in which the Court,
in principle, mandated billions of additional dollars in educational expenditures
without providing a penny to pay for it. Despite the fact that this
decision violates the basic separation of powers (how can the judiciary order
an elected legislature to appropriate funds to the court's liking and, necessarily,
increase taxes to support these expenditures?), no public official has criticized
the decision, and some have enthusiastically endorsed it, without, however,
offering to provide any money to implement it.
The CFE case began with a legitimate complaint by New York City that city
schools were receiving less state aid per capita than suburban schools.
This occurred because of the greater political influence of suburban legislators.
The case somehow morphed into one in which it was alleged that almost all
New York State children were denied their constitutional rights because of
insufficient funding for education.
This conclusion was reached despite the fact that of the fifty states, New
York ranks No. 3 in per capita spending, only exceeded by Alaska and New
Jersey. Since everyone favors education, and certainly wants adequate
funding for education, it is very difficult to find anyone who can discuss
the fact that, without reforms in education, which were not mandated, the
additional expenses, apart from being unfundable except by substantial additional
tax increases, will not necessarily result in educational gains.
Judges cannot jump every time they receive a pro bono brief from an upscale
bar association or a nonprofit with multiple worthy names. But if academia
and foundationland are your worlds, and those are the people whom you admire
and whose approval and invitations you seek, where opinions are reflected
in ponderous law review articles mentioning your sagacity and humanity, that
is the way you will interpret the law - it is human nature.
This behavior is in no way corrupt, money-driven or related to any improper
acts, or based on evil motives. In fact, it comes from the best of
motives - to improve the lives of poor people through education. What
the case does show is honest, decent, principled people can make more expensive
mistakes than scoundrels, because the bad guys are primarily interested in
providing for themselves, their clients and their associates. The good
people of both genders, on the other hand, want to benefit humanity, which
is a much more costly proposition and far more difficult to achieve.
This article is lengthy: and we have expatiated on a number of subjects.
We know that some of you will disagree with all or part of it. If you
feel that way or if you like the article, please let us know. We will
publish your views on our blog, anonymously or not as you wish. We
would never shut off different views, and we hope you will not do that either.