Knickerbocker Blog

An editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle decries the entanglement of a proposal to authorize more charter schools in various political skirmishes.

Unfortunately, the debate over lifting the cap on the number of charter schools in New York turned not on whether this is a worthy educational initiative, or whether the funding mechanism is flawed or whether the new cap number discussed is appropriate.

That would have been a mature, nuanced discussion. Instead, charter schools, which are independent public schools, became the focal point of bitter campaigns pitting teachers' unions against charter advocates.

It's time for reasoned decision-making on this issue.

At the tail end of the session, the charter cap issue became a classic Albany bargaining chip, whereby Gov. Pataki pledged to give lawmakers the spending they wanted if they agreed to increase the cap by 150 schools. That ploy failed; legislators got their spending and the cap remained at 100, meaning, in essence, that there's no room for new charters.

It's reprehensible that public education is toyed with so recklessly.

There's more. And: Erik Kriss of the Syracuse Post-Standard outlines a horse-trading scenario in the debate over the future of charter schools.

About $100 million for programs for low-income New Yorkers is sitting in Albany, there for the spending but not authorized to be spent.

It's a chip in a high-stakes political poker game between Gov. George Pataki and state lawmakers.

Pataki, eyeing a potential campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, tied the welfare money to an expansion of charter schools and an early retirement incentive program.

Majority Democrats in the Assembly oppose increasing the number of charter schools in New York beyond the current 100, saying the schools drain money from traditional public schools. And some legislators say the governor's early retirement incentive would benefit high-level Pataki loyalists who are likely to leave state service when he does at the end of the year.

Advocates for the poor called Pataki's linkage of welfare aid to the other issues "outrageous."

But charter school boosters, who say the alternative schools help many of the same poor people who benefit from welfare spending, called lawmakers' resistance just as outrageous.

And so, with lawmakers out of session possibly until at least September, everything is on hold.

There's much more.

Matt Glynn of the Buffalo News reports that

The outlook for local manufacturing improved in June, according to a survey of manufacturers.

The National Association of Purchasing Management-Buffalo business activity index increased to 64.5 from 63.6 in May. A reading above 50 indicates growth at local factories, and the local survey has stayed there since July 2003.

William R. Ellis, chairman of the group's business survey committee, said the index shows that business is expanding at an increased rate. But specific categories leveled off.

The production index was down 7.5 points. "This is the time of year when a summer vacation slowdown starts and this could be nothing more than that," Ellis wrote.

The rate of incoming orders has leveled off, he said. A majority of respondents indicated that commodity prices are higher, and inventories of purchased goods are holding steady.

There's more.

A letter in the Buffalo News reflects on differences between his current live in Georgia and his past life in Buffalo.

It's true that nowhere is a panacea, and I miss plenty about Buffalo, too. But making the lack of traffic and crowding in Buffalo sound like an asset is foolish. I relocated to Cobb County, Ga., 15 years ago. The profession I chose simply didn't exist in Buffalo, having previously flourished there. A million others have relocated to this area in the last 10 years. Figures for the Charlotte area are surely similar. Infrastructure can't keep up with that.

Schools and roads are being built as fast as they can. Companies are moving in, not out. The sales tax is still 6 percent. Libraries have programs for the kids and are open until 9 p.m. weeknights. I pay a combined school and property tax of one-quarter of what I would pay for the same house in any of Buffalo's suburbs.

Being able to breeze downtown from the suburbs in 20 minutes at 8 a.m. might be nice for those few who still do it. But it's not the sign of a healthy city.

An editorial in the New York Times blasts Albany's tradition of spending huge piles of taxpayer dollars in secret.

Maybe it was somebody's idea of a very inside joke. But for some time now New York State officials have referred to a huge pool of hidden money appropriated by lawmakers each year as the "007 accounts." These accounts amount to $200 million each year to finance a long list of pork-barrel projects across the state. The funds are controlled by state leaders and appear in the budget in anonymous chunks, listed under health care, economic development or some other broad category.

This is camouflage for hundreds of so-called member items--small and medium-size public projects in each legislator's home district. The clandestine way that 007 money is parceled out would make Q himself proud.

Very little about these items is disclosed to the public; the scant records available on the State Senate Web site offer glimpses of items like $25,000 for a youth center (no address given) or $112,000 for dental clinics (no locations listed). It would take a full-time investigator to figure out why one baseball field receives state aid and not another, and that is apparently how Joseph Bruno, the Senate majority leader, and Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, want to keep it.

Controlling these millions allows the leaders to control their legislators. Member items are, in fact, a form of legislative blackmail. No politician wants to be held responsible for losing funds for the home district. So when Mr. Bruno whispers a command, Republican senators jump. When Mr. Silver beckons his herd, Democratic Assembly members trip over one another to get to him.

This is no way to create a robust and democratic Legislature. And it is no way to sort out the priorities for spending the public's money.

An editorial in the Albany Times Union criticizes some of the budget "reform" ideas embedded in a bill passed last month by the state Legislature.

To be sure, there are other, positive aspects of this legislation, which is separate from a proposed constitutional amendment on budget reform. That amendment must be approved by the Legislature next year if it is to appear on the ballot in November 2007.

The budget reform legislation sent to the governor calls for more openness and accountability in the budget making process. All reforms worthy of the name, and long overdue.

But the Independent Budget Office, which is supposed to function along the lines of the Congressional Budget Office and provide objective fiscal analysis for lawmakers and the public, would have its credibility questioned from the start. That's because the legislative leaders -- Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan -- would appoint its director and its advisory board. If the appointees are beholden to the leaders for their posts, will they be comfortable giving them advice they'd rather not hear?

We have long maintained that such an office is unnecessary anyway. The state already has an office to verify revenue projections and spending and provide fiscal advice to the Legislature and governor. True enough, the comptroller is often a member of the political party that is out of power, as is the case with the incumbent, Alan Hevesi, a Democrat. But there's no reason why that has to be an obstacle. Governor Cuomo, a Democrat, gave Republican Comptroller Ned Regan a key role in budget forecasts, and it helped the process.

The legislation's approach to the rainy day fund is also questionable. It limits state contributions to 5 percent of the budget, which is considerable, to be sure. But why a limit at all? The Citizens Budget Commission is right to suggest that a minimum contribution be established, rather than a ceiling. Last year, for example, the Legislature sharply reduced the amount that Governor Pataki wanted to invest in the fund. Establishing a minimum contribution would force lawmakers to be more responsible.

A call for redistricting reform: An editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle urges Albany to enact legislative redistricting reform.

The way redistricting works in this state is that usually after the U.S. census results are tabulated every 10 years, state lawmakers redraw district lines for themselves and congressional representatives. To no one's surprise anymore, those lines usually ensure Democratic dominance in the Assembly and Republican control in the Senate.

As if the existing system doesn't already make enough of a mockery of democratic principles, the U.S. Supreme Court last week handed down a ruling that essentially says a state can redraw district lines anytime it wants.

In other words, states could conceivably opt to redistrict whenever political power shifts, provided they don't violate the Voting Rights Act.

The ruling ought to make Americans nervous, particularly New York residents, who already are at the mercy of lawmakers who have the highest re-election rate in the country.

So what's wrong with that? Just for starters, state spending is out of control, the cumulative tax burden is the highest in the nation, jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate and so are residents seeking relief.

A proposal to create an independent redistricting commission never looked more attractive. . . .

And: There's a similar editorial in the Utica Observer-Dispatch. Another: An editorial in Newsday offers only muted praise for Albany's various "reform" efforts this year.

Last year, under pressure from voters tired of Albany's chronic dysfunction, lawmakers developed a sudden appetite for reform. This year, they lost it - especially the Republican Senate - and failed to reach consensus on changes in the way the state budgets, borrows, elects and deliberates. That's too bad. Albany is still too secretive and too subject to the influence of money to assure a fair hearing for all but the rich and powerful few.

Give the Democratic Assembly credit for at least the appearance of trying to advance some key reforms in financing campaigns, drawing legislative district lines, banning gift-giving to public officials, and opening agencies and the lawmaking process itself to more scrutiny. With some nuanced exceptions, this is mostly good stuff.

The Senate did join the Assembly in passing improvements in the way the state crafts a budget. Changes include an independent budget office and greater transparency, as well as more time to consider the governor's submission.

Lawmakers wisely ditched provisions that were in last year's budget-reform referendum but had turned voters off. The new version requires only the governor's approval, but it still has flaws that should be fixed. The budget deadline should be later in the year. Pork should be clearly reported. And public conference committees should be more widely required to break logjams.

Unfortunately, neither the Senate nor Assembly acted on Comptroller Alan Hevesi's call for debt reform. The state not only borrows too much, it does so in ways designed to circumvent constitutional requirements for voter approval. Lawmakers would be wise to tackle this growing problem, as well as other reform issues, in a special session before the next budget is released in January.

A brief but scathing editorial in the Buffalo News blasts state legislators for focusing on trivia and ignoring big issues in the 2006 legislative session.

. . . . [State lawmakers] managed to agree that the state insect, the nine-spotted ladybug, was extinct in New York when it was adopted as state bug in 1989. So they shifted the title to the pink-spotted ladybug. (We're not making this up.) Celebratory buzzings were heard statewide. In addition, they added the striped bass as the official salt water fish and the snapping turtle as the state reptile. (Lobbyists came in a close second). Do you know the other members of this exclusive official state club? State fruit, apple; state drink, milk; tree, sugar maple; flower, rose; bird, bluebird; fish, trout; state fossil, Shelly Silver; oops, sorry, sea scorpion; gem, garnet; muffin, apple muffin; and shell, scallop. Don't call it a do-nothing Legislature.

And: An editorial review of the legislative session in the Utica Observer-Dispatch welcomes news that a state data-processing center apparently will come to the Mohawk Valley, and offers praise and criticisms for other actions by the state Legislature. Like many editorials we have seen, this one reserves its thumbs-up for actions unrelated to economic-policy, and gives thumbs-down to the Legislature's major actions on just about every issues with economic-policy implications.

Thumbs down

* Rebate checks. A rebate check of $200 to $800 is touted by legislators as property tax relief that will arrive in the fall, just in time to pay school taxes. Coincidentally, it's right around election time. Such irresponsible spending is why this state is in such financial straits. The giveaway will be paid from a 2005-06 state surplus of more than $4 billion, which would be better used to pay down some of the state's $48.5 billion debt.

* Spending spree. The $4 billion handout is nothing compared to the final state budget of $113.4 billion--up from about $106 billion in 2005-06. That's an increase in spending unseen in 33 years, and very likely will require future tax increases. You may want to hang onto that rebate check.

* Special interests. Bills that reduce penalties for illegal strikes by public employee and teachers' unions and grant automatic pay raises if the executive branch or local school boards are determined to be bargaining in bad faith weaken the state's Taylor Law and could cost taxpayers big money. It's another instance of legislators kowtowing to special interest groups that fund re-election campaigns. Unions spend millions lobbying Albany and making campaign contributions. Apparently, it's money well spent--at public expense.

And: Joe Mahoney of the Daily News has a wrapup on the legislative sessionhere. And: Liz Benjamin of the Albany Times Union reviews what Albany did with an eye on both politics and policy. The story includes an interesting note about the Senate's apparent efforts to pass legislation that would help its most vulnerable majority member, Sen. Nick Spano (R/WFP/C-Westchester County). Those efforts, Benjamin writes, were not necessarily fruitful.

Bruno called this session one of the most productive since he became leader in 1995. Its final week brought two key achievements for him: Advanced Micro Devices' decision to build a $3.2 billion semiconductor factory in his district, and his chamber's last-minute override of Pataki's veto of a bill to allow 52,000 day care workers to become unionized state employees. The latter highlighted the Senate's willingness to pass some pro-labor initiatives.

Observers saw this largely as a play to help one Republican senator, Nicholas Spano of Yonkers -- an effort that drew some criticism and wasn't entirely successful.

Spano was hoping for support from the labor-backed Working Families Party, whose endorsement in 2004 is credited with helping him win by 18 votes. But on Friday, the WFP declined to endorse Spano again.

Still, it stayed neutral in his race against Democratic Westchester County Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, who lost to him in 2004 and is back for a rematch.

And: An editorial in the Utica Observer-Dispatch urges talking point to sign a bill that would make it harder to build a proposed Upstate-to-Downstate powerline.

The amendment to the state's Transportation Corporation Law would prevent a private corporation set up to construct an individual power line from using the eminent domain law; in other words, it could not take private land without the landowner's consent.

The law was narrowly worded so that it would apply specifically to the New York Regional Interconnection power line whose proposed route would cut a wide, ugly swath through the heart of many area communities.

The homeowners and businesspeople along this route should not have to give up their property to a private company for a project that does not--at least in the initial analysis--offer them any benefit whatsoever.

The editorial also noted Albany's failure (again) to enact a law to make it easier to site power plants that New York State badly needs.

Among the work left undone was reinstating Article X, the process under which new power generation plants larger than 80 megawatts are approved by the Public Service Commission. The process is the equivalent of the Article VII process that NYRI is going through right now.

. . . .

Article X is critical. Many, including the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), which operates the state's power grid, say the lack of a clear process has hampered the building of new power plants in the state. Without a cohesive process that allows investors to estimate their schedules, licensing and costs and possibility of success, they are hesitant to fund such projects.

And New York needs that type of investment sooner rather than later. According to NYISO, the state will need significant additions to its generation capacity between 2008 and 2011. Without Article X, instead of downstate generation plants being built, the door is left open for ill-advised projects like the NYRI line.

Allowing this critical legislation to languish for three years while the state's energy needs grow and its capacity strains is simply unacceptable. The need is clear. The question is, what will it take to jolt lawmakers into action?

A kiddie photo-op: The Utica Observer-Dispatch also reports that

A group of children posed for a photo beneath a banner opposing the New York Regional Interconnect power line as a way to show their opinion about the proposal.

The children, most of whom attend Sauquoit Valley Elementary School, play baseball, softball or tee-ball at the fields on Mill Street in Sauquoit, and are worried by the prospect of having a 1,200-megawatt power line running near where they live. If approved, the line would go right past the little league fields.

"They are just as upset as their parents, and they wonder if it's going to go by their field," said Marina Latella, communications chairperson for the anti-power line group Upstate New York Citizens Alliance, who helped organize the photo. "Or if their house is gong to be taken or if they are going to have to move."

Latella said the Sauquoit Valley School Board had been very helpful to her organization, allowing them to use school grounds for their ever-growing community meetings.

"They have opened up their doors to us wholeheartedly," she said. "It's anything that we need."

Students in Tammy Purrington's sixth grade class in Sauquoit exercised their rights as young citizens this year to write letters to local government officials expressing their views about the proposed power line.

And: Mike Gormley of the Associated Press describes a new state law designed to increase the ranks of math and science teachers in New York State.

A lesson in supply and demand is being played out as Albany provides more flexible aid for college students and free tuition for 500 future math and science teachers in laws that take effect Saturday.

The $2 million investment, underplayed in Albany's world of multibillion dollar proposals, is intended to pay big dividends for New Yorkers, according to its backers.

One law aims to increase the ranks of young, educated New Yorkers by providing critical financial aid under the Tuition Assistance Program to students who can only attend college part-time.

Many students no longer spend four years full-time in college immediately after high school. Family commitments, careers, and jobs to pay for college force more students to pursue degrees part-time, at least for some of their college life.

The other measure would bolster math and science education in schools by providing free state tuition or the equivalent toward private college tuition for 500 students. The award would pay $4,350 for up to four years of undergraduate study and one year of graduate work leading to teaching certification. The students would commit to teach five years in math and science in middle schools or high schools. The annual award would be converted to a student loan if the recipient failed to fulfill the commitment.

The measures are a reaction to a basic economic problem: The demand for college graduates and for school teachers with strong math and science is outstripping the supply. And that demand by high-tech employers is increasingly being satisfied with graduates from India, China, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There's more.

An editorial in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin explains New York's notorious Wicks Law and speculates on how debate over its repeal might animate the race for Governor.

Named after an obscure state legislator, the statute, passed in 1912, governs the way contracts for most public-construction projects, such as schools, highways and water plants, are built.

If a private company, the federal government, or state and local governments elsewhere in America want to build something like this, they ask for bids from construction companies and sign a contract with the firm deemed capable of doing the job that submits the lowest bid.

But not in New York. Here the Wicks Law requires that the government issue four separate contracts -- individual ones for electric work, for plumbing and for heating-venting-air-conditioning, besides a fourth for a general contractor.

When the law was passed, in an attempt to rein in the influence of corrupt general contractors, it exempted projects worth less than $50,000. That limit has never been raised, even though it takes $2 million now to buy what $50,000 did then.

Studies by the state Budget Division and the state School Boards Association have found that this system adds between 20 percent and 30 percent to the cost of public building in New York, mostly because it's difficult to coordinate a project where lines of authority and responsibility are fuzzy. The extra costs take hundreds of millions of dollars a year out of taxpayer pockets.

For years local governments and school boards have tried to get the Legislature to change the law, but to no avail. Subcontractors who prefer to work off their own contracts (and not get squeezed by general contractors to save money) and the skilled workers they employ oppose the idea. They have lobbyists and provide campaign contributions. So reform efforts have died.

The editorial also notes that the likely Democratic candidate for Governor, state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, has steadfastly declined to say where he stands on repeal of the Wicks Law.

"There are decisions that you make about policy shifts that do not and should not be announced immediately because it will have an impact upon the ability to effectuate policy shifts that you need," Spitzer said -- moments after accepting the endorsement of the state AFL-CIO, which doesn't want Wicks changed.

The Legislature's lack of action stumps a lot of people, including Michael Lynch, director of facilities of the White Plains School District, where Wicks-related disputes drove up the cost of building an addition to the high school a few years ago.

"How can there be something so many people don't want and they just don't change it?" he asked, speaking of the Legislature. "I don't understand that."

Carol DeMare of the Albany Times Union reports that that gasoline prices are fluctuating from day to day and from one gas station to the next, even though the state and many counties have capped their gasoline taxes. Why's that a surprise? Gasoline prices often wax and wane around warm-weather holidays, when increased travel prompts increased demand for gasoline. It seems likely that prices would have increased even more without the caps on gasoline taxes. It's folly to ignore economic reality and suggest that fluctuations in costs around a long weekend somehow show that the tax reduction didn't produce the expected effect. And: Here's a similar editorial from the Troy Record.

. . . why are Democrats in the County Legislature stalling a state-funded local program to have an expert come in to put a stop to fraud and abuse in the program?

Consider this: The man who served as the chief investigator of Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York City estimates that fraud accounts for 10 percent of all of the money spent on Medicaid. Statewide, that totals $4 billion in fraud.

James Mahmet also believes that another 20 to 30 percent is spent on medically unnecessary services, which, although not fraud, wastes taxpayers' dollars.

That would bring the total spent unnecessarily each year in New York to $18 billion. It is no wonder the Heartland Institute, based in Chicago, judges New York state's Medicaid problems to the be worst in nation --along with being the largest and most costly.

Medicaid spending today totals some $199 million in Chautauqua County. Of that, provider payments are about $194 million. Working with only that amount, Mahmet's figures predict a savings, potentially, of $58 million a year for the state and county if fraud and unnecessary services and procedures are eliminated.

We repeat, why are our county legislators stalling on setting up a state-funded program to hire an expert to find and stop the wasteful Medicaid spending?

Why are they against finding ways to help local property owners by reducing the cost of Medicaid?

Because this is an initiative from Republican County Executive Greg Edwards.

The Democrats have stalled legislation to get the program under way by amending it to change the name of the position and to give the legislature control over who Edwards puts into the job. One Democrat, Legislator Stephen Keefe of Fredonia, has actually said that because the legislature intends to cut back county government, he will oppose the legislation no matter what.

The Syracuse Post-Standard reports that

Syracuse common councilors may have voted down the legal settlement between developer Robert Congel and the city over the tax breaks at the Carousel Center, but the dispute between them over last week's vote is far from over.

City Auditor Phil LaTessa has asked the city's attorneys to investigate whether the six councilors who voted no had an illegal meeting in the minutes before the June 22 vote. And if there was, LaTessa said he wants to know if that would invalidate the vote.

"I want to make sure all meetings, not just this one, are held in the spirit of the open meetings law," LaTessa said. He said he sent the memo on Thursday.

Corporation Counsel Terri Bright could not be reached late Friday for comment.

Democrat Patrick Hogan, one of the councilors who voted in favor of the settlement, said he, too, is concerned about the possibility that an illegal meeting took place.

"I just saw a closed door. I didn't see anyone going in and out," Hogan said.

But several of the councilors who voted down the settlement agreement said LaTessa, Hogan and the other councilors who supported the deal were just looking for a way to call another vote.

And: In a letter in the Syracuse Post-Standard, city councilors who voted down a deal with would have moved the Destiny project forward explain why.

An editorial in the New York Sun argues that the current debate in New Jersey about how to raise high taxes higher may be a harbinger of things to come if state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is elected Governor.

[Democratic Governor Jon Corzine] is conducting a budget negotiation with the Democratic speaker of the Assembly over which taxes to increase and by how much. Mr. Corzine has proposed an increase in the state sales tax to 7% from 6%, while some Assembly Democrats want to raise income taxes by $356 million by upping rates on those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 a year.

Much the same can be expected of a budget negotiation between Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, and the Assembly speaker in New York, Sheldon Silver, also a Democrat. New Jersey, like New York, is one of the most heavily taxed states in the union, but somehow Mr. Corzine has managed to get himself into a debate about tax increases instead of tax cuts. This after a campaign in which he vowed, "I intend to move our state from the pattern of tax, borrow and spend to a new paradigm of grow, invest, and lead." If Mr. Spitzer's campaign promises on taxes are as reliable as Mr. Corzine's, New Yorkers can look forward to more tax pain if Mr. Spitzer takes office. . . .

In an essay on the huge burden of property taxes on Long Island, Newsday columnist Ray Keating addresses an important tax-policy issue with statewide implications: the misguided notion that New York's tax problems can be eased by relying less on the property tax and more on income taxes.

Nassau County Assessor Harvey Levinson, a Democrat, likes the idea of replacing residential school property taxes with a county income tax. The Suffolk County Legislature's Homeowners Tax Reform Commission is holding meetings to find alternative ways to fund public schools, with an income tax receiving major attention. And Newsday reported that, in a visit to Long Island early this year, Eliot Spitzer, state attorney general and Democratic frontrunner for governor, declared: "What we have to do over time is shift from a property tax foundation to an income tax foundation."

But anyone with a scintilla of economic common sense understands that an income tax would only make matters worse. Income taxes not only serve as high-octane fuel for government growth, but also directly raise the costs of working, investing and entrepreneurship, which drive our economy forward.

How high would income tax rates rise to replace Long Island's residential school property tax? Budget guru E.J. McMahon, who heads the Empire Center for New York State Policy, estimates that Suffolk County residents would see the current top state income tax rate of nearly 7 percent double, while Nassau residents could expect a 76-percent jump.

Long Islanders would shift from some of the highest property taxes in the nation to the highest income taxes. Investment, entrepreneurs, businesses, jobs and workers would flee.

Some tax revolt. Most likely, taxpayers would wind up paying local income and property taxes, with both poised to rise because no one wants to deal seriously with the real issue - out-of-control spending, especially by public schools.

Tom Precious of the Buffalo News reports that 2006 has proven to be an unusually good year for labor unions in Albany, even when the state's infamously union-friendly standards are considered: Albany gave unions about $1 billion in election-year presents.

Organized labor in New York will remember June 2006 as the month they ruled the State Capitol.

Unions long have enjoyed great friends in the State Legislature. But nothing can compare to the victories they won during the final weeks of this year's session, according to government officials, lobbyists and representatives of school boards and local governments.

The election-bound state legislators unleashed more than $1 billion worth of benefits to unions, which provide the most reliable source of cash and field-operation assistance during political campaigns.

In addition, the unions were handed broad, new powers to use in contract talks with local governments and school districts across the state. These advantages will end up costing local taxpayers for years to come, the school and government experts say.

"It really is a breathtaking list of union giveaways, with zero action to reduce taxpayer costs," Robert Ward of the Business Council of New York said of the more than 100 union-backed bills that passed both the Senate and Assembly.

The bills may be perfect timing for Gov. George E. Pataki. After cozy relations with labor, Pataki now has a chance to look tough on unions - as he burnishes his conservative credentials for a national audience - by vetoing some bills. Aides said he was still studying the newly passed legislation.

Most of this legislation benefits public service unions, and several measures were seen as weapons for negotiations and union organizing.

One bill forces into effect the last wage offer a union makes - presumably more generous to workers - if a government employer negotiates in bad faith. Critics say that legislation will only encourage protracted contract talks.

Another measure gives every worker in a union a 1 percent raise if, during contract talks, the government employer refuses to talk in good faith. No such penalty exists for the unions. The immediate costs to taxpayers total $300 million, according to fiscal notes, memos and interviews with lawmakers, staff members and lobbyists. Much of that is just the first-year costs. And that number does not include dozens of bills for which lawmakers assigned no costs or the added union protections to the state's Taylor Law that carry potentially huge costs for governments down the road.

The numbers grow. Add in what even state officials say is the true, long-term cost of one bill - boosting pay for certain workers at not-for-profit agencies - and the price tag leaps to $1.1 billion.

The story notes that state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was generally coy on how he'd react to the bills if he were Governor.

Spitzer, endorsed by the AFL-CIO last week, declined to say whether he would veto any of the more than 100 measures if he were governor. Pressed on the issue, the only bill he criticized was one to permit more than 50,000 day care workers at private agencies to join state worker unions.

There's much, much more. More criticism of Albany's union giveway bills: A brief editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle criticizes one of the union giveaway bills, which would give unions an advantage in negotiations if they think management is "stalling."

Critics say that these pieces of legislation, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Robach, R-Greece, will cost taxpayers "hundreds of millions of dollars." Mayors and school board members from around the state are being urged to write to the governor telling him to veto the two bills.

Unions scramble to defend their gifts from Albany. For example, there's a letter in the Albany Times Union, defending the state Legislature's attempt to create 52,000 new state workers. The author is one of the Legislature's intended beneficiaries. And the head of the state's powerful teachers' union writes to the Albany Times Union to defend the state's infamously union-friendly Taylor Law, arguing with a straight face that it benefits school boards more than teachers' unions. A more realistic picture of the law is available here. Here's another union guy's letter in which he suggests that the Taylor Law is so awful for unions that he'd rather give up its protections. We doubt most labor leaders really want to give back the protections of the Taylor Law. But: Aother letter in the Buffalo News offers a different perspective on public-employee unions.

. . . . How sad and revealing it is to know that many of the legislators do not think for themselves but simply take union money to stay in power and then pass resolutions and laws that drive businesses and private jobs out of Western New York, just as has been done for decades.

What is apparently not recognized by a majority of the Legislature Democrats is that New York state and Erie County have created an atmosphere where private business is suffocated. Politicians back their campaign trucks up to the large war chests of politically powerful and influential unions, create vast blocs of votes for themselves by adding to the public sector work force and force the rest of us to either suffer through some of the highest taxes in the country, or to leave our homes for a better economic future elsewhere.

How union influence can stultify growth: A case study. The Buffalo News reports on the lingering negative effects of an oppressive labor environment in Niagara County years after reforms were enacted to address the problem.

From a law enforcement standpoint, the federal crackdown on labor racketeering in Niagara Falls seems to be a success.

Laborers Local 91 no longer beats, vandalizes or makes death threats to settle scores with rivals, according to police and construction officials.

But so far, the crackdown has not sparked a major resurgence of development in struggling Niagara County. Some new projects have started, but developers are not stampeding to build in the county.

The casino-related projects of the Seneca Nation have flourished. The Senecas used union labor for their projects and reported no problems. But there has been little spinoff development near the Seneca Niagara Casino.

Some contractors - mostly those who hire non-union workers - say they are still reluctant to work in Niagara County, largely because of past incidents of intimidation involving Local 91.

"We are seeing more developers who are willing to at least look at doing projects here," said Thom Kraus, president of the Niagara USA Chamber of Commerce. "But there are still some hangover effects from labor problems in the past."

"The crackdown was needed, and I applaud the federal government for doing it, but it should have happened 20 or 30 years earlier," said Ted Van Deusen, a longtime construction manager who lives in Niagara County but works in Erie County. "Because of problems they've had in the past, a lot of contractors and developers still stay away from Niagara County."

Over the past decade, Van Deusen has been one of the most vocal critics of Local 91. He said he worked in the 1980s for a non-union construction company that left Western New York because of the local's strong-arm tactics. After he began speaking out publicly against the union, Van Deusen bought a $1 million life insurance policy "for the financial protection of my wife and children."

There's more. More outrage: From an essay in the Amherst Times of western New York:

In a disgraceful attempt to secure re-election, Albany has handed out gobs of money it doesn't have to homeowners ? in a one-shot deal, went further in debt by passing out billions to state cities, municipalities and school districts to lower their tax liabilities, and now will hand out $1 billion in giveaways to public sector unions and propose measures that will strengthen their bargaining powers.

Whereas the general public and business were looking for real tax relief, Albany has opted to support organized public service workers with passage of costly negotiation, job and retirement gains.

Albany just pulled the trigger of the gun they have held to taxpayer and business heads in adding to the $60 billion state debt in support of spending money for services we cannot afford. They have once again refused to act ethically and/or aptly in the best interest of New York State residents.

Just this past Thursday, political columnist Brian Ackley wrote about the futility of the City of Buffalo's financial control to get Albany to understand the merits of making changes to the Taylor Law and other policies that critics say hurt the communities.

Ackley stated: ?It is clear there is no repair possible. So at this point, there is only one thing left to do. Give the unions all they want. Give it all to them, and then some. There's no sense in further fighting the organization which as we all know, but are afraid to admit, holds all the power.?

Ackley facetiously suggested the unions be given 2, 20, 200 seats on the control board. ?Whatever they want,? declares Ackley. ?In the last 15 years, we have lost the equivalent of the entire population of Lancaster. In the last 5 years, more than 22,000 people have left the area. With the unions in control, surely we could at least double that number in the second half of the decade.?

It's worth noting that the author appears generally favorably disposed to unions.

Albany has once again acted to appease the unions because their support is magnified threefold. It has been estimated and reported that each union member influences three votes. Union influence is further entrenched by their campaign contributions to politicos supporting their agendas ? regardless of political party affiliation.

There is no question that there is a need for organized labor in America to ward off exploitation by corporate America and to assure living wages and a safe working environment. I support their position on attempting to organize labor in such anti-union entities like Wal-Mart and to make such companies of size and profitability pay $3 per hour toward insurance policies to stop them from encouraging their workers to take advantage of state entitlements at taxpayer expense.

However, the New York State public unions and their Albany cronies have gone too far and will alienate taxpayers who have experienced personal economic declines and are expected to pay for more lucrative union contracts.

Are unions throwing their weight around again? A reader commenting on this New York Times blog entry suggests that Democrat Joe Morelle, a long-time member of the Assembly representing parts of the Rochester region, may have lost the endorsement of the union-driven Working Families Party. Remember, unions unleashed a volley of attack ads on Morelle and state Sen. James Alesi (R-Monroe County) after they sponsored a bill to reform workers' compensation and the state's infamous Scaffold Law. That prompted a regional business group to respond with its own radio advertisements defending the legislators and their reform ideas. We took note of all this here and here and here. Another Assemblyman voices supports on workers' compensation reform: In an essay in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, a member of the state Assembly voices support for Morelle, Alesi, and workers' comp reform.

As chairman of the Statewide Task Force on Manufacturing, this issue is one of the top three issues citied by manufacturers and small businesses across our state that needs to be addressed by state government.

Currently, New York ranks first in the country as the highest cost for workers' compensation coverage as well as one of the lowest in weekly benefit payments to injured workers.

For the AFL-CIO to portray state legislators who support changing this system as shills for the insurance industry is disingenuous and is an outright distortion. If anyone wants to know why businesses and jobs are exiting New York, excessive workers' compensation costs are a prime reason. As legislators working to help our economy grow, we are not enemies of organized labor, in fact, the proposed change would increase the weekly benefit for an injured worker by 37 percent.

. . . .

Attacking Senator Alesi and Assemblyman Morelle is absolutely short-sighted and the wrong approach. The thrust should be to assist those who are actually trying to ensure New York state has an environment where businesses can be competitive in the global economy, ultimately creating more jobs for our state.

WalMart Lite? Erik Kriss of the Syracuse Post-Standard writes that

The "Fair Share for Health Care" bill died in the state Legislature this year, but lawmakers approved another measure that Fair Share supporters predict will supply the ammunition they need.

The Fair Share bill would have taxed companies that didn't spend at least $3 per hour on health benefits for each employee.

The bill that will head to Gov. George Pataki requires that workers who apply for government health care or request uncompensated hospital care disclose the name and address of their employer.

The state labor commissioner would be required to identify companies with more than 25 employees receiving public health care and estimate the cost to state taxpayers.

Columnist Carl Strock of the Daily Gazette of Schenectady has a column (for paid subscribers only) on the growth that will come with the new chip-fab facility coming to Saratoga County and the value of that growth.

The stated reason for giving a private company $1.2 billion of public money to build a computer-chip factory in rural Saratoga County is jobs--1,200 of them.

But I think what's really meant is growth, since there are no great numbers of people in Saratoga County desperate for work. Saratoga is not some pocket of depression in upstate New York. On the contrary, the unemployment rate in Saratoga County is already the second-lowest in the state, at 3.3 percent.

In all likelihood, most of the 1,200 people who wind up working at the new factory will come from somewhere else anyway, which as far as I can tell is exactly what our leaders want--more people buying more property, building more houses, pumping more gas, paying more taxes. Growth. That's what this is all about.

I would just like to know where it's supposed to end, that's all.

Does there ever come a time when we say enough? Enough people, enough houses, enough jobs?

I don't see that our leaders, or human beings in general, think that way. Growth is always good. That seems to be the thinking, or the feeling.

Maybe sometime in the remote future, eons from now, there might be enough people and enough gas stations, but that's not something to worry about now.

An editorial in the Syracuse Post-Standard criticizes the tactics of Syracuse Mayor Matt Driscoll for his handling of a recent City Council vote on a deal to let Destiny move forward.

From the start, Driscoll could have involved the elected councilors to a greater degree, listening to concerns and addressing them in negotiations with Pyramid. Instead, he stood center stage May 15 and took credit for reaching a deal with Pyramid developer Bob Congel and Onondaga County Executive Nick Pirro.

Driscoll could have allowed councilors to offer amendments to the settlement, heading off feelings of exclusion and resentment. Instead, he took a defiant take-it-or-leave-it stance.

Driscoll could have done a better job of ensuring before the June 22 vote that he had the support he needed. If there was any doubt about victory, he could have arranged to postpone action. Instead, he was out of town and not available to head off last-minute arm-twisting that may have cost him the vote.

After six councilors voted against his deal, Driscoll could have identified two councilors who might have been tactfully swayed to create a 5-4 majority in favor of the settlement.

Instead, in the wake of that stunning defeat, the mayor plotted with Pirro and Congel to declare the Common Council irrelevant and proceed with an end run around the city's elected representatives. The plot involved holding a sudden and nearly secret meeting of the Syracuse Industrial Development Authority on Wednesday morning. In sending out faxes to a few newsrooms shortly before the meeting, SIDA may have complied with the letter of the law, but it violated the spirit of an open government.

Instead of winning support from the city's elected representatives, the mayor went to SIDA, whose members are appointed by the mayor (until they displease the mayor and must be fired).

Related news: Rick Moriarty and Marnie Eisenstadt report on Mayor Driscoll's responses to the City Council's vote rejecting the Destiny deal.

Matthew Spina of the Buffalo News reports that

. . . . Medicaid, of all programs, is providing a benefit for Erie County's bottom line and taking some pressure off 2007.

It seems that New York's program to cap the cost of Medicaid for its counties has been underestimated. Under a new advisory from the state Health Department, counties are finding they will spend less this year than assumed, said James M. Hartman, Erie County's new budget director.

Erie County's savings might come in around $10 million or more, Hartman said, though a precise figure has yet to be calculated. He told lawmakers of the potential funds when he testified during last week's midyear budget hearings.

Whatever the savings, there will be pressure to spend it on at least a few of the large-scale projects County Executive Joel A. Giambra wants undertaken this year.

. . . .

For years, Giambra blamed the runaway costs of Medicaid for Erie County's sagging financial health. After tax cuts at the start of the decade, he and the Legislature depleted reserves, in part to pay for huge increases in the mandated Medicaid program.

Under pressure from county leaders across New York, the State Legislature and Gov. George E. Pataki agreed that state government, starting in 2006, would ask counties to absorb no more than a 3.5 percent increase for Medicaid.

Giambra is saying that Erie County is out of the woods, its finances on better footing than they were in 2004 and 2005. Of course, the sales tax was raised from 8 to 8.75 cents on the dollar, property taxes went up around 25 percent over the past two years, and tobacco-settlement proceeds were refinanced to provide a one-time cash infusion.

Rochester commentator Michael Caputo joins the chorus of commentators urging legislative redistricting reform in Albany. Caputo argues that there's little hope that legislators will champion change, so the impetus for reform must come from the campaign for Governor.

There is no reason to expect that this issue will get traction in any of the elections for the 212 legislative seats up for grabs. We know a devil's pact has been reached by Republicans who lead the Senate and Democrats in control of the Assembly to carve up the state so that the party in power stays in power.

. . . .

Reformers want the district line drawing to be removed from the grasp of legislators who make the maps for their own benefit and, instead, given to an independent, non-partisan commission. The best place for that change to occur appears to be the governor's mansion.

Any new redistricting plan must get the approval of the governor. The district maps are submitted like a bill, which needs the governor's signature.

And it's during this election year - with an incumbent leaving - that the gubernatorial candidates could loudly proclaim they will force some change in the redistricting process.

What if the next governor were to demand that the next redistricting session be done by a non-partisan group, not the lawmakers? What if the gubernatorial candidates said that anything short a map produced by an independent commission would be vetoed? (Sure the state lawmakers could try to override a veto, but with a slim majority in the Senate, it would be unlikely - Horner said - that the house could secure the necessary two-thirds majority).

Now would be the time to put Eliot Spitzer, John Faso and Tom Suozzi on the spot. Voters who want to see real election reform could push the issue with the candidates.

An editorial in Newsday argues that the two Democratic candidates for Governor, front-runner Eliot Spitzer and longshot Tom Suozzi, should engage in more debates, in part because the expanded dialogue would shed needed light on Upstate's economic travails.

One Democratic gubernatorial debate, in New York City, isn't enough. As long as there's an official primary with credible candidates, Eliot Spitzer and Thomas Suozzi should meet at least three times before the Sept. 12 vote. Encounters should take place upstate and on suburban Long Island.

. . . . State Democratic leaders, who wish Suozzi would go away, should be eager to reach out to voters beyond the party's base in Manhattan to where it isn't as strong - upstate and in suburbia.

People who live north and west of the Tappan Zee bridge face extraordinary - and for this state, unique - economic problems. The more prosperous suburbs east and north of the city have their own issues that deserve airing. Let's hear Spitzer and Suozzi - one on one - all over the state.

A proposal to make a bad law worse: A letter in the Buffalo News decries Albany's latest efforts to make the union-friendly Taylor Law even union-friendlier and, in the process, drive high taxes higher. The letter endorses and expands on criticisms of the bill that had previously been raised in a Buffalo News editorial.

While the editorial focused on how the state and its taxpayers will be further handcuffed by the amendments to this law, it failed to mention that local school districts will also bear the brunt of this legislation. And the public is too aware there is one place to defray the cost: through local property taxes.

How, you ask? Well, Albany lawmakers thought it best to alter the law to make it more difficult for boards of education, and other public employers, to negotiate more cost-effective labor contracts.

Lawmakers acted as if public employees, such as school teachers, are underpaid and being taken advantage of in contract negotiations. Currently, teachers in New York State earn an average of $53,000.

Each May when school budgets go before voters for approval, the question is asked: How can school taxes rise despite significant increases in state aid to education? The answer is that a steady trickle of state mandates has undermined public employers' ability to control their own costs.

In Monroe County, business objects to a proposed tax increase. Joe Spector of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports that

Monroe County's plan to raise the sales tax is an "easy way out for local governments by creating pain for taxpayers," according to the Rochester Business Alliance.

In a memo sent to its 3,000 members, the business group said that County Executive Maggie Brooks and Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy have agreed to meet with business leaders July 14 to "map out a plan for implementing cost cuts in place of tax increases."

But Brooks is balking at the invitation, and the Republican may find herself butting heads with some of her strongest supporters over the issue.

Spokesman Larry Staub said Brooks plans to "move full steam ahead" with her sales tax plan and thought that next week's meeting was to discuss ways to possibly consolidate government services, not to find alternatives to her plan.

"We're astonished that a letter like this was so out of whack from what the county executive agreed to sit down and discuss," said Staub, who added that Brooks won't attend if the meeting's purpose is to seek alternatives to her proposal.

But the business alliance argues that the county should reduce the cost of government, not raise taxes.

"Raising the sales tax will put a squeeze on Monroe County stores, restaurants and other small businesses that compete for retail sales," said the memo written by alliance chief executive Sandy Parker, a copy of which was obtained by the Democrat and Chronicle.

. . . .

The business alliance said there should be a solution that doesn't include any tax increase, citing how New York has the highest combined local and state tax burden in the country.

More on gasoline taxes and fluctuations in gasoline prices: An editorial in the Albany Times Union repeats the unconvincing suggestion that recent caps on state and (some) local gasoline taxes should somehow have created permanent reductions in gasoline costs. Our argument that this is an unrealistic expectation of any market is here. In Tompkins County: The Ithaca Journal reports that the Tompkins County Legislature is looking for ways to close a budget gap with spending cuts in addition to tax increases.

The Tompkins County Legislature passed a resolution Wednesday that would force county departments to make up a $1 million gap between what the 2007 budget would look like if the county hits its budget goals and what the early revenue projections are for next year.

In May, the Legislature set a goal of having a tax levy increase for 2007 at 2.8 percent with no tax rate increase.

To hit those budget goals, the $1 million gap could be partially closed by having departments collectively absorb $330,000 in increased fringe benefits costs and receive $330,000 in unexpected revenue or reimbursements from the state.

The final third would materialize by having the county collectively eliminate $330,000 in expenses, said Michael Koplinka-Loehr, D-Town of Ithaca and chairman of the Legislature's Budget and Capital Committee. The expenses could be eliminated by cutting a program or changing the way departments conduct business to keep costs down.

In Broome County: An editorial in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin comments on the latest flap over how taxpayer dollars are being spent in the village of Endictt. An argument that both major political parties are to blame for New York's fiscal problems: From a letter in the Daily Gazette of Schenectady (for paid subscribers only):

. . . . Both parties have made re-election the sole goal, and the concerns and true problems in this state be damned.

They bloviate and tell us how fortunate we are to have such great leadership, while we suffer with exploding taxes and population migration. Talk about arrogance! Give everything to the public unions, and strangle the small business community and individual taxpayer. The actions of our current leadership provide the taxpayers with reasons to consider term limits.

In a column for the Lockport Union Sun and Journal that is available here, Bob Confer objects to the state elected officials' spending on pork-barrel projects and crowing about it to voters in election season.

Albany's politicians are no better at managing our money. Their budget for 2006

An editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle argues that New Jersey's well-documented fiscal troubles may make for interesting copy, but they pale in comparison to New York State's long-term fiscal mismanagement.

At issue is whether to increase the state's sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent as [New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine] proposes, or jack up already high property taxes. As a result of the impasse, the state has furloughed its 45,000 employees, and its lucrative gambling industry has been shut down at a cost to the state of more than $3 million a day.

All of this was triggered by a $4.5 billion shortfall in Corzine's $31 billion proposed budget. In contrast, New York's Medicaid budget alone is $45 billion.

New Jersey's predicament pales somewhat when it's considered that New York state lawmakers two weeks ago signed off on a record $113 billion state budget that represented a 10 percent increase over 2005 spending. And get this: During the final days alone of the session, lawmakers added $1 billion in spending.

At the current rate, spending in New York is projected to grow by at least 10 percent in each of the next two years, says the Empire Center for New York State Policy.

New Yorkers should keep all of this in mind in the fall as they cash rebate checks averaging $300. The budget crisis that New Jersey's experiencing is on its way.

And: The New York Post also has an editorial on New Jersey's political and fiscal crisis.

An email correspondent who identified himself as "a stealth Upstater" called our attention to this editorial in the Daily News on Albany's recent actions to throw a roadblock in front of a proposed Upstate-to Downstate powerline.

The metropolitan area needs more juice, but we can't tap into upstate's surplus power because of bottlenecks in the grid. Now a company is seeking the okay of the Public Service Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to build a $1.6 billion transmission line from Utica to Orange County, where Con Ed could tap into power.

Although the line would mostly follow railroad corridors, 200 miles' worth of voters are up in arms, charging that transmission towers would spoil views and crimp property values. So, just before adjourning, the Assembly and Senate voted overwhelmingly, without a single hearing, to bar the New York Regional Interconnect from using eminent domain as it buys land along 10% of its planned route.

The Legislature is not the place to decide this type of issue, particularly in such a stealthy way. The proper forums are the PSC and FERC. Moreover, the measure is probably unconstitutional, since it zaps only one company. And attempting to short-circuit the regulatory process sends a damaging signal to anyone thinking about investing in New York's power grid: No matter how many regulatory hoops you jump through, we still might cut you off at the knees on a moment's notice. Think about it next time the lights go out.

Well, it may be that the PSC and FERC are the right forums in which this sort of issue should be debated. But we'd like to suggest that our friends and neighbors Downstate think about something else "the next time the lights go out": their region's longstanding resistance to siting just about any generating plants or transmission infrastructure that would enable Downstate to do a better job meeting its own electricity needs. And: The Utica Observer-Dispatch reports that

The Herkimer County Legislature agreed Wednesday to commit $10,000 to pay for costs incurred in opposing the construction of the proposed New York Regional Interconnection power line.

The money will be paid to the New York State Association of Counties, which is coordinating efforts against the power line.

And: The Middletown Times Herald-Record reports on a series of rallies in the region staged by opponents of the proposed powerline.

Even though a live band played in the background, 200 people ate brownies, slipped slushes and chatted as the sun slowly dipped behind the tall trees last night.

This was one of many rallies around the region targeted at stopping the New York Regional Interconnect power line.

The crowd gathered in the parking lot of N.A. Hamilton Bicentennial Elementary School to speak out against a power line that, if approved, would stretch from Utica to New Windsor.

Deerpark town officials believe that plans have the 1,200 megawatt power line running parallel to the elementary school, located on Route 209.

Town Supervisor Mark House said he has seen no alternate plan to this.

"It is in the opinion of the Town Board that it's foolish to grant a private concern the same rights as a public or government entity."

The rally was held by The Committee to Stop the Power Lines and the Town of Deerpark. The committee, started last month by a group of fired-up volunteers from Otisville, wants Deerpark residents to join the fight.

There's more.

Annemarie Franczyk of Business First of Buffalo reports that Albany is so far showing little interest in a bill designed to enact cost-cutting workers' comp reforms, increase maximum weekly benefits available to injured workers, and repeal the state's notorious Scaffold Law.

For employers and others anticipating reform of New York's workers' compensation system and the so-called scaffold law, the wait likely will stretch well past January when the new governor takes office.

At mid-year - the end of the state legislative session before summer break - there was some activity but not enough to force changes in the two areas of coverage which have saddled New York's employers with burdensome costs and forced some out of business or out of the state. A hot button is the proposed 10-year cap on payments to people with permanent partial disabilities. Currently, payments go on indefinitely at significant cost.

Workers' comp was last revised in the mid-1990s, while the scaffold law remains much as it was when it was created more than a century ago.

. . . .

Sections 240 and 241 of the state's Labor Law, known as the scaffold law, makes owners, contractors and subcontractors liable for work-site injuries. The law was passed in the late 1800s, primarily to protect immigrant workers building skyscrapers in Manhattan. Plaintiffs' attorneys support it for the protections it extends to workers of unscrupulous employers. But critics say the law's absolute liability - the employer takes the blame even if it was the worker who was at fault - is prompting high insurance prices and lost jobs.

Reform bills were submitted late in the session in the Senate and Assembly that caught some hopeful attention from the Buffalo Niagara Partnership and other business organizations across the state that formed Unshackle New York to push for key reforms. It combined the key elements of the governor's workers' comp reform bill, including a tiered system of permanent partial disabilities of 250 weeks to 500 weeks, with a major change to the scaffold law. Under these proposals, a worker's behavior, such as whether he was impaired or ignored safety training, would be taken into consideration.

Business organizations such as chambers in Amherst and Chautauqua County and the Partnership are supporting the reforms through the Unshackle New York program. Calling themselves lead advocates on the issues, the business groups pushed for the introduction of legislation this year to invigorate both the summer election season and the Legislature's fall agenda. Like the National Federation of Independent Business, they are rallying support for the proposal among members though there is recognition that reform may be put aside until Pataki's successor takes office in January.

The Business Council of New York State Inc. and the New York Workers' Compensation Action Network also are backing reforms, particularly the cap on permanent partial disabilities at 10 years. Unlike New York's current practice, 41 other states cut off benefits for such injuries at some point. The Business Council contends that partial permanent disability benefits account for fewer than 20 percent of all workers' comp claims in New York, but amount to 80 percent of the benefits.

. . . .

Business Council spokesman Matthew McGuire said the business community is disappointed with reform efforts so far, and echoed beliefs that the issue might be waiting for a new administration..

"There's been a flurry of activity beyond the Beltway as employer groups and employers make a case for reform. The deafening silence on the issue suggests the legislature isn't interested or doesn't care," McGuire said. "We're disillusioned."

Meanwhile, costs will continue to rise. The New York State Insurance Department held a public hearing June 28 to consider a workers' compensation insurance increase of 7.5 percent. The effective date of the proposed increase is Oct. 1.

He blames unions. We received an e-mail the other day from an ex-New Yorker who stumbled upon our blog while Web surfing and was moved to send us a long and thoughtful e-mail explaining his decision to leave Upstate New York 21 years ago and his complete lack of regret about that decision. We'll let the note speak for itself.

By a circuitous bit of web surfing, I arrived at your blog -- "UpstateBlog.net" and had a good ol' time reading about the plight of upstate New York.

It is just about what I expected when I fled New York State for the west coast 21 years ago.

New York, as a state, is infected with old-time union hack mentality. Until and unless you change this, nothing else you propose to change is going to matter. Look at the highest growth (business growth) states. What do they have in common?

Why, they're all "Right To Work" states. Nowhere in your proposals do I see someone willing to take this most central issue on with a fury: the idiotic union/collective bargaining laws in NY State are really what are preventing job growth in that state. What employer of manufacturing employees, given a choice between states in the south/west that are right to work, and New York State (and the rest of New England) would choose a unionized state?

Not many. There would have to be some overriding issue, like being able to recruit kids straight out of colleges like RPI, Clarkson, RIT, SUNY, et al for a technical company, that would induce someone to locate in New York State.

Then there is the issue of the New York State mentality of government at every level wants to regulate and legislate everything in your life. The intrusion of state and local government into almost every aspect of a person's life in New York and the northeast is absurd.

Little wonder that young people in New York State, who now have unprecedented communication with other young people all over the country and the world, can discover for themselves what a wonderful world of opportunity is outside the borders of New York State. There's little reason to believe that young people won't continue to leave. The changes New York would have to make are so vast and anger so many entrenched interest groups (like unions) that there is no chance of anything changing soon.

For myself, I made this determination in 1985. After four years of [engineering school], then one+ year of employment in Rochester, I left New York State for greener pastures in California. It was hardly a difficult decision to make. In almost every aspect of my career, (electrical/computer engineering) the "new stuff" was happening either on the west coast or in the 128/495 area west of Boston. Any way you looked at it, the future was not in New York State, it was elsewhere.

Now, thanks to California being infected with more and more of the same brand of stupidity that has crushed the future of New York, 10 years ago I left California for Nevada. Both California and New York could learn a thing or two about taxation, attracting business and people from Nevada. Here's a clue: we have no income tax. Period. I run a small business. My business tax (per year) is $100. I have to pay 6.5% sales tax and some relatively high fuel taxes. But I pay those taxes according to how much I "use" -- ie, I'm taxed in congruence with how much I buy and how much I use the roads. Our property taxes are low. How do we manage it?

Well, we resist stupid bureaucracy everywhere in the state. When some recent transplant from California or New York State says "well, back in CA/NY, we had XYZ -- we should have that here" -- there are enough people in Nevada who stand up on their hind legs and shout "You liked that bureaucracy? Then go *back* to where you come from!" And that's usually the end of that. And we're a right-to-work state. Unions are despised here, as they should be everywhere. Unions are nothing more or less than institutionalized mediocrity.

And so I left Upstate New York, never to return. It wasn't the climate (I rather like it outside when it's 0 degrees), it wasn't the workers' compensation or anything like that. It was the idiotic, stifling existence of unions, how they corrupted and confounded progress in business, the intrusive government and the acceptance of this condition by the majority of New York State voters that caused me to leave.

About the only thing I miss about Upstate New York is the fall colors in the Adirondacks. Other than that, there is nothing I miss about New York.

Upstate is doomed. Get used to the idea. You don't have the political power in upstate to take on Albany and effect real change. So my recommendation is to look around at other states and figure out where you want to move to.

We confess we're not nearly as pessimistic about life in Upstate New York or even New York State's prospects for the changes in policy, politics, and mindset that our correspondent suggests are overdue. And we've got no plans to leave the state. Nonetheless, that's a compelling letter, and we thank the gentleman for sending it. We hope policymakers and elected officials see it.

It's no real secret that unions and union-driven politicians and political parties have been behind efforts to strong-arm Albany into imposing a draconian new health insurance mandate and tax on employers. Nonetheless, we'd like to share with you an especially clear and thorough explanation of unions' motivation in pushing these health insurance mandates and health insurance taxes. The thesis of the piece is that unions have generally failed to organize WalMart and other large employers, so they've begun asking state legislature to enact statutes to give them the cushy benefits that are no longer able to win, fair and square, at the bargaining table.

Oganized labor isn't what it used to be. Once it represented more than a third of the private-sector workforce, but now it "fights for" fewer than one in 12 workers. The costly pension and health care plans that were once the boast of Big Labor increasingly are a thing of the past, having dragged down many companies that agreed to them. And more and more individual workers now tailor innovative benefit plans to their own personal needs. Union collective bargaining rules only get in their way.

Worst of all, from the union point of view, workers no longer line up to be organized, their signed card-checks eagerly in hand. This especially frustrates union organizers when there are such large prizes as Wal-Mart filled with lower-paid nonunion workers. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) have tried for years to pressure Wal-Mart to agree to unionize--all for naught. Union "Wal-Mart Watch" and "Wake Up Wal- Mart" campaigns have gone nowhere. Perhaps that's because the union anti- Wal-Mart campaigns employ Marxist class warfare rhetoric, a hallmark of union corporate campaigns for decades. . . .

. . . .

But lately unions have begun to try a different tack, one that has actually borne fruit. Dubbed the "Wal-Mart Bill" strategy, it involves getting state legislatures to pass bills requiring companies that exceed a certain employee-size to spend a percentage of their payroll costs on health care. If an employer does not comply, it must pay the difference to the state's Medicaid fund. Usually the minimum size for the employer defined in the proposed legislation turns out to be not much smaller than Wal-Mart, which just happens to be the largest single employer in many states.

Maryland is labor's first test state for this legislative strategy. What's called the "Fair Share Act" requires that any employer in Maryland with at least 10,000 employees must spend at least eight percent of its payroll costs on health care. Now there are only four employers in Maryland with at least 10,000 employees, and the anti-Wal-Mart legislators have tailored the law so that Wal-Mart is the only private employer to come under its provisions. Wal-Mart insists that it already spends about eight percent of payroll on health care, but the unions and their supporters say the law applies to it. The "Fair Share Act" is a foot in the door that has been closed to union demands for many years.

The "Wal-Mart Bill" has almost nothing to do with covering the uninsured in Maryland. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a majority (55 percent) of uninsured Americans work for small employers with ten or fewer workers. In Maryland, fewer than one-half of one percent of the state's 786,000 uninsured residents work for Wal-Mart. The argument that uninsured Wal-Mart employees are crowding onto the public health dole is as absurd as the claim that the law will save Maryland taxpayers great sums of money that go into Medicaid spending. Both are red herrings.

What the legislative strategy really accomplishes is to give pro-union legislators a "free" vote. They get to poke big, bad Wal-Mart in the eye, appease labor lobbyists, and keep union cash and election- day volunteers rolling into their campaigns. Wal-Mart is unlikely to be financially damaged to any serious extent, but its public image will be tarnished. More importantly, Wal-Mart workers may conclude that they are not getting a fair shake from their employer, making it easier for the unions to organize individual Wal- Mart stores. . . .

The story notes that especially draconian versions of the WalMart bill--that is, bills that would impose high taxes and health insurance costs on employers and come with low employee-count thresholds--are really designed to promote unions' broader objective, universal taxpayer-funded health care. The story also notes that, as a rule,

These campaigns against Wal-Mart are not working. Except in Maryland and possibly one or two more states, the union campaigns appear to have stalled. Not one U.S. Wal-Mart store has been organized by a union--ever. As Wal-Mart puts it, unions "may be right for some companies, but there is simply no need for a third party to come between our associates and their managers."

The piece also notes that the unions and their anti-WalMart bills are fighting the tide of a major change in how health insurance is delivered and paid for.

The anti-Wal-Mart bills ignore the enormous transformation taking place in the health care system today. The post-World War II paradigm of large, industrial employers providing one-size-fits all, zero-dollar deductible, no-cost health insurance coverage is dead. What is slowly but steadily replacing it is a more flexible and portable system that can be tailored to the individual. Inevitably, this will require more employee cost-sharing of premiums and higher deductibles or co-pays.

The fastest-growing manifestation of this new health care paradigm is health savings accounts (HSAs). They combine a high-deductible, catastrophic health insurance plan with a tax-advantaged savings account to pay for routine medical costs. These "defined contribution" health care plans are growing rapidly in popularity. According to America's Health Insurance Plans, there are now more than 3 million Americans covered by an HSA-qualified health plan. Hewitt Associates, an employer benefits consulting firm, reports that a majority of large employers are planning on offering HSAs in the near future.

In the future, it's likely that the relation between where you work and your health insurance will not be any stronger than the relation between where you work and your car insurance. Both will be purchased on the open market, portable and reserved for catastrophic events. All routine spending (checkups, oil changes, physicals) can be handled on a cash basis with full price transparency.

There's much more, and the whole thing is recommended reading. Meanwhile: A new poll confirms that these union efforts are doing little to diminish the public's opinion of WalMart.

A new study released Thursday (6/29) found that most Americans like Wal-Mart and almost 80 percent of its employees do too. The study was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, an independent research firm based in Asbury Park, N.J. with no association to Wal-Mart or its critics.

The numbers fly in the face of United Food and Commercial Worker (UFCW) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) front groups like Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch that, embittered by Wal-Mart's success, make a living trying to turn America against the country's most popular retailer.

"It will be tough for the Wal-Nuts over at Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch to continue their tirades against the company's treatment of their associates when nearly 80% of those employees like their employer," said Center for Union Facts Executive Director Rick Berman. "These numbers expose just how out of touch union leaders are with public opinion."

Interestingly, 70 percent of the public -- including much of the unionized public -- view Wal-Mart favorably. A December 2005 poll from the independent Pew Research Center found that, "Despite strong criticism of the retail giant by labor unions, there is no significant difference between union and non-union members in their propensity to shop at Wal-Mart." Also, according to a poll published by Working Families for Wal-Mart, 63 percent of union members believe the store is good for consumers. "Despite all the shouting by the Wal-Nuts, it shouldn't come as any surprise that Wal-Mart employees view their employer favorably," continued Berman. "In January, a Chicago Wal-Mart received 25,000 applications for 325 jobs, and that sort of thing happens frequently when a new Wal-Mart opens. When was the last time the UFCW, the union group that is trying and failing to unionize Wal-Mart, had 25,000 people show up all at once to become part of their union?"

In an oped in the New York Post (which, for no good reason, we missed yesterday), the redoubtable E.J. McMahon Jr. of the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center documents Albany's continuing efforts to increased already high state-government spending. The piece makes interesting comparisons to growth in spending in the Pataki years compared to the Cuomo years.

In a budget "cleanup bill" they adopted before adjourning two weeks ago, state legislators effectively plunked about $1 billion worth of rum-soaked cherries on what was already a massive New York-style cheesecake of fiscal excess.

Excluding federal aid - but including bonded capital projects that the Legislature insisted on shifting "off budget" - state spending in the current fiscal year is now on track to reach $80 billion.

As the chart shows, this portion of the state budget - financed solely by taxes, fees and borrowing controlled in Albany - will be up 40 percent in George Pataki's final four-year term as governor. The 2006-07 state-funds growth rate of 15 percent will be larger than any comparable spending hike adopted under Mario Cuomo. And the budget is on track to grow by at least 10 percent more in the first two years of the next governor's term.

Pataki surely will be blamed by his successor for the coming hangover, but the costly wrap-up to his 12-year tenure isn't all the fault of the lame-duck governor. In April, he vetoed $2.1 billion in line-item additions to his budget proposal, which had called for a generous 7 percent spending hike.

But legislators in both parties promptly thumbed their noses at him, restoring $600 million through veto overrides. That left Pataki contesting $1.5 billion in spending on "constitutional" grounds. Then, in the legislative session's final days, Pataki was simply outmaneuvered on one big-ticket issue (state-funded property-tax rebates) and caved on another (Medicaid cost containment).

The result is not a pretty picture for whoever succeeds Pataki.

There's much more, including a prediction that the next Governor, whoever he is, will have not choice but to confront the state's powerful (and, in the current Albany milieu, spoiled) spending interests.

Short of proposing a huge tax hike - which all the gubernatorial candidates are pledged to avoid - the next governor simply can't avoid taking on New York's powerful lobby of health care unions, hospitals and other providers, to whom the Capitol now seems virtually mortgaged. And he simply must find a way to win.

"A crisis is a terrible thing to waste," Eliot Spitzer has observed, referring to the state's looming budget problems. Putting their other differences aside, his Democratic opponent Thomas Suozzi and Republican candidate John Faso would surely agree.

One way or another, the next governor will need to make the most of this mess. Whoever wins the next election should start as Hugh Carey did in 1975 - by declaring "the days of wine and roses are over."

Meanwhile, other states are actually cutting taxes. An editorial in the New York Post observes that, as Albany perpetuates New York State's long-standing tax-and-spend follies, other states are actually taking more fiscally responsible paths.

While the latest performance of Albany lawmakers was breathtakingly destructive on its face, the damage is even worse when compared to fiscal policies in other states.

Rarely inclined to remember - or even to care - that the Empire State must compete economically with 49 other states, New York lawmakers have once again failed to improve the state's attractiveness for taxpaying individuals and businesses.

Little wonder why New York is losing more residents than any other state - and why businesses are fleeing, upstate especially.

Other states are only too happy to woo New Yorkers and New York businesses.

And with 40-plus states awash in surpluses, it's no surprise many are taking machetes to their tax rates.

As reported recently by The Wall Street Journal:

* Texas has slashed property taxes 25 percent and eliminated its business tax on capital spending.

* Arizona is lowering income-tax rates 10 percent and suspending its county property tax.

* Oklahoma is cutting its income tax rate 16 percent (from 6.25 percent to 5.25 percent) and killing its death tax.

* Rhode Island, which rivals New York as one of the worst states for taxes, introduced a flat tax that is scheduled to fall to 5.5 percent - far better than its previous rate, 25 percent of a person's total federal liability. And, get this: Democrats created this flat tax.

* Maryland cut property taxes 15 percent.

. . . .

With Albany taking in $2 billion-plus more than it's scheduled to spend this year, it's a shame lawmakers didn't seize the opportunity to improve New York's long-term economic health.

It's shame-ful, actually.

Instead, Albany added more than $7 billion in new spending - in percentage terms, the increase was the largest in decades.

And this from elected "leaders"?

Saboteurs is more like it.

The developer of a proposed wind farm in Cherry Valley is offering discounts on electricity to local residents, the Oneonta Daily Star reports. That inducement would go along with $300,000 a year in payments to local schools and municipalities. Tom Grace's story is here.

A letter from a NYPIRG rep in the Syracuse Post-Standard criticizes Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno for not backing a bill to expand the state's bottle bill. (The letter is the second one down on the page.) But here is why Bruno was right for not backing the bill:

By the sponsors’ own calculation, the effect of this bill is to impose an additional tax of between $50 and $90 million per year on New York State consumers. An expanded bottle bill will take at least an additional $50 million from New York State consumers (using projections included in the sponsor’s memo) and spend that money through the Environmental Protection Fund. Since the impact of this expanded deposit law will be similar to that of a sales tax on food, the impact will disproportionately affect low and middle income taxpayers.

Actually, that's only one of the reasons the bigger bottle bill isn't better. For more, see The Business Council's memo in opposition to the bill.

The dispute continues over a proposed sales-tax intercept in Monroe County. The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle has the latest here.

A proposal to shift Monroe County sales tax revenue to pay for Medicaid was bolstered Thursday by a judge's written ruling, county officials said.

But opponents of the controversial sales tax plan said the written ruling doesn't give the county's position any additional standing.

We hope local officials are spending as much time working on reducing Medicaid costs, as they are on arguing about how to pay for it. Meanwhile: If you're wondering why a county would submit sales tax revenue as a payment for Medicaid, take a look at this paper by the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center.

Two manufacturing executives write to the Buffalo News, in support of local legislators' efforts to maintain low-cost electricity for local employers.

Without the guarantee of having this low-cost power at our disposal, the one and only economic advantage our region has over other regions throughout the country would have been lost. This would have been devastating to the region because, despite the turbulence in the manufacturing sector, it remains the backbone of the local economy.

The full letter, which mentions the roles played by Assemblyman Hoyt and Senator Maziarz, is here.

From a letter in the Buffalo News:

A few years ago, the New York State Department of Transportation proposed building a huge jetport to accommodate supersonic jet planes. Alden-Newstead was again a proposed site because Buffalo Niagara would grow so fast, we would need to accommodate international flights. Remember?

Meanwhile, due to high taxes and so forth, industries, workers and young people have left our area to seek work opportunities outside the state. In June, an article in The News stated about 40 percent of our young people have left or plan to leave.

Most states have a welcoming symbol, such as "The Gateway to the West Arch in Missouri," or Indiana's logo, "The Welcome Mat's Always Out." Does Albany consider a state-of-the-art 17-gate toll booth, with E-ZPass, spanning the I-90 a welcome symbol for the Empire State? If so, it will say to all travelers, "We'll take your money no matter how fast you drive through or leave our state." How sad.

New Jersey's budget debacle this past week makes even New York State's famously dysfunctional Legislature look good, the Plattsburgh Press-Republican says.

New York state has earned the now-infamous title of most dysfunctional government in America. ... Taxpayers are erupting in outspoken indignation at the destiny that state — and, by extension, local — government is presenting to them in the way of high taxes and diminished quality of life.

But just as their voices are rising to a deafening crescendo against state-government inertia, along comes New Jersey to turn down the heat.

That editorial is here. And: The Wall Street Journal weighs in, too. Its editorial (here, for subscribers) includes a table showing that New Jersey ranks 49th in the nation for "business friendliness."

By the way, the 50th state in business friendliness is New York. Is it something in the Hudson River?

The Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin shines the spotlight on individuals and businesses who served their neighbors and loved ones before, during and after last week's flood. That feature is here. Significant areas of Delaware and Chenango counties continue to suffer from flooding damage. Details are here. The state canal system may have sustained $50 million or more in damages, officials say. Cathy Woodruff of the Times Union has that story. One small example of the economic damage from the flooding is here.

A flood-damaged manufacturing company in Montgomery County may be forced to close its doors and lay off its 100 employees, the Schenectady Daily Gazette reports. (Link is for subscribers only.)

"We’re going to lose this business if we don’t get up and running," Cellect President Scott Smith said Thursday as he stood on the water-damaged production floor of the New Street manufacturing facility in St. Johnsville.

It will cost about $3 million just to clean the production area, which he believes will need special environmental remediation, he said.

"There was raw sewage and contaminated water in here," Smith said, pointing to opaque yellow pools of liquid surrounding equipment set in the recessed concrete floor.

The production floor where dozens of employees once mixed batches of plastic foam for baking in high-pressure presses is empty now. Smith said each press costs almost $200,000 with installation.

Much of the company’s inventory of foam blocks, the raw material to make products ranging from wet suits to wheelchair seats, is a sludge-covered mess and now worthless.

Smith said the overall damage estimate is $10 million, and he said it will take at least $500,000 to get a small portion of production running to keep the business going.

"Right now I have no ability to generate cash," Smith said, "This is it, my whole livelihood. My whole life is on the line with this."

In an election that was thisclose, voters in Mexico (the country, not the Oswego County village) elected a president who promises to continue market-based economic reforms. We took note of the election in a commentary on WAMC/Northeast Public Radio.

Millions of Mexicans voted for continuing to modernize and open up their national economy. They seem to have learned something that still eludes many voters in this country. The lesson is that society can't create a better life for working people unless there are good jobs. You won't have good jobs unless you have businesses that are growing and creating a profit. And you'll never have those businesses unless there are people who are willing to invest because they believe they at least have the opportunity to make the system work for them.

...

Around the world, political leaders and voters are starting to understand the benefits of a capitalist economy. They're learning that if we want good jobs and a higher quality of life for average people, we need to encourage economic activity rather than discourage it. Now, if only we could get more of that understanding here in New York State.

The full commentary is here.

The Syracuse Post-Standard reports on the details surrounding a planned biofuel plant in Oswego County.

Up to 450 local construction jobs will sprout alongside a $121 million ethanol plant in Volney as part of a deal reached with unions that lent $3 million in seed capital to the project, union and business officials said Thursday.

Northeast Biofuels on Thursday unveiled a $200 million financing deal to build and operate a portion of the former Miller Brewing Co. plant as the Northeast's first ethanol facility. The president and chief executive officer of Canada-based Permolex, Douglas MacKenzie, said the project should be completed in 13 to 17 months.

Despite huge financing from his Canadian company, the bulk of jobs involving construction and those that pertain to running the completed facility will be filled locally, MacKenzie said.

The Post-Standard also has this sidebar on what local officials had to say about the plant's possible economic impact.

An editorial in the Buffalo News suggests that voters next fall should remember the damaging policy ideas legislators endorsed this summer, especially when incumbents profess to understand the role of government in worsening Upstate's problems.

In a decade when tens of thousands of people leaving upstate became a front-page story, and when Albany's complicity in the great evacuation became even more evident, here is what state lawmakers did: They approved recurring labor-friendly laws worth more than $1.7 billion in taxpayer money, just the kind of pandering that drove upstate into the economic ditch in the first place.

It's the most outrageous display of malfeasance in years, but in the end, lawmakers showed their true colors. Facing re-election this November, lawmakers opened the public till to governmental unions, ensuring labor's considerable help - campaign money, telephone banks and get-out-the-vote drives - in their re-election. They gave taxpayers a bloody lip.

They will deny that, of course, pointing to the token property tax rebate program they approved. That legislation will put a few hundred dollars in taxpayers' pockets, it's true, but it does nothing to attack the root causes of New York's runaway spending habits. Those are, to repeat, laws that hinder business and drive out people who can't find work upstate.

The result: Residents will continue to suffer as the high costs of business, homeownership and just about everything else keep driving out jobs and population. In 1970, New York had 41 House members, but now has 29 and is headed for 27 in 2010 due to population loss. New York's taxpayers face the highest per-capita state and local property tax bills in the nation, while ranking second, behind only Hawaii's unique challenges, in the highest cost of doing business. And the kiss to labor shows no bottom to their shamelessness. They should think before voting to override gubernatorial vetoes.

A big part of the problem lies in the broken spirit of the New York Republican Party. Fearful of losing control of the Senate, Republicans decided that the way to resolution was to become Democrats. In truth, that's nothing new for them; the Senate has necessarily been an integral part of every government giveaway. But the whiff of their current desperation is pathetic.

How else to explain laws that increase retirement benefits, provide automatic raises in cases of bad-faith bargaining - for one side, but not the other - and grant broader access to a health insurance program meant for low-income workers?

Unfortunately, the editorial doesn't tell readers which of their elected representatives voted for the giveaways--nor who voted to support the taxpayers.

Editorial writers around the state continually blast "the Legislature" for various sins, real or imagined. Seldom, though, do editorials criticize local legislators by name. Sometimes there is good reason for such omission. Each major Upstate media market has half a dozen or more legislators, and describing each member's position on every major issue would take lots of newsprint. Still, it seems to us, naming names makes for a more accountable Legislature--and should be done whenever possible. Thus we note that the Tonawanda News cites specific, local legislators in this criticism of giveaways to the powerful public-employee unions.

Wow, you sure can tell it’s an election year. There goes that state Legislature, giving away the store to the shop help again.

Recent approval by the legislature has New York poised to grant unionized public workers a punitive 1 percent salary hike when the employing state or municipality is shown to have negotiated in “bad faith.” Naturally, there is no 1 percent giveback to government, i.e. taxpayers, when unions negotiate in bad faith.

Approval by the state Senate was unanimous — thanks so much, George Maziarz. Our local assemblymen, Republican Mike Cole and Democrat Francine DelMonte, also voted in favor.

Why is such specificity important? Because every legislator tells voters that he or she is a friend to the taxpayer. As this year's session made very clear, it ain't necessarily so. But most voters won't know that... unless someone tells them. This letter-writer may want names: An Erie County resident complains about his legislators' votes in support of $1 billion in union giveaways.

How any elected official in this state could allow himself to support such legislation is beyond me.

Private industry is dying, jobs with real meaning are leaving New York due to taxes and now this.

Before long only the union members of this state will be able to afford to live here.

I will vote against any state senator or legislator who voted this bill in the affirmative.

New York State's overall job growth rate improved in the first quarter of 2006, a new report from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. says.

Gains occurred across industries with growth in the state’s financial and information sectors outpacing the national average. However, the state’s rate of job growth eased at the start of the second quarter.

The Upstate-Downstate divide in economic fortunes continues, the FDIC says.

Growth continues to be stronger in downstate areas led by Poughkeepsie and New York City; the latter which posted the highest quarterly employment growth in five years... A greater reliance on manufacturing jobs has pressured growth in some upstate markets, particularly in Rochester, which continues to record the weakest job growth in the state.

The report also includes a reminder of Upstate's continuing loss of residents to other states.

Despite significant domestic out-migration, New York City’s population remains stable as foreign immigrants continue to move to the city. Areas in the state that have experienced weaker job growth, primarily in upstate and western markets, also experienced out-migration.

More: We learned of the FDIC report from the Poughkeepsie Journal, which reports that rising home costs are driving more residents out of the mid-Hudson region. That story is here. The report does not indicate what role high and rising property taxes may be playing in the problem of rising home costs.

Declining affordability may be affecting population migration trends, the FDIC economists said, noting that since 2000, the beginning of a broad housing boom, in-migration was greatest along the Hudson Valley, including Poughkeepsie, Kingston and Glens Falls. The Dutchess-Orange county area's in-migration rate was tops of 10 areas surveyed in the state, with families moving in from both domestic and international points.

The Hudson Valley had more people moving out than in for many years after the downsizing of IBM Corp. in the early 1990s. The trend later turned positive by mid-1998, according to Census data.

We can't resist highlighting a fabulous letter in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle in which a 17-year-old newspaper reader lets a few journalists have it. The letter is the second one down on the page.

I am 17 years old and attempting to form my own opinions. I am fighting peer pressure; do I really need to fight a dual-front war against my hormonal peers and journalists who find it their job to throw their opinions in my face?

Regardless of my own political leanings or lack thereof, I think the freedom of the press, one of this nation's greatest assets, is being abused when I can't read through an article in the Living section titled "Games for long road trips" without having to stomach a sardonic comment about gas stations and war profiteers.

We understand how you feel about the war in Iraq. We just wanted to know how to entertain ourselves in the car. What's next--my horoscope telling me who to vote for in the next election?

Hear, hear! We occasionally grind our teeth at the way opinions slip into the news stories on the Upstate economy that we focus on here.

Jeff Aaron of the Elmira Star-Gazette reflects on the demise of a business in downtown of Elmira in which he took a warm and personal interest.

Rick Moriarty of the Syracuse Post-Standard reports that

Developer Robert Congel pledged Sunday, for the first time, to pay union wage rates or higher to the workers who build all parts of the first three phases of his Carousel Center mall expansion.

Congel made the commitment in an agreement with the Syracuse Building and Construction Trades Council, an umbrella group that represents more than 6,000 union workers.

The agreement, made with trades council President William Towsley on Sunday morning in a meeting at Congel's summer home on Skaneateles Lake, came just a day before the Syracuse Common Council votes on whether to pursue a legal challenge to a tax deal for the project. The council meets at 1 p.m. today at City Hall, 233 E. Washington St.

Mayor Matt Driscoll praised the developer's commitment and said he hoped it would persuade some councilors to "let it go" and not challenge the tax deal he activated last week in a move around the council's opposition.

There's more. Related notes: The Syracuse Post-Standard also has another story on how Syracuse Mayor Matt Driscoll decided to fire the city's attorney in a Destiny-related dispute. More: The Syracuse Post-Standard also reports that

The Onondaga County District Attorney's Office has begun an investigation into whether Syracuse officials violated the state's open meetings law in their recent handling of Carousel Center and Destiny matters.

District Attorney William Fitzpatrick, a Republican, started the probe after his office received a number of calls questioning whether six Syracuse common councilors may have violated the law before voting against a settlement of developer Robert Congel's lawsuit against the city over a tax deal for Carousel Center, said First Chief Assistant District Attorney Rick Trunfio.

Trunfio said the investigation began before Wednesday's developments in which the mayor bypassed the council and directed the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency to pass a similar agreement during a last-minute meeting that several councilors say violated the law. Trunfio would not say Friday whether the SIDA meeting would be investigated as well.

There's more.

An editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle community leaders should continue looking for a solution to the county's budget gap.

To break this unhealthy impasse, the Monroe Council of Governments, whose members represent every municipality in the county, should get involved. Gates Supervisor Ralph Esposito, a strong Brooks supporter and former COG official, should take the lead. After all, his town, facing its third double-digit property tax increase in as many years, is the worst off fiscally in the county.

Besides, Esposito says he welcomes practical ideas for major cost savings, which Democrats argue is the way to close the county budget shortfall. At the least, COG can get the ball rolling by re-examining a 2003 study, "Cooperate, Collaborate, Consolidate," that was prepared for the Rump Group by the Center for Governmental Research.

It's not too late to start anew the search for a community solution.

David Robinson, economics columnist for the Buffalo News, writes about suggestions that ex-New Yorkers working in biotechnology-related fields have offered for that sector in western New York.

Kenmore native Peter Barton Hutt serves on the board of eight biotechnology companies, so he knows very well how those fledgling firms can't afford to waste time as they burn through their cash.

Lancaster native Terry McGuire, who now makes his living managing a Boston venture capital firm that invests in life sciences projects, understands how competitive it can be for start-up companies to raise the funding they need.

And Bruce A. Holm, the University at Buffalo's senior provost and the executive director of its Center for Excellence in Bioinformatics and Life Sciences, knows that the region's $225 million investment in life sciences won't pay dividends unless the research here develops commercially viable products.

So it's especially important for the region to lay the groundwork early on so that the advances coming out of the region's big investment in life sciences don't fall by the wayside because they got snarled in red tape and a drought of funding.

There's more. And: The New York Times also has a detailed story on prospects for biotechnology-related growth in western New York.

The Buffalo News reports that

Freezer Queen Foods, the 50-year-old maker of frozen dinners, closed suddenly Thursday, leaving 175 workers unemployed and triggering speculation about its valuable lakefront site on Fuhrmann Boulevard.

Company executives declined to comment, but a union representative said the demise of Freezer Queen had been looming for some time.

Some good news for a major western New York manufacturer: The Buffalo News also reports that

Industrial gas maker Praxair wants to renovate nearly 30,000 square feet of underused manufacturing space in Tonawanda to create a new engineering and design operation focused on meeting a sharp increase in U.S. demand for hydrogen and other gases.

The Danbury, Conn.-based company is seeking to form a new U.S. Project Execution Center in 28,430 square feet of existing space that officials said has been neglected. The company will convert the facility by year-end into modern office space for about 100 technical engineers, project managers, procurement professionals and others, said site manager Dennis A. Conroy.

The group's mission will be to design and manage projects for new plants or pipelines, plant upgrades or pipeline expansions in the United States. It will not do research and development, Conroy said. The team will be separate from the company's worldwide engineering group, but will be accessible to them.

About 75 of the employees will be transferred from worldwide operations, mostly within the local Technology Center plant, while 25 will be hired from outside.

"The beauty of this is we keep these jobs right here in Western New York," Conroy said. "In a site that has a very rich history for Praxair, we're bringing it up to its peak performance again."

Praxair's history in Western New York dates back to 1907, when Linde Air Products Co. was formed and built its first facility in Buffalo. The company, which also has a gas-separation plant in Niagara Falls, built the Tonawanda facility in 1937 to construct its three-story air separation units.

In a letter in the Buffalo News, a leader of New York's small business community voices support for workers' compensation reform and two embattled state legislators who have begun efforts to enact it.

Cutting business costs in this case is obviously good for workers who need their jobs. But [state Sen. James Alesi (R-Monroe County) and state Assemblyman Joe Morelle (D-Monroe County)] went . . . proposed an increase in the weekly benefit for injured workers, something that hadn't been done in a long time. They saw that with real reforms, a win-win for business and working people was possible.

But for doing the right thing, the AFL-CIO began airing radio attack ads in Rochester, falsely characterizing their bill and their motivations, and hoping to scare them into backing down. They shouldn't be cowed by these bully-boy tactics. People aren't that easily fooled, not when it's clear that they are doing the right thing for working people and the small businesses they work for.

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports that local taxpayers will be spending about $9 million less for the county's share of the Medicaid burden.

The revised figures put the county's 2006 bill at $152.5 million, down from the $161.7 million the state estimated last fall. Future outlays will increase about 3 percent annually.

County Executive Maggie Brooks attributed the cost reduction to her initiative encouraging physicians to prescribe generic drugs, saving $2 million. Other savings were achieved through better case management and audits of individual recipients.

In one instance, the county found that a patient had moved to New York City prior to 2005 and was in his aunt's custody--yet the county was paying out $500,000 annually for his care.

"This really is good news for taxpayers, honestly, for a number of reasons," Brooks said. "No. 1, it results in permanent cost savings ... and we've been able to somewhat improve the integrity of our program by making these changes."

Jeff Platsky, business editor of the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin, writes that profiles businesses in that area that are weighing the costs of rebuilding versus leaving.

Joblessness. Uninsured losses. Lost commerce. Utter devastation and destruction that will, by many predictions, deplete the wealth of an area where incomes already have taken a beating from the flight of jobs in the late 1980s and '90s. This is the stark economic reality of raging rivers that spill over their banks without regard to the toll.

"Longterm, you'll have to assume that people are going to deplete their resources that they were going to use for retirement and entrepreneurial projects," said Kent Gardner, director of economic analysis at the Gleason Center for Governmental Research in Rochester.

Homeowners and businesses have suffered damages that will likely top $175 million in Broome County alone. The final damage estimate could be several hundred million dollars.

Many people are in the same boat as Pomeroy. Without flood insurance, they will have to look elsewhere for financial help.

The economic impact is all too real for Pomeroy Lumber workers now, but hundreds of homeowners and business establishments will feel their own pain when they assess their losses and discover that state and federal aid will cover only a fraction of the damage. It could be a significant blow to an already fragile Greater Binghamton economy that was just beginning to show some recovery after an extended period of job losses.

. . . .

The first economic setback rippled through the economy late last week. The B.C. Open -- a July stop on the PGA Tour -- was moved to Turning Stone Resort in Verona. With it will go millions of dollars normally spent at local restaurants, retailers and lodging facilities.

. . . .

The full fallout from the flood is uncertain. With whole communities, such as Conklin, ravaged, will residents move away, causing a population flight and compounding an already serious problem for the region? The latest Census Bureau figures indicate an average of 20 people relocate from Broome County every week. Since the mid-'80s, the community has lost more than 10 percent of its population.

"People pick up and go," Gardner said. "And the people who have the most to offer the marketplace find it easiest to pick up and leave, and you lose people you can least afford to lose."

And: An editorial in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin stresses the importance of getting businesses back up and running.

Although we know all too well the impact of a large company when it leaves the Tier, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. It is therefore critical to help these people get back in operation so they can remain in the Tier.

For now, many volunteers are lending a hand in this critical cleanup time. Once the businesses reopen, with the community's continued support they can recover.

As Broome County Director of Emergency Services Michael Aswad told the board, this will be "the longest haul Broome County has ever seen." That long haul begins with first tentative steps and the outstretched arms of support from this caring community.

An editorial in the Elmira Star-Gazette celebrates the beneficial economic effects of a decision by Albany several decades ago to remove a regulatory burden from New York's wine industry.

On June 4, 1976, then New York Gov. Hugh Carey signed the Farm Winery Act as two Hudson Valley wine producers looked on. Little could Carey know that with a stroke of his pen, a revolution began in the New York wine industry.

At the time, 19 wineries did business in New York. Today, there are 239, and 43 percent of them are tucked along four Finger Lakes - Seneca with 53, Keuka with 18, Cayuga with 24 and Canandaigua with eight, according to the New York Wine & Grape Foundation in Canandaigua.

Not all 239 may be around next year. Wineries - like any business - open, fold and are replaced. But the profitable ones, especially in the Finger Lakes, tell an upstate economic success story that is nothing short of remarkable.

What the 1976 act did was unleash the entrepreneurial potential of small grape farms and allow them to sell directly to consumers who stopped by for wine tastings and to wine shops and restaurants. In a matter of just 30 years, wineries sprang up throughout the Finger Lakes and shelves of wine stores suddenly were jammed with dozens of varieties of New York wines.

Today, by estimates of the MKF Research firm in Napa Valley, the New York wine industry has a $3.4 billion annual economic impact in the state, stretching from the tip of Long Island to the shores of Lake Erie.

The editorial also welcomes a newer law that allows interstate wine shipments to and from New York State.

The full impact of that legislation has yet to be felt by wineries as they go through the red tape necessary to ship their wines directly to consumers in other states. But so far, they have begun to embrace the possibilities of shipping products purchased by phone, mail order or the Internet.

As of March, a survey by the Wine & Grape Foundation showed that 35 of the state's wineries are shipping to consumers in all 50 states. Not all wineries ship to all states, and the wineries sending their wine out of state represent only 15 percent of the state's total wineries. But it is a start to what can be a lucrative supplement to the New York wine industry's current consumer reach.

There's more.

An editorial in the Utica Observer-Dispatch says candidate Eliot Spitzer should take a position on the proposed high-voltage power line running through Central New York.

Among those expected to be in town this weekend for Boilermaker festivities will be State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who plans to run the 5K training run.

Spitzer, a Democrat, just so happens to be a candidate for governor. He also hasn't clearly stated his position on the power line that's been proposed to be built through this area.

What a perfect opportunity for Spitzer to familiarize himself with that project. While here, he should check out the route.

Spitzer spokeswoman Christine Anderson said her boss wasn't coming here for political exposure. Instead, she said, "He's a running enthusiast and runs most days of the week. It's a great race that attracts an energetic crowd."

Sorry, but gubernatorial candidates can't wade into a crowd of thousands and not think they're getting political exposure. Nor can they come into a community facing a critical issue and expect it to be ignored.

. . . .

As a candidate presumably eager to be informed, we'd think Spitzer would want to find out about the power line while he's here. If he's uncomfortable keeping company with a Republican mayor, we're sure Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, a fellow Democrat, would be more than happy to join them.

And: The Utica Observer-Dispatch reported that opponents of the power line planned a protest along the race route to get their message across to both Spitzer and Republican candidate John Faso, who also ran in the Boilermaker.

Opponents of the New York Regional Interconnect power line will be out in force Sunday morning to watch gubernatorial candidates Eliot Spitzer and John Faso in the Boilermaker 5K Training Run.

"Our main goal is to show the citizens of Upstate New York do have the power of the vote," said Mike Steiger, head of the anti-power line group Upstate New York Citizens Alliance, which is organizing the rally.

Steiger said he has spread the word and is hoping many people from communities along the power line route attend the event.

Spitzer campaign spokeswoman Christine Anderson reiterated the attorney general's position that he will be actively involved in the Public Service Commission's consideration of New York Regional Interconnect's application.

. . . .

Josh Hills, communication director for the Faso campaign, said the former assemblyman welcomes the alliance's opinions on the project.

"As far as those protesters go, I'm just going to say that John looks forward to talking with them about the issue," Hills said.

And after the race. . . : The Utica Observer-Dispatch reports on the outcome of those protests here.

Protesters who gathered near the start of the Boilermaker 5K Training Run got their wish Sunday: New York's two front-running gubernatorial candidates expressed doubts about the proposed New York Regional Interconnection power line soon after they crossed the finish line.

"Based on what we've heard, it is inconceivable to me that it would gain approval," Democratic candidate Eliot Spitzer said of the proposal moments after finishing the race. "(But) I need to always state that there is an opportunity for the company to make its case."

His Republican opponent, John Faso, said he also saw the protesters along the route and said he understands their concerns.

"I haven't seen anything in the proposal that would make me want to support it," the former Assembly minority leader and one-time candidate for state comptroller said as he relaxed after the race with state Sen. Raymond Meier, R-Western.

More: The Utica Observer-Dispatch also has reactions by local elected officials and candidates for office on Spitzer and Faso's comments on the proposed powerline.

From an editorial in the Glens Falls Post-Star:

When you do a Google search of the phrase, "population of Adirondack Park," the first seven items that come up are, in this order: black bears, deer, bobcats, loons, loons, loons and people.

That ought to give you a clue as to how people rate in the Adirondack Park, and might well serve as a metaphor for the changes needed in the administration of people who live there.

When the Adirondack Park Agency was created more than three decades ago, it was supposed to preserve the uniquely harmonious balance of environment and human development. Instead, it's evolved over the years into an onerous, redundant, expensive and arbitrary servant of the 135,000 people trying to live and make a living within its 9,300 square miles.

Complaints about the APA aren't new. But they also aren't going away.

Horror stories abound from applicants about the troubles they've had negotiating the multi-layered labyrinth of regulations and wending their way through the APA's stubborn bureaucracy simply to subdivide their properties or build simple structures. Applications can take months or years to gain approval. In addition, violations of APA rules are handled on a complaint-by-complaint basis, as the APA doesn't have the ability to go around and enforce its rules uniformly.

Piece-meal attempts to fix the agency's problems have had a very limited effect in improving the agency's ability to process applications within a reasonable time frame and with reasonable efficiency. The dysfunctionality of the APA was highlighted recently not by a dissatisfied applicant, but by a member of the agency who recently quit over her inability to accomplish anything because of the APA's bureaucracy and complex rules.

State Sen. Elizabeth Little has proposed legislation recently to speed up the APA approval process by limiting the time the APA takes in deciding whether it has jurisdiction over building permits issued by municipalities. Little also wants to limit the APA's influence over private campgrounds to the limits of existing Health Department regulations. And Little and Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward are both pushing for a moratorium on new unit management plans until the park's state land master plan is updated -- which it hasn't been in nearly 20 years.

There's more. The link is for paid subscribers. By the way: This editorial performs an important service to readers: It begins by listing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of elected state officials from the region so readers who feel strong about this issue know how they can get in touch with them. This sort of naming-names approach is one we wish we saw more often. Citizens are well known for having an unfavorable opinion of state legislatures but then harboring, often inexplicably, favorable opinions of their own elected officials. This kind of service by newspaper editorial boards can challenge readers to be more thoughtful in evaluating legislatures and legislators. Another: Here's another example of a newspaper serving its readers well by providing contact information on elected officials from the region.n We tip our hat to the Poughkeepsie Journal. And another: The Jamestown Post-Journal editorial criticizing a union-friendly bill named and criticized a local state Senator for voting in favor of it. We tip our hat to the Glens Falls Post-Star, the Jamestown Post-Journal, and the Poughkeepsie Journal.

An interesting letter in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle suggests that New York's outrageous budgets go far beyond political distinctions between "right" and "left."

A July 1 letter writer states that upstate New York has many things going for it, but that the depressed economy is due to a variety of factors, including "leftists in the Assembly passing outrageous budgets that drive up costs for manufacturers beyond what they can pay ...."

. . . .

Conspicuously omitted from the letter were any references to the Republican-controlled state Senate (rightists?) and the governor's office, Republican-occupied for the last 12 years. It takes considerably more than "leftists in the Assembly" to pass "outrageous" budgets and otherwise ruin the state.

An editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle commends a citizens' group that is pushing for reform in Albany.

. . . [Citizens for Better Government in New York(CBGNY)], which started out with six people who met after noticing they shared the same concerns in letters printed on the Speaking Out page, has devised a statewide campaign.

Now that CBGNY has obtained nonprofit status and a growing membership of nearly 200 people in such upstate cities as Utica, Buffalo and Syracuse, its new agenda focuses on creating an independent redistricting commission, allowing citizen initiatives or referendums and pushing for more legislative rules changes.

Those are all worthwhile measures that New Yorkers should support. An independent commission that would redraw boundary lines for congressional and legislative districts, for example, has long been advocated by this page. Under the current system, lawmakers essentially concede the state Assembly to Democrats and the state Senate to Republicans. Consequently, it's no wonder New York legislators have the highest re-election rate in the nation.

As for initiative and referendum, such a process would allow New Yorkers for the first time to go around the Legislature to put state laws on the books.

Finally, it can't be said enough that legislative leaders have too much power. Yes, the Albany powermongers loosened their reins slightly last year, but not nearly enough.

Because of the continued clubbiness that characterizes New York's Legislature and the pall of secrecy that hangs over it, the changes that CBGNY proposes are the best way to secure real reform and not just a veneer.

And: An editorial in the New York Times urges legislative redistricting in Albany.

. . . New York. . . suffers from a different form of compulsive gerrymandering than Texas. Instead of manipulating geography to give one party the political edge, the New York State Legislature--divided for so long between a Republican Senate and Democratic Assembly--tends to stick to protecting incumbents.

In some ways, this is even worse for democracy. When maps are drawn to cut down on competition, politicians worry less about pesky voters, who generally wind up choosing between the incumbent and a sacrificial lamb dragooned by an opposition that has no hope of victory. Politics and politicians stagnate: Albany is an excellent case in point.

A few brave souls, like Assemblyman Michael Gianaris, a Democrat from Queens, are offering a vast improvement in the state's future mapmaking. The Gianaris bill would require the state to set up an independent commission, much like the one in Iowa, which currently has the fairest system--and some of the most competitive elections--in the country. The commission would redraw the maps and the legislature would approve or reject then, with no tinkering allowed.

If anything is going to happen to make the situation better, this is the time to move--while the 2010 census is still just a blip on the horizon. When election-bound politicians come around seeking votes, New Yorkers should make sure to ask them whether they support fair mapmaking as reflected in the Gianaris bill or the Iowa redistricting system.

. . . .

Fair mapmaking won't be easy for Albany's timid lawmakers, who tend to see change as threatening. But if anything can bring some much-needed oxygen into New York's Legislature, it is something that many of them fear: real competition.

A letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal says greedy lawmakers are to blame for high gas taxes. (The letter is the fourth down on the page.)

I had occasion to drive west on Interstate 84. Prior to departure, I filled my tank and, as you all know, paid $3.08 per gallon. After crossing the state line into Pennsylvania. I stopped at the Pennsylvania Welcome Center, passing a gasoline station en route.

Imagine my surprise at discovering that through the simple expedient of crossing the Delaware River, I could buy gasoline for a full 30 cents per gallon less.

I, for one, am tired of being "ripped off" by oil companies, while our greedy elected officials do nothing to help, even when they have the opportunity. Living in this overtaxed Empire State stinks, and I think it's high time we all let our feeling be known at the polls.

Well, we share the sentiments of this writer on the burden of taxes in New York State that always seem to be higher here than in other states. We by no means agree that living in New York State stinks. Another like that: See also this letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal: (Second down on the page.)

Recently, my wife and I took a ride into the Catskills. As we rode along the highways, I noted gas prices ranging between $2.82 to $2.89 a gallon.

I said to my wife, "Did they just lower prices by 20 cents a gallon today?" Am I missing something here? When I left Red Oaks Mill, I filled my tank with gas, which I paid $3.069 per gallon. Will I go home and see a corresponding price of $2.82 or $2.86 a gallon, because they just lowered prices by 20 cents per gallon?

Nope. When we returned to Poughkeepsie by merely crossing the Mid-Hudson Bridge, the price jumped by 20 cents per gallon.

In an interesting column, Jay Gallagher of the Gannett News Service reflects on whether recent flooding in the Southern Tier will prompt New Yorkers to become more "green." The column is apparently prompted by a recent viewing of an Al Gore movie on global warming. (We're waiting for the rental, and perhaps longer.) Well, we suppose that's an interesting question, although it strikes us a perhaps a bit of a stretch to assume that a "greener" New York will somehow ease future flooding in a region that has been beset by floods since long before anyone was using the word "green" to connote environmental correctness. One paragraph in particular caught our eye:

Will New York get greener? The Empire State can't solve global warming by itself, but for once this is something we're among the leaders of, rather than our traditional place in the rear on measurements like job creation, population loss and tax burden.

What Gallagher might have done is connect some dots between New York's "leadership" on environmental issues and its followership on those other measurements--job creation, population loss, and tax burden. In fact, the policies that New York State often touts as evidence of its "leadership" on environmental issues often raise costs--without producing overpowering evidence of environmental benefits in New York State. See, for example, this story on the much ballyhooed Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which notes that it will increase energy costs in New York State without producing significant change in global temperatures.

The renewable-portfolio mandate, which the Council had urged the PSC not to enact, will require that 25 percent of electricity purchased in New York by 2013 be from renewable resources.

"The state's move to mandate which sources consumers must buy electricity from will create a seller's market for selected sources," Business Council President Daniel B. Walsh said. "New York's electricity costs are already among the highest in the nation. This will undoubtedly drive them up further."

. . . .

The state's Energy Plan notes that energy prices in New York are higher than in many competing locations, and calls for policies that will reduce energy costs for business and residential consumers.

"Until we add significant base load capacity in this state, we are not likely to reap the benefits of a truly competitive marketplace where supply will respond to demand," [Ed Reinfurt, vice president of The Business Council,] said. "Supply is now thwarted by an expired siting-law process and by uncertainty in the financial markets for construction of new base load facilities."

Meanwhile, officials from New York and other states working together as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative continued work on a proposal that may increase electric costs still further. The interstate group seeks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, in an effort to reduce global warming.

The interstate group, initiated by Governor Pataki and leaders in other states, is proposing to freeze power plant emissions in 2009 and then reduce them by 10 percent by 2020.

A New York Times story reported that officials acknowledged that freezing emission levels and reducing them could result in higher energy prices, without affecting global temperatures significantly.

"We're not going to solve the problem of global warming in the Northeastern states," Dale S. Bryk, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times.

We have raised similar questions about costs and benefits of New York's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and its systems benefit charge (SBC), a surcharge in energy bills. It's worth remembering, for purposes of context, that New York's costs of retail electricity are the nation's second-highest, and have been about that high since before these cost-inflating policies were put on the table. An amusing note of dissent: See this editorial in the New York Post.

In editorials and letters around the state, the torrent of criticism of the state Legislature's efforts to curry even more favor with the state's powerful public-employee unions continues unabated. For example: From an editorial in the Buffalo News:

New York's Taylor Law governing public-sector employment has long needed reforming, and this year legislators went to work, making significant changes that in every instance moves it in exactly the wrong direction.

Say what you will about New York's lawmakers, they are consistent. Given the choice of reining in the public employee unions or sticking it to the state's voters, the voters always lose.

The shame of it is that the law could be changed in ways that offer urgently needed protections to the state's taxpayers without harming public employees. State legislators seem unable to acknowledge either the possibility or the need for such changes, though, especially in an election year. Hence, the great giveaway of 2006, when legislators approved laws to: Provide workers with an automatic 1 percent raise in certain instances in which an employer is found to be bargaining in bad faith, but no penalties are added for unions that bargain in bad faith; impose as a contract the most recent union offer if the employer negotiates in bad faith; provide for an expedited hearing when a union alleges bad-faith bargaining by an employer; mitigate penalties against unions that conduct illegal strikes while an employer is bargaining in bad faith.

Some of these measures are preposterous and some merely dubious, but all of them presume New York's public-sector unions to be put-upon and needing rescue. The opposite is true. It's the taxpayers who need rescuing, from exorbitant public costs and the crackpot government that imposes them.

According to Governing magazine's State & Local Source Book for 2005, the average pay of state and local employees was second-highest in the nation and its per-pupil education spending the country's highest. Meanwhile, New York's per capita state-local tax revenue was highest; while per capita spending was second highest, as was state and local debt.

Under that kind of unrelenting pressure, jobs and population are fleeing upstate. This ongoing condition demands action by state lawmakers. They responded by making matters worse. What do these people have against fairness? If a government can be forced to pay 1 percent raises for bad-faith bargaining, shouldn't unions have to give up a similar amount for the same infraction?

In fact, shouldn't the law be amended to encourage both sides to bargain in good faith, to push them toward reasonable contracts without the constant resort to arbitration? And shouldn't arbitration, when used, prominently factor in the ability of any set of taxpayers to afford the resulting contract?

The failure to provide that kind of balance to the Taylor Law has helped turn upstate New York into an economic backwater. Legislators know that; they've been told it for years. And still, they do nothing. Their only reason is so they can be re-elected. It's a cynical game that taxpayers always lose.

Another: An editorial in the Albany Times Union assails one union giveaway bill from the left, saying the state Legislature should be throwing even more taxpayer dollars at all workers, not just unionized ones.

In the latter days of the session, the Working Families Party and the unions turned their efforts to winning the $25 million subsidy from the state's Healthy New York program, in part by lifting the income eligibility limits so members could qualify for coverage.

But that's the real double standard. Those who belong to these unions, which have clout with the Legislature -- UNITE, SEIU 1199 and SEIU 32BJ, and perhaps two others -- would get coverage. Those who don't belong wouldn't. But why should coverage depend on a union card?

If coverage is to be provided to low-wage workers, the only fair way is to provide it for all low-wage workers, regardless of union affiliation. That's what Gov. Pataki should say when sending this bill back to the Legislature with a veto.

On unions pressure tactics, a thumbs down: Here's a brief editorial comment from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle:

Thumbs down

For organized labor groups launching a recent ad campaign that called Sen. James Alesi, R-Perinton, and Assemblyman Joseph Morelle, D-Irondequoit, shills for the insurance industry. New York's exorbitantly high workers' compensation costs are crippling the state's economy. Indeed, Alesi, Morelle and other lawmakers have sponsored workers' comp reform to try to help improve our economy.

'Labor unions and politicians have become economic predators.' From a letter in the Buffalo News:

Labor unions and politicians have become economic predators. The taxpayer is no longer considered an equal partner in any legislative bill. New York taxpayers have known for a long time that they were dealing with economic predators in unions and politicians but were unwilling to acknowledge it.

'What were the State Senate and Assembly thinking?' From another letter in the Buffalo News:

What were the State Senate and Assembly thinking? In the eleventh hour of the Legislature's just-ended session, they authorized arbitrary raises for local public employee unions if the municipalities they work for do not negotiate "in good faith." In essence, they're handing over tremendous bargaining leverage by incentivizing going on strike. Currently, public unions face severe penalties for striking under the Taylor Law.

These bills have the potential to devastate local municipal budgets. If implemented, they open the door for public unions to skew negotiations by proposing unreasonable contract demands to stall the process. The possibility of strikes by employees providing necessary services, and the ability to hold municipalities and school districts hostage, create a "no-lose" situation for public employee unions, and a "no-win" one for taxpayers.

'Don't complain in November if you don't act in September.' A letter in the Buffalo News urges voters to use their votes in November to try to reduce the outsized influence of public-employee unions in New York State.

On July 2, The News reported on how unions control our state elected officials. Both houses passed legislation favorable to unions (CSEA and SEIU99). Prior to the budget vote, these two unions ran radio and TV ads urging voters to call their legislators asking them not to cut $1 billion from the budget, or to call the governor asking him not to cut or veto certain budget items because of the hardship it would cause to children, the elderly and disabled.

The shameless tactics used by unions to protect their selfish interests is equal to the taxpayer-be-damned attitude of our elected officials as accomplices in this farce called a state budget.

One more, thick with irony: From a letter in the Buffalo News:

[Public-employee unions] have won giant benefit packages from our fearless legislators. You guys have hit the jackpot. Just do me one favor, please. Make sure you shut off the lights as we taxpayers leave the state, because there will soon be no one left to pay the bills or your fat salaries. Our best and brightest are leaving every day, maybe it's time we boomers did too. Once again, this state has no clue about the real world.

But wait, there's more: From another letter in the Buffalo News:

Bamboozled again! Let me see if I get this. Our Western New York delegation to Albany has sent control boards to manage City of Buffalo and Erie County finances. They charge these boards to lower the costs of government and local tax burdens. They have all spoken out about patronage and back-room deals that plague Western New York governments. Sunday, I read the same delegation has added $1 billion in union benefits found in over 100 separate union-backed bills. Of course it's election time, time for the taxpayers to come up short. I guess patronage is OK for some and not OK for others. . . .

Still another: From another letter in the Buffalo News:

. . . . Albany has its collective hands in the pockets of special interest groups, or maybe it's the other way around. We are exporting our children to other states and our jobs to other countries. If times are bad now just wait until the next economic slow-down and all these union benefits come due. Those people with these lucrative retirements will leave the state to join their children who have moved to get decent jobs.

The media often report about CEO and executive greed, but what about the greed of union leadership (and members)? Reporting would indicate that it is even more egregious in terms of the average person.

. . . . Thirty-plus years in business have given me the ability to predict the future impact of present actions, and I have yet to see more than a couple of politicians and governmental bodies in this state that are not taking us on a collision course with fiscal disaster. They are dragging the taxpayers with them.

On a less-known effort to curry favor with unions: An editorial in the Jamestown Post-Journal criticizes another long-standing effort by Albany to curry favor with politically influential unions.

. . . A few years ago, Gov. George Pataki vetoed requirements that metal piping be used in commercial buildings. In so doing, he brought the state into compliance with standards of the International Building Code--and the standard of common sense.

Instead of expense copper piping--the cost is up about 200 percent in the past few months--or cast iron, builders in New York can elect to use plastic if they wish. That, by the way, is the same choice virtually all other states allow developers to make.

As you know, because it is less expensive, durable and resists corrosion, plastic piping is used extensively in residential and commercial developments to handle drinking water as well as waste water.

Why then has the state Senate approved a bill that would require the use of copper or cast iron unless the builders go to the expense of applying for a waiver? And, by the way, a new level of bureaucracy would have to be added to the state to handle those applications.

The state Builders Association has an answer.

''This legislation is nothing more than a cynical attempt to restrict business in favor of special interest,'' says Phillip LaRocque, executive vice president of the association. ''There is absolutely no benefit to this legislation. It contributes nothing to the process, but instead establishes a level of bureaucracy that took years for business groups, municipalities and a coalition of building inspectors and builders across the state to finally dismantle.''

The special interests are the labor unions. You see, in addition to being much cheaper to buy, plastic piping is easier, and hence less labor-intensive, to install. When metal piping is required, plumbers and pipefitters have more work.

It is as simple as that.

New Yorkers have plenty of things on their minds this election year. But the race for governor is about one thing above all else, according to Newsday's Albany bureau chief, Errol Cockfield. That issue: Taxes.

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had already been on the defensive about his position on tax cuts. So when the gubernatorial front-runner got word that the head of the state Democratic Party had downplayed the importance of tax breaks, Spitzer tried to avert a crisis on what has become the pivotal policy debate in the race for governor.

"What's most important is jobs," state Democratic chairman Herman Farrell had told reporters last month. "Then you will get the income. Once you get the income, then you can afford to look at tax cuts."

Spitzer, who had been dogged by his two opponents - Republican John Faso and Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, a Democrat - for not being as vocal as they have been about the need for tax cuts, emphasized during a campaign stop in Buffalo that he differed with Farrell. "I speak for the campaign," he said, adding that reducing property taxes was a key element of his multipronged strategy to revive the state economy.

Two hours later, Farrell issued a statement saying he had misspoken as Faso and Suozzi quickly sought to tie his remarks to Spitzer. "Making the economy more robust in general is our top priority - and that includes cutting taxes," Farrell said in a statement.

The attorney general's response to the head of his party - as close as you could get to a rebuke among political allies - illustrated how relieving the tax burden has become the central issue in the race for governor of New York, a state where experts agree that high property taxes helped drive a net loss of 182,000 people between 2000 and 2004.

It's good to see the issue of our exorbitant taxes recognized as the top issue in the campaign. We'll continue to look for further specifics from all the candidates as to how they will cut taxes, and how they will control spending at both the state and local levels so that lower taxes don't translate into more debt. An aside: We note that the piece quotes two experts on taxes. The Manhattan Institute, where E.J. McMahon hangs his hat, is labeled a "conservative think tank." Fair enough, as far as such labels go. But Frank Mauro's labor-funded Fiscal Policy Institute is identified as "a government watchdog group." C'mon, Errol. You should know that FPI represents the public-employee unions who spend millions of dollars each year to promote higher taxes and more government spending. And your readers should know it, too. The Newsday article is here.

In a long essay in the Buffalo News, the president of the Public Policy Institute explores that policy and political factors behind Albany's many actions and inactions that create or worsen problems that bedevil Upstate New York and its economy.

Upstate New York lost 40 percent of its manufacturing jobs from 1990 to 2005, leaving behind plants like Bethlehem Steel.

The candidates for governor promise to give top priority to fixing the moribund upstate economy. Which is nice. But we won't begin to learn until January whether we have a new governor with the program, the will and the firepower to do what has to be done to turn upstate around.

It's going to be hard. Getting upstate back on its competitive feet will require taking on two of the fundamental, structural underpinnings of New York State's political system - and one of its most persistent, pig-headed ideas. Those underpinnings are the dominance of government employee unions in making state policy and the persistent priority given to the needs and thinking of downstate New York, where two-thirds of the votes are. Those two factors, in turn, buttress Albany's key, wrong-headed idea - the notion that high costs of government, of regulation and of doing business don't really do us any harm.

Upstaters, of course, know better. They read just last month that New York is, once again, the nation's highest-taxed state. And they see the connection to the upstate economy: a growth rate that's anemic not only in comparison to the nation, but also in comparison to older, manufacturing-based Rust Belt states that have similar economies and demographics. Over the last 15 years, upstate grew jobs by only 4.2 percent, compared to 21.9 percent for the nation as a whole, 26.8 percent in Minnesota, 23.9 percent in Wisconsin, 11.2 percent in Ohio and 10.4 percent in Michigan. Michigan. There's no good reason we should be so far behind.

. . . .

In Albany, a two-thirds numerical majority in each house of the Legislature comes from a downstate region where the world looks very different. While upstate crawls along, having gained only one-tenth of 1 percent in jobs in the last year, New York City has grown jobs at 1.6 percent, beating the national growth rate of 1.4 percent from May 2005 to May 2006.

Downstate politicos hear upstaters complain about taxes, workers' compensation costs, energy costs and other high costs of doing business. But they figure that costs are, if anything, even higher in the downstate region, yet it's doing OK. So why should upstaters be worrying about these costs?

If Albany politicians ever think about tackling the high cost of taxes and government spending in New York, the government unions have the muscle to push them back into line. Just last month, for example, New York State United Teachers announced that its political action fund had collected a record $5.6 million in 2005 - note: a non-election year.

And downstate politicians see upstate through different eyes than its residents do. They are, quite properly, focused most acutely on the problems of their own communities. Then they hop on the Thruway to drive north, and the scenery is beautiful. Mostly they only get as far as Albany, which is doing relatively well economically compared to the rest of upstate - thanks in substantial part to money extracted from taxpayers elsewhere.

The piece then explores in detail the decline of Upstate New York's manufacturing base and connects the dots between such job losses and the loss of people.

Lose job growth, and you lose people. The 2000 Census found that upstate's cohort of people ages 20 to 35 had dropped by almost one-quarter.

At the same time, globalization was having precisely the opposite effect downstate. More than ever, New York City and its suburbs became the location that businesses from around the world simply had to have. The globalization of finance made Wall Street wealthier than ever before. And timely policy changes by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who made New York City more livable, and by Gov. George E. Pataki, who cut taxes on the high-income earners so vital to Wall Street, helped the city keep its new gains.

The city's population - including young people - grew at a healthy rate.

So when upstaters and downstaters talk today about the need to cut costs to grow the economy, it's as though they're living in two different worlds. And time and time again, high costs and poor economic conditions upstate are caused by made-in-Albany policies that are, in turn, driven by downstate ways of thinking.

Donn Esmonde of The News recently reported on a good example - Albany's prolonged delays in acting on legislation that would strengthen incentives for restoring downtown buildings ("Speed up the revival of downtown," June 2). Legislators from New York City worried that the bill might lead to the "yuppie-fication" of some of the city's ethnic neighborhoods. Upstate cities, of course, would die for a little yuppie-fication.

These policies pop up everywhere you turn. If you want to add a one-story garage to a machine shop in Cheektowaga, your construction costs are inflated. Why? Because of the cost of insurance under Albany's "ladder law," a measure designed around the hazards of work on tall buildings in Manhattan.

Try to buy health insurance for your employees, and there's a surcharge that Albany tacked on to appease New York City hospital union boss Dennis Rivera.

Fed up with paying tolls on the Thruway when you're commuting to work? Politicians from the subway capital of the world maneuvered to keep those tolls in place even after the Thruway bonds were paid off in the 1990s.

If you're a small, Western New York manufacturer, you're probably fed up with the state's workers' compensation system, which has among the highest costs - and the lowest maximum benefits - in the country. Your local state legislators support cost-saving workers' comp reform. But they can't persuade their statewide colleagues, particularly in the Assembly, to go along with them.

The piece also notes that Albany's main response has been to foster create of taxpayer-supported jobs.

To the extent Albany is aware of upstate's economic problems, its answer has been to throw money at them. Fully two-thirds of the job growth in upstate New York in the last 15 years has been in jobs funded by the taxpayers, 88,200 out of 127,000 net new jobs.

But that "solution" just means more taxes to pay for the declining share of jobs that aren't taxpayer funded. And because every new government job means more money deducted from paychecks for government unions to put to work in politics, the bigger government gets, the harder it is to cut.

Upstate overall now has some 75,000 more local government employees than it would have, if it matched the national ratio of employees to population served. That alone costs upstate taxpayers an extra $3 billion to $4 billion a year. Our higher-than-average pay and benefits for government workers add about $1 billion more.

There's more, and the whole thing is worth reading. Related thoughts: How high New York State taxes turn New Yorkers into ex-New Yorkers. From a letter in the Syracuse Post-Standard:

A great many homeowners, retired seniors on fixed incomes, in particular, are also departing for friendlier environs because of New York's exorbitant property taxes and a state legislature that is largely unresponsive to their needs.

I recently received an e-mail from a close friend and retired Syracuse University psychology professor now residing in Floyd, Virginia, commiserating with me over what he referred to as our depressing situation regarding property taxes.

His remarks sum up the situation about as well as any: "I'm really sorry to hear how things are progressing. You must be exhausted. However, I'm not surprised by the lack of response from Albany. That, and excessive property taxes, are perhaps the main reasons we moved from New York with no intention of returning."

More on the Upstate economy as the dominant issue in the race for Governor From a story by Mike Gormley of the Associated Press:

"Voters are in a much more grumpy mood," said Lee Miringoff of the Marist College poll. "They really feel spent, particularly in upstate New York."

"People are not looking for tinkering," Miringoff said. "People are sort of ready to move on in a new way."

Prudy Fanning of Oneida, a 71-year-old former Republican, has a kind of upstate optimism: "It can't get much worse, so it's got to get better."

The candidates for governor are, more than their 2002 counterparts, trying to offer big ideas.

Democratic front-runner Eliot Spitzer is calling for historic, Erie Canal-like transformations of the state's economy including universal broadband Internet access. Republican John Faso is riveting attention on lowering property taxes. Democratic challenger Tom Suozzi campaigns as a government reformer running against Albany itself.

But they face an electorate that won't easily be wooed by the strategies of four years ago, when Republican Gov. George Pataki won his third and final term.

. . . .

The wavering loyalties come as New Yorkers became more restless with politics as usual.

Four years ago, just 29 percent of New Yorkers were dissatisfied with the way things were going. Today, 54 percent are dissatisfied, and more than half are "very dissatisfied," according to Quinnipiac University polls.

After another four years of property taxes ranked highest or second highest in the nation, job growth below the national average and an upstate economy that has refused to ignite, fixing the economy remains a top campaign issue.

. . . .

Today's voters are making education and the economy top issues, according to the New York Matters poll in May. That's true to form historically but different from 2002, a year after the terrorist attacks. Pataki had record high approval ratings after the attacks, and public security was still much on voters' minds.

A letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal questions the reluctance of one Dutchess County school district to share information on teachers' salaries, even after voters rejected the district's first budget proposal.

The revised budget was approved by only 52 percent, not the kind of support expected in this district.

At a recent meeting, board of education President Ralph Chiumento responded to community complaints about teacher salaries with "It is not my goal to have the lowest teacher salaries in Dutchess County."

What are those salaries? For the past several years, the district has given excruciating details regarding the increasing costs of health insurance, retirements and other mandatory increases to explain increasing budgets and comparing our costs to those of other districts.

However, the district has failed to provide any details on the one item that accounts for the largest part of the school budget: teacher salaries.

For several years, district residents have been inquiring as to what the negotiated salary increases are; this information has never been divulged.

If the board wants to reclaim the support of the district, residents must be given all the information available in order to make an informed decision. . . .

See also: In a second letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal, a candidate for the state Assembly notes the harm done by high taxes in the district he hopes to represent.

As a candidate for state Assembly who has knocked on nearly 9,000 doors over the past year and a half, I have met hundreds of families who are either in the process of selling their home or have already done so because of high school taxes.

Comprehensive school tax reform is the No. 1 issue in our region. Overtaxation and regulation also are creating a hostile business environment that forces small business owners across state lines.

The letter also criticizes a proposal to turn over to the state full responsibility for collecting taxes to support schools.

The Syracuse Post-Standard reports that

For the first time in more than 20 years, a deeply divided Syracuse Common Council Monday hired its own lawyer, a move that allows the body to independently battle a deal between The Pyramid Cos. and the city administration.

Traditionally, both the council and the administration are represented by the city's corporation counsel.

But with Mayor Matt Driscoll and a majority of councilors squared off in a battle over the proposed expansion of the Carousel Center mall, the council voted 6-3 to hire well-known Syracuse appeals lawyer John A. Cirando.

The last time the city council felt it needed its own lawyer was 1984, when then-Mayor Lee Alexander sued the council in a bid to raise taxes.

Monday's vote sets the stage for the council to appeal a March 28 ruling by Supreme Court Justice John V. Centra. Centra found that Pyramid had met the provisions of a 2002 tax deal, qualifying the mall developer for millions of dollars in tax benefits.

The writer of a letter in the Buffalo News applauds a suggestion that would let Erie County residents pay taxes only on services they use.

As a resident of one of the towns facing a surcharge for Sheriff's patrols, I am more than willing to pay for services that are available to my family and that I actually use. For instance we, in the Town of Holland, have no county-supported library, so I will be extremely happy to have the library tax removed from my tax bill.

Also, in the last few years it has been necessary due to reductions in county plowing for my neighbors and me to forge our own paths down unplowed roads in the winter. I believe that we have a credit coming for that, as well. The county jail, prison, Medicaid, the park system in Buffalo, not to mention the myriad of facilities and services in the City of Buffalo that the county has taken over dating back to the Gorski administration are all things that I would gratefully have removed from my share of the county's tax bill.

The Associated Press reports that

Efforts to control costs in the state's Medicaid program are saving counties more than originally expected, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno said Monday.

Under a law enacted in 2005, annual increases in Medicaid spending by counties and New York City are capped at 3.5 percent. Medicaid costs have grown by 7 percent this year, but the state is picking up the added costs counties would have faced.

The cap and other cost containment efforts are now expected to save local governments outside New York City a total of $758 million over the course of 2006 and 2007, $188.6 million more than first projected. New York City will save $1.6 billion over the two years, $344.3 million more than anticipated, Bruno said.

From an editorial in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin:

Nobody expects New York state to be able to cover all the damage caused by the recent flood, but here's a thought:

In addition to whatever emergency funds are available, the Legislature and governor could increase the amount of funds available to victims (most of them taxpayers) by giving up their pork-barrel funds for this year and allocating them to flood relief across the stricken areas of the state.

Hey, it's $200 million -- not an insignificant amount.

In April, the Empire Center for New York State Policy (a part of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research) noted, "The newly adopted state budget for 2006-07 includes a $200 million lump-sum appropriation for 'services and expenses, grants in aid, or for contracts with certain not-for-profit agencies, universities, colleges, school districts, corporations, and/or municipalities.'

. . . .

Some of the funds have been put to good uses, and some to questionable uses (the state Museum of Cheese, for example) -- but for now all could be put to better use. There are lots of New York residents and businesses in need.

So how about it, Gov. Pataki? Sen. Libous and Senate Majority Leader Bruno? Assemblywoman Lupardo and Assembly Speaker Silver? Care to put that $200 million to better use?

Two weeks ago, we noted a fuss in the North Country about the Adirondack Park Agency's apparent intent to oppose a business's proposal to erect a sign--even before the agency held its hearing on the issue. Now, an editorial in the Plattsburgh Press-Republican criticizes the apparent high-handedness by the APA without taking a stand on the merits of the proposed sign.

Lowe's has a job to do, and so does the APA. Our point is not to try to decide whether the smaller sign would be adequate or whether the APA should compromise its standards in order to placate a potentially significant employer.

Our argument is with the APA staffer who said he'd already decided that the 60-foot sign was big enough before hearing what the community, both novices and experts, had to say. For, if such decisions precede public discussions, why have public discussions in the first place?

[U.S. Rep. John M. McHugh] agrees. He took the highly unusual--perhaps unprecedented, around here--step of imploring the APA to be fair on this issue. The reason it is so unusual is that McHugh is not part of the New York state hierarchy. He is a federal representative. How a state agency conducts itself is not a part of his regular purview.

Yet he sees the need to inject himself into the debate, and we applaud him for doing so. Clearly, this is a time for objectivity and open-mindedness.

A letter in the Ithaca Journal argues that state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is right to oppose a controversial, union-backed bill to impose a costly new health insurance mandate and tax on employers.

. . . .Recently Eliot came out against "Fair Share Health Care," saying that it failed to address the need for the "comprehensive reform" of healthcare coverage in the state. He also warned that "Fair Share" would kill thousands of jobs in New York. In order to take this stand, which was a good one, Eliot broke with top Democratic lawmakers and several powerful unions.

The Tompkins County Legislature passed a health care resolution by a majority of 12 to 2, which included "Fair Share Health Care" in spite of a warning from the Tompkins County Health Care Task Force to remove "Fair Share" from the proposal. The leaders of the proposal including Nathan Shinagawa, it seems, failed to seek help from the many health care reform organizations like Physicians for a National Health Care, Health Care Now, Universal Health Care Action Network, and The Tompkins County Health Care Action Network. Not everything in the proposal was bad, because it included a real and only solution, which is "Single-Payer Health Care". . . .

Jim Odato of the Albany Times Union reports that some state legislators are eager to override Governor Pataki's veto of a controversial, union-driven and union-friendly bill that would create 52,000 new state workers.

. . . lawmakers, who left after the session concluded June 23, will be back to take up some odds and ends, probably after the Sept. 12 primaries in New York, several officials said.

Among those loose ends is Pataki's veto of a bill to allow home day-care workers to organize and be represented by unions. Advocates say it would allow day-care providers to negotiate such issues as pay and regulation with government agencies.

Several lawmakers want to return as soon as possible to override the governor's veto.

The Senate overrode the bill, sponsored by Sen. Nicholas Spano, R-Yonkers, just before the Republican-led chamber broke for the summer at 9 p.m. that final Friday night.

Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat, D-Manhattan, said overriding the veto is his biggest priority for 2006. He said he will push Silver to lead the override, even though Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic designee for governor, has urged Silver to let the bill die.

"For me, it's going to be a bare-knuckles fight," Espaillat said.

The legislation would allow 50,000 to 60,000 low-wage employees, many of them from New York City, to become state employees and join unions such as the United Federation of Teachers. The eligible workers must provide in-home child day-care and be paid directly or indirectly from funds administered by New York City or any county.

Cara Matthews of the Gannett News Service reports that

Gov. George Pataki's office signaled Monday that he would veto a budget overhaul bill lawmakers have said would improve timeliness, increase accountability and control spending and debts.

The measure also would shift some budget-making power from the governor's office to the Legislature.

"This so-called budget reform bill is a transparent attempt to revive what the governor vetoed twice and the voters soundly rejected last November," spokesman Michael Marr said, referring to a constitutional amendment on the 2005 ballot to modify the state budget process. Pataki had vetoed that bill, but the Legislature overrode him to put the proposal in a statewide referendum.

The GOP-led Senate and Democrat-controlled Assembly passed a new version last month. Its provisions would:

Change the fiscal year from April 1 to May 1 to allow more time for deliberation of the budget. The governor proposes the budget in January.

Require the governor, Legislature and comptroller to begin discussions about revenue forecasts and spending projections earlier, by Dec. 5.

Establish an independent budget office that provides the Legislature and the public with an analysis of revenues and expenditures. Currently, the governor controls the Budget Division.

'Fed up with Albany's ineptitude.' Joe Spector of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports that

A Rochester-based good government group on Monday launched a campaign to improve the state Legislature, saying it is fed up with Albany's ineptitude.

The Citizens for Better Government in New York has started an Internet petition drive called "E-march on Albany" that calls on lawmakers to adopt three major reform measures: legislative rules changes, independent redistricting and referendum and initiative, which would allow citizens to put issues on the ballot.

The group was established in 2004 during a wave of intense criticism of state government and continues to push for changes in the way the state operates.

"We wanted to do something about the decline of our state," said David Spence, president of CBGNY. "We are still mad ... and we're doing something about it."

The piece notes that the group has consciously avoided substantive reforms in favor of changes to political and legislative processes and procedures.

And instead of focusing on specific issues--such as reforming Medicaid or workers' compensation insurance--the group is targeting fundamental government changes. Some have sought to vote out incumbents as a way to foster reform; yet the citizens' group said that if new politicians came in, they would still be trapped in the same, ineffective system.

"You can't build a house on sand, so the basics have to change," Spence said.

. . . .

"Our strategy is to go after the process changes that are needed, to level the playing field, to give voters a stronger voice and give the elected officials ... a voice in how state government is run," said Bob Volpe, an organizer of the group.

And: A representative of the group has an op-ed in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle here. It includes strong arguments in favor of the case for change.

Our state's health is in serious decline and major problems are ignored or sidestepped by Albany. Businesses and people are fleeing the state at alarming rates. State debt, runaway spending, looming deficits and an inhospitable business environment are sapping the state's economic strength. Whole regions of the state are in distress. Major problems are not being addressed in the areas of education, health care, economics, jobs and oppressive taxes.

New York's problems are not being addressed because the machinery of government in Albany is broken. The "circle of broken government" works like this:

Legislators are not accountable to the people because rigging (gerrymandering) of election districts by political parties provides virtual lifetime employment to incumbents.

Legislators are therefore motivated to pay attention to party leaders and powerful special interests, not the problems of the state or the interests of the people.

The Legislature doesn't work because the operating rules of the Assembly and Senate give near absolute power to two men, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (Democrat), and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (Republican). This enables two men to mismanage the Legislature according to political agendas and the influence of special interests.

Citizens have no recourse against abuse of power or poor government because their representatives are firmly entrenched. Albany will not fix itself without significant external pressure. CBGNY's statewide campaign will allow citizens to say no to the status quo and demand three powerful reforms that can fix Albany. . . .

Ken Lovett of the New York Post reports that the firm of trial lawyers that includes Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver in its stable of attorneys is apparently trolling for clients interested in suing the state.

State Parks Commissioner Bernadette Castro yesterday called it "appalling" that the law firm that employs Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is actively soliciting clients to sue the state and she called on Silver himself to do something about it.

In a letter to Silver obtained by The Post, Castro cited the good work Silver has done over the years in his role as Assembly speaker to enhance the state park system.

Castro ripped the Weitz & Luxenberg firm, where Silver is "of counsel," for using its Web site to solicit possible state park accident victims to sue the state for pain and suffering, which was reported in yesterday's Post.

"I find it appalling that this firm would single out our Gold Medal Award-winning state park system as a target for lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise," she wrote.

"I am sure you shared my shock when you saw that your good name was somehow attached to this deplorable practice," she added.

There's more, including comments from the law firm and criticism from a "good-government" advocate.. And: In an editorial, the New York Post criticizes Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver as "a walking conflict of interest" because of his connection with this law firm and, in his other job, an unyielding opponent of tort reform.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has been a walking conflict of interest at least since he started taking big bucks from a high-powered tort-law firm. But his latest bid to play both sides of the street surely takes the cake.

Consider: As the Legislature's most powerful Democrat, Silver plays a key role in the oversight of state parks. But as The Post's Ken Lovett reported yesterday, Silver's law firm is trolling the Internet for anyone claiming to have been injured in one of those parks, so it can sue the taxpayers of New York for "pain and suffering."

Weitz & Luxenberg's Web site even offers a "how-to" guide for injuries at places like Heckscher State Park - mishaps, the firm suggests, that can result in big cash payouts for the lucky litigant.

"Act now!" the Web site says. "It is essential that you inquire about your premises-liability case as soon as possible." (Yesterday, the firm claimed it "does not directly target people injured at New York state parks" - though its Web site indicates otherwise.)

Amazing.

Will Silver testify for both sides as an expert witness?

Actually, the speaker isn't talking, other than to insist through an aide that he "doesn't have anything to do with" this blatant bit of ambulance-chasing.

Which is more than Silver usually says about his ties to the firm. In fact, he's never disclosed what he does for W&L. And he certainly won't say what he's paid, though it's believed to dwarf his $137,000-a-year legislative salary.

Whatever his pay, the firm can surely afford it: It claims to have collected $1.3 billion for plaintiffs over the past 20 years.

And make no mistake: Silver's earned his W&L pay, working overtime not only for the firm but for all tort lawyers.

This, despite the state Public Officers Law - which directs that no legislator "should have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect" that substantially conflicts with his public duties and which even bars lawmakers from giving "the impression that any person . . . unduly enjoys [his or her] favor."

Over the years, Silver has been a one-man roadblock to tort reform, barring nearly every proposal from even coming to the Assembly floor for a vote.

There's more. And: The Associated Press picks up the story here. Related news? The New York Sun reports that

New York's tort liability system ranks 48th out of 50 states, making it one of the most inefficient systems, according to a study released by the Pacific Research Institute.

Tort systems are by-and-large governed on a state-by-state basis and typically deal with wrongful acts and breaches of contracts like medical malpractice or negligence.

The California-based think tank's "U.S. Tort Liability Index: 2006 Report" ranks states based on a number of factors, including their monetary tort losses, the effect of lawyers on the state's litigiousness, and whether the state caps its monetary payouts.

The study, labeled "a forward-looking assessment," takes into account recent changes to tort laws.

The report's co-author, Hovannes Abramyan, said New York's low ranking is not surprising given the absence of a state cap on payouts for medical malpractice, punitive damages, and noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering.

New York has "a system of justice that tolerates occasional wild verdicts of huge medical malpractice punitive damage claims

Elizabeth Cooper of the Utica Observer-Dispatch reports that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has asked Governor Pataki to veto a bill that is designed to impede development of a proposed Upstate-to-Downstate powerline.

Bloomberg said the bill sought to stop the plan before its impact on the state's energy network could be assessed. New York Regional Interconnect has proposed building a 200-mile power line, but the plan has met stiff opposition from communities it would cut through.

Bloomberg also said the legislation would set a bad precedent and might be unconstitutional because it was created to deny one project in particular.

"This bill seeks to foreclose a reasoned examination of the project's expected benefits as well as any environmental concerns it may raise," Bloomberg wrote to Pataki in a letter dated July 5. "The sponsors of the project argue that there are economic, reliability and environmental benefits for the State of New York if such project is approved and built. These claims, as well as those of project opponents, should be examined in a full evidentiary hearing in front of an impartial arbiter."

But state Sen. Ray Meier, R-Western, said downstate politicians needed to start thinking more about their upstate neighbors when it came to energy issues.

"It's another classic upstate-downstate split and it shows that many times downstate officials don't understand or want to understand upstate," he said.

And: An editorial in the New York Times raises eyebrows at, and questions about, a New York City report that reverses past city wisdom by saying the city won't need new powerplants before 2012.

For a city that gobbles energy like contestants at the Coney Island hot dog eating contest, it was surprising to learn recently, from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's energy task force, that New York won't be needing new power plants until at least 2012. That's a very different report than one issued just two years ago, which said the city would be needing 25 percent more energy generation by 2008. The turnaround is a result, in part, of the city's aggressive conservation and efficiency goals under Mr. Bloomberg. But the city is hardly out of the woods on energy.

Demand continues to grow, by some 150 megawatts per year. Several plants that have come online in the last two years provide about 10 times that amount, which helps. But this is a city with aging power plants and huge new development projects in its future, including areas like Manhattan's West Side and Brooklyn's downtown.

To keep the lights on and the economy booming, the hard work lies just ahead. By law, New York must generate 80 percent of its own power, and it must meet a reliability standard that requires producing more than it needs, about 30 percent more than what might be called for on a peak use day.

As the editorial suggests, the task force apparently relies on some notably sunny estimates of the value of conservation and demand-reduction efforts in coming up with a reduced estimate of the city's energy needs.

Conservation measures, large and small, figure prominently in the task force's game plan. The Green City Buildings Act, signed into law last October, requires large nonresidential projects to meet environmentally sound energy-efficiency standards, and the mayor has required the same of government construction. The city replaced refrigerators in some 180,000 subsidized apartments with models using 75 percent less energy than older models, and even switched pedestrian traffic signals from old-style bulbs to much more efficient light-emitting diodes.

The biggest undertaking is an effort to decrease energy demand, especially at peak times, like the air-conditioned days of summer. One key initiative is Con Edison's plan to reduce peak demand by 675 megawatts over three years by using financial incentives to entice consumers to cut back on peak days, which they can do by turning off some lights and equipment. The goal is lofty and by no means assured.

The editorial also criticizes Albany for now implementing a law to expedite the siting of new generating plants. Article X, which was designed to expedite the process by which proposed power plants were approved or rejected by state regulators, expired at the end of 2002. Despite widespread recognition of the need for a new law, the state Legislature has done virtually nothing to renew it.

Albany has also contributed to the mess by its failure to renew the law that allows timely decisions on the siting of new power plants. This, too, discourages builders and investors.

Meanwhile, back Upstate: The Syracuse Post-Standard reports that the state Senate has scheduled a hearing on the proposed powerline.

The Syracuse Post-Standard reports that there are signs that the Syracuse Common Council and developer Robert Congel are trying to iron out their differences.

The ice is melting between the Syracuse Common Council and developer Robert Congel.

Councilor Bill Ryan said he and Mike Lorenz, chief executive officer of Congel's Destiny USA, agreed Tuesday to meet early next week.

"This is a conversation that should have taken place a while ago," Ryan said.

Ryan, the council's Democratic majority leader, is one of six councilors who voted down an agreement to settle Congel's lawsuit against the city for the tax deal at the Carousel Center. Congel has said that deal would enable him to turn the shopping center into the mega-mall tourist attraction he's called Destiny USA.

The vote on that deal took place June 22, but it was far from the last word on the matter. Last week, Mayor Matt Driscoll attempted to sidestep the council by having the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency approve essentially the same agreement. He also dropped the appeal to Congel's suit on behalf of the city.

Driscoll's decisions enraged the six councilors, and on Monday they hired attorney John A. Cirando to represent the council and attempt to revive the appeal.

And: The Syracuse Post-Standard has several letters on Destiny here. And there's an op-ed from Syracuse Mayor Matt Driscoll here.

One plant in the Buffalo area is planning an expansion that could add 200 new jobs, the Buffalo News reports.

Astronics Corp. plans to more than double its manufacturing capacity at its East Aurora factory by building a 57,600-square-foot addition that also is expected to create 200 additional jobs.

Astronics, which has been weighing an expansion at its local facility against moving work to underused factories in New Hampshire or Montreal, has filed preliminary development plans with village officials for a $7.5 million expansion.

The company, which also is seeking tax breaks from the Erie County Industrial Development Agency, is looking to acquire about 26 acres of land near its current plant in the Commerce Green industrial park, IDA officials said.

And: Another area firm plans an expansion that could open up new jobs, the paper reports.

More bleach going into swimming pools, paper mills and water treatment plants means more business for a chemical maker in Niagara Falls.

Olin Corp. announced Monday it will spend $6.5 million at its plant on Buffalo Avenue to double production of chlorine bleach.

. . . .

One new sales position was created and more jobs may open up as sales increase, [Olin marketing official Ken] Morgan said. In addition, contractors will be hired as the renovations go forward.

Buffalo News columnist Donn Esmonde argues (again) that Albany should relinquish its cut of any profits from a proposed casino in Buffalo.

A stand-alone Seneca Indian gambling hall would take in about $150 million a year, most of it from local pockets. Three of every four dollars would go to the Senecas. Albany would eventually get 25 percent of the slot machine take.

Buffalo would bear the big pain - from losses out of local budgets to bankruptcies and broken families - in return for a pittance, just a quarter of the state's share. It is not right, and Higgins - by pushing to get all of Albany's cut - wants to balance the scale.

. . . .

I wrote all of this five years ago, using University of Nevada-Las Vegas' Thompson as an expert witness. I wrote it plenty of times since. The only way this thing makes half-sense - and probably still does more harm than good - is if Buffalo keeps all of the non-Seneca share, instead of Albany taking a cut. If that happens, we would pocket nearly $30 million a year.

[Rep. Brian] Higgins wants to use that money to pump up our cultural attractions. A better zoo and restored Frank Lloyd Wright masterpieces and touring shows at Shea's will bring the outside dollars that a casino never will. The convention bureau, gutted by budget cuts, would get the money it needs to spread the word.

"The idea that the casino would bring people in from outside the area is a fallacy," Higgins said. "But what will bring people in is greatly enhanced cultural institutions."

. . . .

If we have to swallow the casino lemon, and that still is a big "if," at least let us turn it into lemonade.

One official in Erie County is asking lawmakers there not to borrow more and to refrain from taking the reserve cash and spending it, the Buffalo News reports.

The comptroller who popularized the term "debt diet" - as in Erie County needs one - nonetheless sided with the county executive Tuesday in saying officials should not raid this year's pot of extra cash just so they can borrow less for major summer projects.

County Comptroller Mark C. Poloncarz came down squarely against the Legislature and the state-appointed control board when they urged Joel A. Giambra to spend this year's extra income so he can borrow less to repair roads, bridges, roofs and other amenities.

"I don't want anyone from the administration, the Legislature or the Fiscal Stability Authority saying, "We have some extra money lying around, now let's use it,' " Poloncarz said Tuesday, after distributing a letter explaining his position.

He said the government should always try to borrow less and spend less, but he doesn't want expenses paid with one-shot revenue - in this case, reserves.

In short, Poloncarz said Erie County can better repair its worse-than-mediocre credit rating by accumulating rainy day money, about 5 percent of its total budget. The other reason: Should this year's feast turn to famine, officials will need the savings for everyday expenses.

An editorial in the Utica Observer-Dispatch decries Albany's tradition of spending taxpayers' dollars in pork-barrel projects and then working hard to keep those spending decisions secret.

Last year, New York's legislative leaders, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, spent $200 million of your money.

On what, you ask? Good question, taxpayers, but your leaders don't think you need to know.

The funds in question are commonly known as member items, or state grants legislators are allowed to give out at their discretion, and the state's top officials contend they don't have to disclose which lawmakers got the funds, how much they got or what they spent it on.

. . . .

Member items are often referred to as "pork"

Larry Rulison of the Albany Times Union reports that economic-development professionals from the Capital Region have traveled to San Francisco to tout the merits of development in this region at a huge semiconductor-industry trade show.

They have some new clout when it comes to attracting technology companies, following Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s announcement last month that it intends to build a $3.2 billion computer chip factory in Saratoga County at the Luther Forest Technology Campus. The planned investment is a watershed event for the Capital Region and the entire state of New York.

Kelly Lovell, president and chief executive of the Center for Economic Growth, an Albany-based regional economic development group, has been attending Semicon West for a decade. But this time, her trip is sweeter than ever because of the AMD deal.

She said one of her goals here, besides building on the AMD success, is to drum up business for other sites in upstate New York that are targeting the semiconductor industry, including a state-owned site in Marcy.

That site, located in suburban Utica adjacent to the campus of the State University of New York Institute of Technology, was a close second to Luther Forest for AMD's new plant.

None of those discussions would be taking place had AMD not made its decision.

"We have many other sites that can handle the vendors and suppliers that will want to be near AMD," Lovell said Tuesday.

Lovell and other economic development officials, as well as companies that serve the semiconductor industry, are here as a group called NY Loves Nanotech. They have a massive set of booths and exhibits at the Moscone Center on Howard Street -- including a bar -- that is larger than most other economic development booths, including one organized by South Korea, home to chip giant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

There's much more.

Steve Israel of the Middletown Times Herald-Record reports on several different meetings in Orange County at which residents voiced strong objections to a proposed Upstate-to-Downstate powerline.

More than 900 folks blasted it in the western Orange County Village of Otisville. A crowd of 450 hammered it in the Delaware River hamlet of Callicoon.

But even though only about 50 people turned out for last night's meeting about the proposed power line that would run from Utica to this eastern Orange town, they also denounced it.

If it were up to the politicians and citizens in the stuffy Temple Hill school gym, the New York Regional Interconnect would get a thumbs down from the state's Public Service Commission. Its secretary, Jaclyn Brilling, came to the meeting hosted by state Sen. Bill Larkin, R-C-Cornwall-on-Hudson.

. . . .

On Saturday, several anti-power-line organizations are staging a "Regional Congress" in upstate Norwich to develop strategy against the project.

The state Legislature recently passed a bill, sponsored by Sen. John Bonacic, R-C-Mount Hope, and awaiting a decision by Gov. George Pataki, that blocks NYRI from taking land along the route by eminent domain. And at least two members of the House of Representatives, Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, and Sue Kelly, R-Katonah, are against it.

The Regional Congress will be held at 10 a.m. Saturday in Norwich. More information: www.regionalcongress.com.

. . . The New York Regional Interconnect high-voltage power line would run for 190 miles, from Utica to New Windsor. It would supply power for New York City and the lower Hudson Valley. It is a private enterprise formed by Canadians. If NYRI can't gain state approval, it could win federal permission through a provision of the 2005 energy act that allows the Department of Energy to designate "a national interest electric transmission corridor." NYRI has hired the Washington, D.C., law firm of former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer recently chatted at length with the editorial board of the Daily News, which published excerpts from the conversation. It's noteworthy how often fiscal-policy concerns animate the attorney general's comments. It's also interesting to see his willingness to float ideas that will be less than warmly welcomed by the state's powerful spending interests, such as the teachers' union.

QUESTION: What is the major focus of your campaign?

ANSWER: The overriding concern that we have to have is reforming government so that it reflects the needs of the state. Reducing property taxes is a very necessary piece of bringing back the upstate economy. And we need to improve infrastructure. It is transportation, it is housing, it is education, it is energy. That will provide the foundation for an economy that has the capacity to grow enormously.

How would you improve the city schools, and how would you invest the money that may come as a result of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit against the state?

I believe in competition, I believe in accountability, I believe in transparency. We need to see a significant infusion of money, but we have to pair it with increased charter schools, giving principals authority. We have to make sure we address the issue of universal pre-K and early literacy. We need to give teachers incentives to teach at low-performing schools. We have to begin to think about pay-for-performance.

. . . .

You've said you would aim to save lots of money by trimming Medicaid. How specifically would you accomplish that?

There are certain services we can't afford to pay for. There are certain hospitals that are going to close.

And, when it comes to Medicaid, here is the piece that nobody is really focused on: long-term care. Some 41% of our Medicaid dollars go to long-term care. This is a time bomb. We've got to figure out how we pay for it, how we incorporate other forms of care across the continuum.

The Upstate economy as Spitzer's top priority: The story in the Daily News based on this conversation indicates that Spitzer has identified fixing the Upstate economy as one of his top priorities. Meanwhile: Tom Suozzi, the Nassau County Executive and a longshot candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor, staged a cute publicity stunt, pegged to Major League Baseball's annual all-star game, to highlight his views on the need for change in Albany.

. . . Suozzi held a press conference at Mickey Mantle's restaurant to distribute a pack of baseball cards, one for each member of what he called the "Albany insider All-Star team."

"If you want to know why every year, important government reforms get stuck in the legislative on-deck circle, you need to look no further than to the bipartisan collection of strikeout artists who care far more about protecting their playing time than putting up wins for the state of New York," Suozzi, the Nassau County Executive, told reporters.

Suozzi, in an uphill battle to topple Eliot Spitzer in the state's Democratic primary, named Spitzer the team's "designated hitter."

Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Republican Senate leader Joseph Bruno also received cards, as did several lobbyists, including former Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, and GOP gubernatorial candidate John Faso.

State Comptroller Alan Hevesi has published a new analysis of spending increases in the 2006-07 state budget. As Marc Humbert of the Associated Press reports, it shows that state spending this year is set to grow 12.9 percent, about four times the rate of inflation.

The Hevesi analysis could prove troublesome for Pataki, who is eyeing a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and has been trying to portray himself as a tax-cutting, fiscal conservative.

Democrat Hevesi said his review of the final budget deal indicated state spending would grow twice as fast as revenue.

"This is not sustainable for the long term," warned Hevesi.

While Pataki had vetoed about $3 billion worth of state spending added to his original budget plan by the Legislature this year, the lame-duck governor and legislative leaders eventually agreed to restore much of that disputed spending.

The comptroller said that under the agreed-to spending plan, the new state budget would be $114.7 billion when federal funds were included, up from the 2005-06 budget of $104.3 billion. That is a 10 percent increase.

But state spending alone, according to Hevesi, would rise to $78.7 billion, up from $69.7 billion, a 12.9 percent jump.

And, while Hevesi had earlier warned of a potential two-year budget gap of $12.8 billion as a result of the new budget, he raised that estimate to $13.9 billion with his Tuesday report.

Hevesi also cautioned that the final budget deal added $1.8 billion in new debt to the fiscal mix, raising the total amount of new debt authorized in the 2006-07 budget to $16.5 billion.

More: Fred Dicker of the New York Post has a detailed story.

Hevesi - in his grim assessment of what lies ahead for New York - said the budget agreed to by lame-duck Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Rensselaer) put the state on a course where spending will grow at twice the rate of projected new revenues.

General fund spending, which excludes federal funds, is projected to increase by nearly 30 percent by the 2008-2009 fiscal year while revenues during the same period will likely grow just 15 percent, he said.

"This is not sustainable for the long term," Hevesi warned.

Hevesi said that while Pataki - who is attempting to win the Republican presidential nomination partly by claiming to be a fiscal conservative - vetoed $3 billion from the initial budget passed by the Legislature in the spring, he then agreed with lawmakers to $2.2 billion to the spending plan in the final days of the legislative session.

'Unbelievable.' From an editorial in the New York Post:

State-funds spending (which is financed by state taxes and fees, exclusive of any aid from Uncle Sam) is shooting up 13 percent, the comptroller reports - about four times faster than inflation.

Unbelievable.

Where will all that money come from?

Truth be told, lawmakers have no idea. Hevesi says the 11th-hour moves created a two-year gap that is at least $10 billion and possibly as much as $14 billion.

And, over the next few years, overall spending is set to grow twice as fast as revenues.

Hmm. Maybe state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is expected to win the race for governor, should instead hope to lose. The coming budget crunch could sure give the next gov major-league agita.

Will taxes have to go up?

Will spending go down? (Yeah, right.)

Or will Albany, under new management, nonetheless revert to its old standby: kick the can down the road by borrowing - leaving an even larger nut for the next generation of taxpayers?

Certainly, this question should be center stage in the gubernatorial race.

'A shameless, election-year spending binge beyond belief.' The Daily News also has a brief editorial comment.

We stand corrected. Last month we took Gov. Pataki and the Legislature to task for running up state spending by 12%, or four times the rate of inflation, in their final 2006-07 budget. We called this a shameless election-year spending binge. But it turns out we were off the mark. Controller Alan Hevesi has crunched all the numbers, and state spending is actually up 13%. We call that a shameless, election-year spending binge beyond belief.

The little settlement in rural Tompkins County used to have a sign, but someone stole it. Honestly, wouldn't you? Elizabeth Lawyer tells more, in this amusing report for the Ithaca Journal.

The high cost of workers' compensation affects local governments and school districts--that is, taxpayers-- as well as private-sector businesses. Now, the City of Rome is looking for savings by moving to cut workers' comp ties with Oneida County, the Utica Observer-Dispatch reports.

If the city can administer claims itself, it would save money, Corporation Counsel Timothy Benedict said.

The city spent about $516,000 this year under the county's insurance coverage, through Utica National Insurance Co., Benedict said.

Under the new plan, an initiative of Mayor James Brown, the city will bring the insurance coverage in-house, and will hire a third party administrator to oversee claims, administer files, and issue the checks among other responsibilities, he said.

Syracuse lawmakers said Destiny developers would be getting an unfair tax deal but Mayor Matt Driscoll continues to disagree, the Post-Standard reports.

Six Syracuse councilors gave a key reason for rejecting a tax deal for the Carousel Center mall expansion: The Pyramid Cos. founder Robert Congel could get a 30-year property tax break on the old mall even if he builds nothing new.

"Chief among the legislation's weaknesses is the lack of any guarantee that the developer will build a mall expansion, much less 'Destiny,' " they said in a letter published in The Post-Standard July 2. Destiny USA is Pyramid's vision for a resort that includes the mall.

There's more.

A Spanish-based manufacturer of train equipment is setting up operations in Schenectady, creating 35 jobs and the potential for dozens more. The Times Union's Alan Wechsler reports.

John Hanrahan, chief executive officer of SEPSA North America, said the company was benefiting from the dollar's increased value against the euro. Other signs that business may increase come from greater interest in public transportation due to high gas costs and environmental concerns, plus the recent approval of billions of dollars in state and federal grants for trains and buses.

A Utica-area company plans to double its workforce, the Observer-Dispatch reports.

APAC Customer Services Inc. officials said the company's Genesee Street customer care center will double its staffing by the end of the year.

The Deerfield, Ill.-based company currently employs 300 people at a Utica call center, but will add more than 300 jobs by the end of the year. Most of the new positions will be inbound customer service jobs, while 20 additional jobs will be team leaders in supervisory positions, Utica center Manager J.R. Stricker said.

Upstate farmers have lost more than 23,000 acres of crops due to recent floods, state officials reported. The Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin's Brian Liberatore has that story here. New York Wired has added an "Upstate Flooding" section to its daily list of news links, here.

Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks should learn from Chemung County officials that cutting Medicaid can be done with innovation and technology, the Democrat and Chronicle says.

Brooks also should watch closely the progress of Chemung County, which is seeking a federal waiver to require 15,000 of its 17,000 Medicaid recipients to enroll in an intensive case management project analysts predict could save the county more than $12 million of its $120 million Medicaid expenses.

Using cutting-edge software, Chemung has learned that on average its Medicaid patients access the health program 46 times a year. Stacked against statistics showing non-Medicaid patients access their health system only about five times a year, there's clearly a problem of over-utilization.

Such a problem may also exist in Monroe. Carpenter, the county's Medicaid czar, says software is on the way to help find out. Utilizing new technology holds great potential for greater Medicaid savings for the county and taxpayers who pay the bills.

Efforts to attract an Advanced Micro Devices computer-chip plant began four to five years before last month's announcement that the company will indeed be coming to Saratoga County, a key player in the deal says. The Times Union's Larry Rulison interviewed Ken Green, president of the Saratoga County Economic Development Corp., at a semiconductor conference in San Francisco. New York representatives met with AMD executives in Germany two years ago, Rulison reports.

It was then that the local officials learned that a $1 billion incentive package was the global standard for a chip fab, but they also learned that one chip fab would pay for itself twice over within 3 years, through the ripple effect of related economic development.

They also were told that for each job in the chip plant, three would be created through vendors or suppliers. AMD's chip fab in Saratoga County is expected to employ 1,200, but officials have said it will create thousands of additional jobs.

The value of incentives: We pointed out the key role that big incentives play in attracting major new development in a 1997 report, Beating Them At Their Own Game. The report, available here, examined successful efforts in Virginia and other states to attract plants like AMD's. We're pleased that New York's leaders have made the right efforts, and achieved the right results. But the report also noted that incentives aren't everything. Albany must continue to improve its overall business climate. And we pointed to another issue that still gets too little attention: "our longtime reputation as a business-hating, union-dominated state." While New York has done a lot to overcome the "business-hating" label, this year's efforts to impose a $9 billion business-tax increase tend to reverse that progress. The flood of pro-union, anti-taxpayer bills this year doesn't help our national and international image, either. More: The TU's Rulison has more from that semiconductor conference--reporting on how industry experts from other states and other countries see the Capital Region's AMD announcement--in this story. It's well worth reading.

The New York Sun says proposals to put restrictions on trial lawyer commercials merely skim the surface of lawyer problems in New York.

[T]he ads are symptomatic of deeper problems afflicting the tort system, especially here in New York. The state ranked 48th in the nation in a recent ranking on a liability index created by the Pacific Research Institute, with one being the best. New York ranks 38th in respect of monetary tort damages and 48th in respect of "threats" because New York has more lawyers per dollar of gross state product than any other state while ranking among the worst five states for civil cases filed per 100,000 residents (excluding divorces). New York comes in 47th on a measure of the strength of monetary caps on damages, 38th on enacting substantive reforms like contingency fee limits and class-action reform, and 33rd on procedural and structural reforms such as constraints on frivolous lawsuits.

The study didn't even count New York's special problems, like the political power of its tort bar. Nowhere is this more evident than with the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, himself a personal-injury lawyer. The firm at which he is currently on staff, Weitz & Luxenberg, even solicits potential plaintiffs to sue the state for injuries suffered at state parks, the New York Post has reported. No wonder it has proven impossible to push tort reform through the legislature.

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech deserves First Amendment protection, lawyers are free to set more stringent standards of professional conduct and to refuse to admit violators to the bar. But the better way to solve the problem would be tackle the fundamentals of the tort system in the state, thus reducing actual abuses instead of merely reducing their visibility. New York could cap non-economic damages, a step that has been successful in other states. On the medical malpractice front, the state could adopt the kind of specialized "health court" advocated by Mr. Howard. It shouldn't be hard to find ways to improve. Forty-seven other states have enacted provisions that are at least marginally better than New York's status quo. The state and its lawyers would benefit more from real tort reform than they ever would from an advertising ban.

Assembly Majority Leader Paul Tokasz told the Buffalo News' Tom Precious he will retire at the end of this year. As the highest-ranking member of the Assembly after Speaker Silver, Tokasz was able to bring state dollars to Western New York, and otherwise influence key decisions, Precious notes.

But as a member of the Assembly leadership team, Tokasz also found himself having to represent the often liberal leanings of a Democratic conference dominated by New York City lawmakers - positions often at odds with his more moderate district.

Judging from editorials and letters to the editor in Majority Leader Tokasz' hometown paper, for instance, many Western New York residents are unhappy about the flood of union giveaways that passed both the Assembly and Senate this year. Upstate members of the Legislature often speak of the need to ease Albany's costly mandates on local governments and school districts. Somehow, though, they never get around to real action. Instead, this year, they voted repeatedly to make things worse. Precious' story, available here, says Mr. Tokasz could end up with another important position in state government if Attorney General Spitzer wins the governor's office in November. Whatever the future holds for him, we wish the Majority Leader well.

When Governor Pataki, Senator Bruno and Speaker Silver announced budget agreements a few weeks ago, it appeared that everyone was a winner, the Albany Times Union says. But a new report from Comptroller Hevesi's office reveals 19 million losers.

Now it turns out that not everyone was a winner after all. There happens to be a big loser -- you, the taxpayer...

Spending, says Mr. Hevesi, is likely to grow by $10.1 billion from the 2005-06 budget, depending on what final figures are released by the governor's office. That means spending was up 10 percent more than last year, or three times the rate of inflation. The latest figures also reflect a dangerous trend that shows expenses outpacing revenues. The comptroller estimates that spending will increase by 30 percent, compared with a 15 percent increase in revenues, through the 2008-09 budget years.

There's more bad news: The much touted budget surplus of this year will morph into deficits over the next two years, to as much as a total of $13.9 billion. And if that isn't bad enough, the comptroller has determined that $2 billion in surplus monies from the 2005-06 budget were spent not on one-time costs, as economists suggest, but on day-to-day expenses -- a formula for fiscal disaster.

There's more in the editorial, here. More: The report from Comptroller Hevesi's office is available here. And: A New York Post editorial says Albany leaders could learn a thing or two from President Bush's fiscal policies--tax cuts that have produced dramatic increases in revenue. That editorial is here.

Citizen-activist Mark Bitz is intensifying his campaign for change in Albany, by urging voters to oust incumbents of both parties. The Syracuse Post-Standard reports here.

"The problem is, every district loves their representatives,” Bitz said. “Gerrymandering, pork and positive PR do the trick. All voters believe their representatives are not the problem; the problem lies with representatives in other districts. And that is the problem.”

Both the Republican majority in the senate and the Democratic majority in the assembly have been corrupted by special interests and exchange preferential legislation for campaign contributions, he said. Although many state legislators promised reform during the 2004 campaign, little meaningful reform actually happened, he said.

As millions of baby boomers retire, Upstate employers may find it hard to replace valued workers, a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Buffalo branch finds. Large numbers of retirements will affect businesses across the country, but Upstate will be hit harder because so many young workers have moved away, according to Richard Deitz, a senior economist with the Buffalo Fed. AP's Carolyn Thompson reports on the study, and offers analysis from our Matt Maguire, here.

Roughly half a million upstate workers are projected to retire between 2000 and 2010, and nearly 800,000 more will stop working between 2010 and 2020. That means that even a region that has seen little job growth in recent years will experience a demand for new workers.

...

"There is a chicken and egg situation that makes it a little bit hard to diagnose," said Matthew McGuire [sic], spokesman for the Business Council of New York State.

"We know that New York State has been losing jobs and we know that New York State has been losing people ... It's not always easy to say if people leave because jobs leave or if jobs evaporate because there's no people to fill them," he said.

"We believe that New Yorkers have been leaving because jobs have been leaving," McGuire said, "and if retirements -- and ideally, an improvement in our business climate -- produce more jobs then people will return."

Those improvements are important, he said, because even if jobs are available, if lower taxes make it easier to make a living or run a business elsewhere, people won't be lining up to go home again.

"It's just not safe to assume that people are going to come streaming back if we don't address our core policy problems," McGuire said.

More context: Upstate’s count of residents in the 20-34 age group dropped by 377,000 – almost one-quarter - during the 1990s. Those young men and women are the people who are beginning their careers, starting families, buying homes and putting down roots in the community. They are vital to any community’s future. Lots more details on trends in the Upstate economy are in our briefing paper, available here. And more: The full report from the Buffalo Fed is here. Commentary from a citizen: A Syracuse resident (and apparent Destiny skeptic) writes to the Post-Standard, wondering why good economic news has not been reflected in the population data.

Young people still move away, exciting new businesses and companies fail to show up. So I have two questions for mall expansion disciples: What exactly is the problem, and why will more retail space solve it?

With this year's gubernatorial campaign shaping up to be a debate on taxes, we're pleased to present the latest statistics at the center of that debate. New York's overall state-and-local tax burden remains the heaviest in the country, and the state ranks at or near the top in property, income and sales taxes, our new Just The Facts compilation shows. State and local taxes averaged $5,260 for every New Yorker in 2004. That figure was the highest in the nation, 53 percent above the average for all states. Even after adjusting for personal incomes in each state, taxes in New York are still the highest, 32 percent above average. We also show specific figures for our property-tax burden, income taxes, sales taxes, corporate and other taxes compared to those in other states. As always, our new analysis uses U.S. Census Bureau data and other authoritative sources. Today's news release, with Just The Facts on taxes and spending in New York, is available here.

The Associated Press recalls an ex-New Yorker who turned out to be a player in the Gold Rush in the Yukon. We enjoyed reading this piece.

Jeff Aaron of the Elmira Star-Gazette reports that

Six energy companies, including Fortuna Energy in Big Flats, submitted bids Thursday for the rights to explore and drill for natural gas on more than 200 land parcels totaling more than 4,000 acres and owned by Chemung County.

Chemung County Budget Director Steven Hoover said once the bids are compiled by the county's purchasing department -- each of the companies presented individual bids for each parcel they were interested in -- they will be reviewed to determine the winning bid. The recommendation will then be presented to the county Legislature for its approval. Hoover also said there is no deadline for making the decision.

There's more.

The Elmira Star-Gazette reports that the city of Elmira is trying to reduce spending to eliminate an operating deficit.

Stopping all nonessential overtime and cutting 19 percent from capital spending were among steps outlined Thursday to improve Elmira's cash flow and begin to erase the city's $2.1 million operating deficit.

"The city's financial situation is serious, and serious steps are necessary to begin to turn things around," City Manager John Burin said at a news conference Thursday at Elmira City Hall. "People should know that serious does not mean precarious."

Burin said city and Chemung County officials have discussed the situation, and a task force is being formed that will include Mayor John Tonello, City Chamberlain Joy Bates and County Executive Tom Santulli.

The task force will work with a consultant to study the city's financial situation and its practices, and the panel will make recommendations, Burin said.

Contacted after the news conference, Santulli said having business leaders, government officials and a consultant working together is the best way to address the situation. The serious problem needs to be dealt with head-on, he said.

"The fiscal health of the city impacts every community in the county," Santulli said. "If their fiscal health fails, it's going to have wide-reaching impact on the county as a whole. So I think it behooves us to be part of the solution. And we've got a lot of work to do. I'm sure it's going to involve, eventually, a total restructure of city government."

There's more.

Sam Roberts of the New York Times reports that New York attracts more college freshmen from other states than any other state.

Buoyed by declining crime and images of a dazzling lifestyle, New York State has emerged as the top destination for freshmen leaving their home states to attend college.

The Jamestown Post-Journal reports that

An additional $300,000 in state aid to Jamestown in the 2006-07 state budget will be spent on skyrocketing state pension system payments.

While state aid to municipalities decreased from the Aid and Incentives to Municipalities program from its inception in 1969 through the 1990s, Mayor Sam Teresi said state officials have recently begun made it a priority to begin increasing aid again. Aid has increased in the last four to five years, he said, but the city still receives about the same amount from the state as it did in 1988.

The aid increase will be going right back to the state, however, in the form of ever-increasing payments into the state retirement system.

"With significant action taken by both houses of the Legislature and signed by the governor, we will see the most significant increase in state aid in well over a decade," Teresi said. "Where that additional assistance will go I can tell you in one word. That increase in aid coming over the next two years will be used entirely and then some to pay the skyrocketing state retirement bill we have to pay the state."

It's worth remembering an analysis we published last fall that shows how costly New York State's public-employee pensions are.

New York's state and local government employees collect higher retirement benefits while contributing less than state and local government employees in other states, according to a Public Policy Institute analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

State and local government retirees in New York collected an average $23,483 in pension benefits in 2004, some 18 percent above the national average, according to the Institute.

New York's state and local governments contributed a total of $4.2 billion in taxpayer funding for pensions in 2003-04, according to the Census Bureau. That was up from $2.4 billion the previous year, and $1.5 billion in 2001.

New York government employees contributed 3 percent of total receipts to the state's pension systems in 2004. Nationwide government workers contributed an average 8 percent of public pension fund revenue.

Irony alert: Good thing state lawmakers in Albany recognize the problem and don't do anything dumb to make it worse. Oh, wait. . . .

The New York Times has a long story on some folks in Utica whose view of the city's problems seem rather narrowly focused on preserving old building. We were amused in particular by a remark from the preservationist who put the entire city on some kind of "endangered buildings" list and then made a patronizing remark about losing favor with "those that can't see the big picture." Are the region's well-documented problems with the loss of jobs and people really a smaller picture than endangered buildings? That, we respectfully submit, is questionable. The story quotes the mayor working to inject a note of common sense into the frenzied harrumphing about endangered buildings:

Despite the loss of the Mr. Lamp Building and the alarm raised by the Landmarks Society, Mayor Timothy Julian said the city was doing its best. "The Landmarks Society has a love-hate relationship with me," he said. "They would like to save absolutely everything, and we can?t afford to do it."

Elizabeth Cooper of the Utica Observer-Dispatch reports that New York State's two U.S. Senators, Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Hillary Clinton (D-New York) have joined the large chorus of voices opposing a proposed Upstate-to-Downstate powerline.

Clinton sent a letter Thursday to federal Energy Secretary John Bodman, urging him not to grant designation of the line as a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor.

"I am extremely concerned about the potential environmental and economic impacts in communities along the proposed NYRI route," Clinton said in a prepared statement. "Today, I am asking the (Department of Energy) to reject NYRI's request to empower federal agencies to use eminent domain to site this power line."

Privately owned New York Regional Interconnect wants to erect a power line from Marcy to New Windsor in the lower Hudson Valley.

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can override state power-line siting decisions within certain corridors. The company wants its route, which follows the New York Susquehanna & Western Railroad's tracks south toward the Binghamton area, to receive the federal designation. Locally, the line would go through New York Mills, South Utica, Washington Mills, Chadwicks, Sauquoit, Clayville, Cassville and Waterville.

And Clinton is telling the Department of Energy that's a bad idea.

"I urge you to reject NYRI's request for designation as a (national interest corridor)," she wrote. "The question of whether to build a transmission line within New York state should be decided by the state using its very comprehensive permitting process."

. . . .

Asked if he agreed with Clinton, Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., released this statement through spokeswoman Bethany Lesser: "The (Department of Energy) should slam the door shut on NYRI's efforts to avoid the public and thorough state process."

Local power-line opponents said they were pleased by what the senators said.

"I think it's a very good letter and we certainly agree with it 100 percent," Mike Steiger, head of Upstate New York Citizens Alliance, said of Clinton's letter. "I think the efforts of all the groups up and down the corridor, and their efforts at getting correct information to our political representatives, has done the job of convincing them that this proposal is not an appropriate solution to any energy problems that we may have."

And: The Middletown Times Herald-Record has the story here. More: An editorial in the Utica Observer-Dispatch suggests that local officials direct some questions about the proposed powerline to Vice President Dick Cheney and the region's economic struggles when he comes to town on a political visit.

The vice president is coming to the area to help raise funds for state Sen. Raymond Meier's congressional campaign. His visit will be a living lesson in democracy

An editorial in the Poughkeepsie Journal highlights the implications of a recent federal report on the Indian Point power plant in Westchester County for New York State's need for more electricity-generating capacity. In particular, the editorial cites the need to enact policy changes in Albany that make it easier to site and built new power plants.

[Indian Point] opponents cited the fact the 280-page report, prepared by the National Academy of Sciences for the U.S. Department of Energy, proclaimed the facility could be closed and alternative forms of energy could take its place.

But plant supporters noted the report didn't sugarcoat the obstacles to such a scenario. Essentially, the $1 million federal report says there are no technological barriers from closing the nuclear plant, but state and power companies would have to start moving soon to built new power facilities.

The academy cited "political, regulatory, financial and institutional" impediments to building new power plants in the state.

They are, indeed, considerable. In fact, the state doesn't even have legal guidelines for building new power plants. Lawmakers let those rules expire more than two years ago. While both Democratic and Republican leaders agree the law is necessary, they have been unable to work out the details. They shouldn't wait much longer.

The editorial also provides a sober reminder about just how much power Indian Point provides to the economic center of action in New York State. It also notes the longstanding Downstate resistance to siting new generating and transmission facilities.

Energy experts say New York's power supply should be adequate during this summer's peak use, but the future is not as clear. Indian Point supplies about 25 percent of the electricity delivered to the New York City and the lower Hudson Valley. Not only would this power need to be replaced, new sources would have to take into account the undeniable fact that energy needs will increase in the years ahead.

Given the public's resistance to most development these days, siting a new power plant anywhere isn't going to be easy. Ironically, the state's now-defunct siting law, known as Article X, was created to streamline that process. But the state Senate and Assembly have fought over a number of details, including provisions aimed at shielding consumers from price spikes to forcing utilities to offer alternative sites for what they were proposing. Lawmakers have to overcome their differences.

While the federal report focused on Indian Point, the findings point to a larger issue that must not be ignored: The state needs a comprehensive and realistic energy plan for the future.

This reminds us: New York State actually has a comprehensive energy plan. And what does it say about these issues? As we noted when the plan was first published in 2002, the new state Energy Plan calls for an increase in New York's energy capacity and a reauthorization of the state's power-plant siting law-two essential steps toward a secure energy future. . . . Why this matters: Indian Point has long been a kind of lightning rod in energy-policy discussions in New York State. Far-left-of-center environmentalists want to close it. Just about everyone else recognizes that the case for retaining access to Indian Point and its generating capacity is very, very, very strong.

A letter in the Syracuse Post-Standard cites our Just the Facts data to argue that New York's high taxes and job-creation costs were probably a key factor in a pharmaceutical manufacturer's recent decision to invest in Massachusetts.

Is New York state's liberal, social engineering worth the increased taxes that will have to be increasingly imposed on individuals due to the shrinking business presence? "Just the Facts" lists the 2005 State Competitiveness Index, which ranks New York 40th with a rating of 4.37. Massachusetts is ranked No. 1 with a rating of 7.14.

How many are comforted by Bristol's decision reportedly being based on an available pharmaceutically trained labor pool? Especially when we realize the state and local authorities promised to pay for potential employee training while construction was under way.

At some point taxation is going max out and not cover the ever-increasing expense of government. What can our legislators possibly do then, seize our property?

There's more today on the story, broken yesterday by Tom Precious of the Buffalo News, that the state Assembly's second-highest ranking Democrat, Paul Tokasz of Erie County, will not seek re-election. For example: A story by Yancey Roy of the Gannett News Service focuses on Upstate Assembly members who might like to success Tokasz as Assembly minority leader: Joseph Morelle (D-Monroe County), RoAnn Destito (D-Oneida County), and Ron Canestrari (D-Albany County). As the story notes, the job of majority leader includes supporting the agenda of the Assembly Speaker, now Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and, almost invariably, a New York City Democrat.

The majority leader controls floor debates in the Assembly, helps direct which bills make it to the floor for a vote and which don't, and counts heads to make sure the majority has enough members in their seats to pass bills. The leader must also act as a sounding board for members when they can't reach the Assembly speaker and help push the speaker's agenda.

"`It's a difficult job and a tedious job," said Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, D-Buffalo. "It's not glamorous."

The payback is money and clout. The post carries an annual $35,827 stipend on top of a legislator's base salary of $79,500. Also, Tokasz was seen as being able to deliver state money to the Buffalo area for a variety of projects.

Conventional Capitol wisdom says Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, would pick an upstate legislator for geographic balance.

As we noted yesterday, the part of that job that involves defending a Downstate-driven agenda to an Upstate delegation under increasing pressure to do something, anything, to improve the Upstate economy seems, in recent months, to have been making a difficult job even more difficult. We don't expect that to change; in fact, we suspect that Toksasz's successor will face even more tough questions about what, if anything, the Upstate delegation in the state Assembly is doing to pass the policy reforms that Upstate needs to reduce taxes, costs of job creation, and the loss of people and jobs. And: Jim Odato of the Albany Times Union has a story that mentions some other possible Upstate candidates to succeed Tokasz: Paul Tonko (D-Montgomery County) and Robin Schimminger (D-Erie County). And: The Associated Press has the story here. For you hard-core political junkies: There'll be more on this development on Inside Albany.

A thoughtful letter in the Ithaca Journal addresses the notion, currently simmering here and there in debates on how to address New York's tax issues, that problems with high taxes can be meaningfully eased by relying less on property taxes and more on other kinds of taxes.

Property tax advantages include, (a) taxing wealth, (b) making people more directly aware of link between cost and benefit (particularly public service), (c) lower cost to collect and administer, (d) stable and predictable, and (e) local control.

Local officials dislike property taxes because it is locally controlled and the only tax with a direct link between taxpayer and public service so citizens can make a concrete connection. As such, people are more likely to complain and to blame local rather than state officials.

But the costs remain the same and taxes have to come from the same people, regardless of which pocket.

Each form of tax has advantages and disadvantages, and property tax has a very important place in the overall system.

Property tax taps wealth while income tax taps income and sales tax taps consumption.

Some people claim that property tax is regressive. Not so; at least not more so than income, and less so than sales. Wealth and income are not identical, and property tax collects more from wealthy than poor for the simple reason that the wealthy own more property and more expensive property. While an income tax could be more progressive in theory, it is not in practice, especially since loopholes benefit primarily higher income citizens.

We Googled the name of the author of the letter, Allen Lambert, and came to suspect that it's this guy, a long-time activist on issues related to Ithaca schools. We skimmed through his replies to a PTA questionnaire about where he stood on the issues, and found yet another eruption of common sense. In this case, he was asked about changes in state aid to education. Here's the question and part of Lambert's answer:

In light of decreasing State funding for education and increasing operational costs, discuss your approach to the financial management of ICSD. What are your budget funding priorities?

First, while the percentage of ICSD budget coming from State is slightly lower now than a decade ago, it is not true that State funding of public schools has decreased; it has kept pace with inflation. The problem is that ICSD has been increasing its average Per Pupil Expenditure (PPE) at a much higher rate than inflation and incomes, going from about $9,700 a decade ago to about $15,000 in this new budget.

Actually, state funding of public schools has easily outpaced inflation for years. A 2004 study by the Center for Governmental Research (CGR) noted that state aid to education had grown by more than twice the rate of inflation over the previous 10 years, without producing any obvious benefits in student achievement. So Lambert actually seems to understate the case. Nonetheless, it's gratifying to see a candidate for office recognize and challenge a patently false assumption embedded in a tendentious question. A call for tax relief that goes beyond property taxes: From a letter in the Albany Times Union:

Although I agree that property taxes in New York state are out of control, I can't help wondering why our state legislators want to give refunds to only property owners. Doesn't the money belong to all New Yorkers? Aren't all of us who reside in New York overtaxed? Is it just because property owners are more likely to vote than those of us who rent?

Joe Spector of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports that a new poll by the Center for Governmental Research (CGR) shows that Rochester-area voters' top concern in the November election in New York's high taxes.

With New York having the highest combined state and local tax burden in the country, residents are focused on the need for state government to lower taxes. . . .

Thirty-three percent of those polled said taxes are the top issue, followed by 17 percent who cited jobs as the biggest concern that the next governor should tackle.

Residents of the 14 counties in the Rochester/Finger Lakes region were more downbeat about the economy and their general quality of life than were people elsewhere in the state, the poll found.

"There's no polite way to say it: The Rochester region's economy has taken a beating the last several years," said Erika Rosenberg, a CGR research associate and author of a report accompanying the poll.

Nearly 70 percent of those polled said the economy has gotten worse over the last five years, compared with 40 percent of statewide respondents who gave that answer.

The negative perception is no surprise: From 2000 to 2005, the region had a net loss of 19,000 jobs, or 4 percent of its work force.

. . . .

On taxes, not only did people say they're too high, but 71 percent also don't like how their tax dollars are spent by the state.

So for the gubernatorial candidates, it's more than "just saying we are going to make taxes lower," said Michael Caputo, a research associate with CGR. He said people want to know more about candidates' spending priorities.

And: The news release on the poll is here.

The Plattsburgh Press-Republican reports that

Camoplast has announced it will consolidate all North American snowmobile-track manufacturing at the Plattsburgh facility at 1 Martina Circle.

Equipment installation will begin immediately and will be completed by Christmas. Once complete, the Plattsburgh plant will produce more than 80 percent of all snowmobile tracks used worldwide.

. . . .

The plant currently employs 95 manufacturing and staff personnel. The move will create approximately 25 new jobs, with the bulk of the new hiring to occur this summer.

The Syracuse Post-Standard reviews recent developments in the ongoing dispute over the fate of the proposed Destiny project.

Steve Israel of the Middletown Times Herald-Record reports on a broad new regional effort to opposed a proposed Upstate-to-Downstate powerline.

. . . yesterday's regional congress wasn't really about protesting the $1.6 billion line.

It was about figuring out how to stop it.

And that was harder than criticizing it, as thousands have done, from New Windsor to Utica.

In fact, groups that included farmers, lawyers, teachers and artists spent several minutes talking about whether to form a regional group.

They did, voting unanimously. They named Lackawaxen, Pa.'s Troy Bystrum, of the Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition, their chairman. He headed yesterday's meeting.

The so-far-nameless group also agreed on several courses of action, with details to be worked out.

They will urge Gov. George Pataki and federal lawmakers to stop a private company like NYRI from taking property by eminent domain.

Pataki has yet to act on a bill passed by the Legislature that stops NYRI from using that power.

They will lobby those federal lawmakers to change a provision of the energy act of 2005.

It allows the federal government to bypass state authority to approve an energy project by designating areas where power is needed.

They will ask members of local anti-power-line groups to identify sites along the proposed NYRI route that are environmentally or historically sensitive.

And, in the non-air conditioned room, these residents from around the state spoke of winning support from the place that would get the power, New York City.

"This is their view shed, too," said Laurine Seymour of Otisville, which sent four people to this neat city of 7,500.

And: The Associated Press picks up the story here. Criticism of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg: An editorial in the Utica Observer-Dispatch sharply criticizes New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for pushing a powerline that is needed to ease electricity shortages in New York City and, in the next breath, claiming that New York City doesn't need new generating facilities. The paper, we respectfully submit, makes a good point.

At the same time Bloomberg is urging consideration of the NYRI line, he is proudly proclaiming his city doesn't need new power plants any time soon. The annual report by Bloomberg's Energy Policy Task Force, released June 26, touts the city's energy conservation and efficiency efforts that "enhance the City's capability to meet its energy needs and stave off the need for new resources until at least 2012."

In other words, we don't need no stinking power plants.

It's hypocritical of Bloomberg to congratulate himself for forestalling new generation facilities in his backyard while saying the state should consider letting upstate residents carry the power burden through their backyards.

The notion that if New York City area needs power, that end automatically justifies any means--including ramming a monstrous power line through the heart of bucolic communities that won't see any benefit--is simply untenable.

. . . .

Bloomberg can be commended for his efforts to conserve energy; that should always be a large part of any discussion about power in New York state, but he cannot ignore the city's responsibility to provide for itself on both sides of the power equation: use and generation.

The fact is New York City does need generation. Accepting the mayor's latest estimate that more generation is not needed until 2012 (not all experts do), in terms of building power plants, that's pretty soon. Particularly, since the state has yet to reinstate Article X, the process by which larger power plants are approved by the Public Service Commission.

And New York City is mandated to have 80 percent of its energy capacity within the city limits. The city not only needs new plants it currently has some older power plants that could and should be replaced. Upgrading would make existing plants more efficient and able to generate more power.

Only two years ago, hizzoner's message was a bit different. From a story we did in January of 2004:

New York City will need to increase its electricity capacity by 25 percent over the next four years, according to a new report by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's energy policy task force.

The city must have a dependable source of electricity to maintain its position as the financial, corporate and communications capital of the world, the report said.

"The city has adequate energy resources for its electricity needs today, but the margins necessary for reliability are extremely thin," the report continued. "And the growth of demand for electricity in the city continues to be strong, even in the face of a weakened economy."

The 16-member task force was established by Mayor Bloomberg in July, 2003 to address energy concerns in New York City.

The task force, which includes members from government and private associations, said that the city needs to increase its energy capacity by 2600 MW, or 25 percent, by 2008.

"The best way to meet this goal will be through a combination of generation plants (both new and repowered), transmission lines, and distributed resources---including clean on-site generation and various methods of energy efficiency and demand reduction," the report said.

That 2004 report of New York City's energy task force is still available here. What about the state energy plan? The editorial says New York State should consider this issue as part of a comprehensive energy plan. It's worth noting that the state already has such a plan--and New York's state energy plan explicitly recognizes the need for an increase in New York's energy capacity and a reauthorization of the state's power-plant siting law. More: The Utica Observer-Dispatch reports on one elected official's proposed new tactic for opposing the proposed powerline.

Oneida County Executive Joseph A. Griffo said he is encouraging the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency to consider the possibility of condemning the air rights above the New York Susquehanna & Western Railroad as a possible road block to the New York Regional Interconnection power line.

"Condemnation proceedings would allow the railroad right of way to be used for railroad purposes but preserve the air rights to serve the public's interest in maintaining the aesthetic and visual quality along the rail corridor," Griffo wrote in a letter to the Industrial Development Agency.

Griffo has instructed the county attorney's office to work with the agency to determine if this is an option.

And: There's another hearing on the proposed powerline scheduled for this evening, Elizabeth Cooper of the Utica Observer-Dispatch reports. Meanwhile, another transmission project moves forward. The Elmira Star-Gazette reports that construction of the Millennium Pipeline will begin on time early next year, but the project will be done in 2008, later than first expected.

Erie County lawmakers shouldn't have been so quick to shoot down reform suggestions by a volunteer commission, the Buffalo News says.

Members appointed a commission to review the county's charter to try to improve the quality of government and improve the lot of local taxpayers. The commission, which includes members such as former University at Buffalo President William R. Greiner and former Common Council President George K. Arthur, volunteered months of time in an effort to produce a more functional, sophisticated county.

Their work produced a series of recommendations that, if adopted, had to be authorized by the Legislature, then put to a public referendum. But instead of accepting the recommendations for review and maybe even public comment, legislators thought only of themselves.

Under the iron control of its Democratic majority and its party leaders, members discussed the issues in private - if, indeed, they discussed them at all - held no public hearings and then hastily voted to reject the most significant aspects of the plan. It makes you wonder if voters have blamed County Executive Joel A. Giambra too much for the county's financial meltdown and the Legislature too little.

The Buffalo News runs a Q&A with the new head of the Erie County control board. His key point: Erie County's financial picture is okay in the short term and less okay in the longer term.

Q: How would you rate the county's current fiscal status?

A: I'd rate it two different ways, short-term and long-term. In the short-term, the budget is balanced. The current fiscal situation doesn't show a great deal of danger sliding back into huge deficits for 2006. Longer term, given that the initiatives are not panning out as originally planned, a number of them are not catching on, not meeting schedule, longer-term I believe there is still a great deal of difficulty. To me, that's the problem. If you can paper over the short term, understanding that the restructuring that's being considered may not occur and is showing some indication of slowing down or not happening, that just pushes the problem forward and that creates difficulties for the next county executive, the next administration and the people of Erie County.

There's more. Meanwhile, taxpayers there find another reason to become ex-taxpayers there. From a letter in the Buffalo News that criticizes the reported practice of some Buffalo policy of adding phantom "towing charges" to tickets.

The July 9 article on towing fines that never happened is a good example of how the city has no intentions to deal with the declining population of Buffalo. The article is a solid reminder of how many taxpayers need to move to a city that is not dying. They also need a government that is not bleeding its citizens to cover up for poor money management.

What does Buffalo have? Minimal job opportunities, higher taxes than most thriving cities in the United States, big government spending budgets, no goals and innovative ways to bleed more money out of overly taxed citizens. Why would anyone stay here?

The writer of this letter to the Buffalo News seems to be misinformed about a bill aimed at reforming the state's expensive workers' comp system.

In a July 8 letter, the state director of the National Federation of Independent Business blasted the state AFL-CIO for attacking a workers' compensation bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Alesi and Assemblyman Joe Morelle. There are good reasons that the AFL-CIO attacked the bill. New York State is dead last among the 50 states in terms of benefits. Right now, the maximum benefit is $400 per week. The bill only would raise maximum benefits to $500 in four years. That's hardly generous.

Actually: The bill would increase maximum benefits for temporary total and permanent total disability from $425 to $550 between 2006 and 2011. Permanent partial and temporary partial would increase $175 in the same time period.

The Alesi-Morelle bill would cut costs but by taking away benefits that injured workers need. For instance, time limits would be put on benefits for workers who are so badly injured that they're totally disabled and unable to work.

Actually: Permanent-partial benefits make up 11.7 percent of all comp cases but 73 percent of the aggregate cost of workers’ comp. New York is one of only nine states that does not limit the duration of awards in these cases. The bill would place limits on the duration of permanent partial benefits. The three-tier system would begin at 250 weeks and extend to a maximum of 500 weeks. The benefits would be based on the injured worker's loss of wage-earning capacity.

We have often made the point that New York's problem is that New York's state and local tax burden is the nation's heaviest, and that dealing with New York's tax burden will require reducing spending and taxes, not just shifting the heavy burden from one set of taxpayers to another. Now, a CPA from Long Island has made the same point in an op-ed in the New York Times. The context is the debate about the future of taxes on the island, but the points are sound and relevant for Upstate New York as well.

Replacing the property tax with a local income tax is not a solution to the crushing tax burden many Long Islanders face. Shifting from one form of taxation to another merely perpetuates that burden rather than alleviating it.

And what a burden it is. A poll released last January found that 95 percent of Long Islanders view taxes as a serious problem. No one who lives here was surprised by this virtually unanimous agreement. A recent study by the New York State comptroller, Alan Hevesi, found that property taxes in Nassau County averaged $11,295 per household. The average in Suffolk County is $9,001 per household, not as bad as Nassau but still close to double the statewide average.

High property taxes are squeezing many Long Island homeowners and driving others from the region. What we need in response is not a different form of taxation, but reduced taxation. And to achieve that, we must address the runaway spending in our schools.

. . . .

If school spending continues to increase, local taxes will increase to cover the costs, whether the source of financing is a property tax or an income tax. There is simply no way to give Long Islanders tax relief while continuing to finance enormous school budgets.

Some argue that an income tax, though painful, is at least more equitable than a property tax. This view is based on a belief that an income tax will soak the rich, which it surely will. Trouble is, the definition of "rich" includes most of the residents of Long Island. Taxpayers considered "upper income" elsewhere turn out to be your typical two-wage-earner families on Long Island, where the cost of living is especially high. These taxpayers are already under pressure from phase-outs of itemized deductions and from the federal alternative minimum tax, which hits more taxpayers each year.

So the definition of "rich" will be a lot more inclusive here than many would like. Elderly people living on pensions, savings and Social Security may find they qualify for high-roller status.

. . . .

It's not surprising that some Long Islanders are driven by frustration to look for alternatives to high property taxes. But an income tax will only make matters worse. And as we argue over new forms of taxation to solve our problems, spending on Long Island schools continues unchecked.

In an op-ed in the New York Post, Steve Malanga of the Manhattan Institute notes that New York City's longstanding commitment to high spending and high taxes is harming the economy in the same way that tax-and-spend folly hurts Upstate New York.

In fact, New York City government relies on businesses and jobs located in Gotham and on commerce transacted in the city for a big chunk of the taxes that support the city's oversized budget. Indeed, as a 2000 report by the city's Independent Budget Office made clear, no city in America depends on business taxes more than New York does. The notion that Gotham may slowly be losing its focus as the center of the regional economy, as jobs and opportunity expand in the suburbs should be cause for distress.

Not that this erosion should be surprising. What's happening now is part of a 50-year-long cycle in which city government (along with its partner in crime, Albany) has made the suburbs increasingly attractive to businesses by what it's done in the five boroughs--namely raising taxes, increasing regulation and often failing to deliver basic services well.

The march of businesses out of Gotham has been striking. A city that once housed the headquarters of 128 Fortune 500 companies is now down to 44. Harder to measure is the growth that never took place here, because businesses avoid the city.

To get a glimpse of what New York has been missing, consider this: The engine of New York's economy, Wall Street, added nearly as many jobs in New Jersey (143,000) as it did in New York (154,000) from 1970 through 2000. And things are only likely to get worse: As Nicole Gelinas has pointed out, New York's grip on the financial-services industry grows more precarious every day.

Other industries, of course, are already gone. New York City today has about 175,000 fewer jobs than it did in 1969, though its population is now larger by some 200,000 residents.

But recent history should tell us that the city needn't be perpetually stuck in this rut. As the Fed report notes, for one brief moment in the mid-to-late '90s, the city resumed its rightful place as the engine of the regional economy, adding jobs at a record pace--425,000 of them from 1995 through 2000, or nearly 85,000 new positions a year.

Those were heady times, when the city's historic drop in crime brought tourists back and spurred economic development in neighborhoods that had been abandoned by businesses. Wall Street boomed, but so did new industries, like technology. The city even broke its 50-year pattern of nearly constant tax increases, as then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani strategically cut taxes--not enough to improve the city's competitive position dramatically, but at least enough to send the message that New York was headed in the right direction.

There's more.

An editorial in the Buffalo News applies a gentle touch in assessing the legislative legacy of Assembly Majority Leader Paul Tokasz (D-Erie County), who recently announced plans to leave the state Legislature. The editorial's thesis is that any Assembly Majority Leader from Upstate will invariably struggle to combat the outsized influence in Albany of the Downstate delegation.

. . . Tokasz's Assembly career tracks much the same path as every other upstate Democrat's. Though clearly more conservative than the downstaters who hold sway, he became a captive of a chamber whose cavalier leadership has helped bankrupt Western New York and upstate.

Then comes one velvet-wrapped sentence that carries implied criticisms of, or at least questions about, Tokasz's record:

Just because that's the lot of virtually every upstate Assembly Democrat doesn't make it any more palatable to New Yorkers strangled by high taxes and evaporating opportunities. . . .

New Yorkers from western New York and all of Upstate can agree that Tokasz and any other Upstate legislative leader will indeed have a hard time providing a counter-balance to the Downstate-dominated legislative culture that routinely saddles Upstate with high taxes and high costs of job creation, and then ignores the effects of these policies on job creation and population growth. But New Yorkers can also wonder when and where Assemblyman Tokasz ever mounted any forceful public campaign of any kind to counter this Downstate-enforced tax-and-spend-and-ignore-the-consequences culture, and to push for the cost-cutting policy reforms that Upstate so manifestly needs. Frankly, we recall no such effort. One other point: We suspect that Tokasz's successor as Assembly Majority Leader, who is almost certain to be an Upstate Democrat, will face harder questions that Tokasz ever did about why Upstate legislators should quietly acquiesce to legislative policies that continue and accelerate the erosion of Upstate prosperity. And: Danny Hakim and Jenny Medina of the New York Times have a long summary of what Albany did and didn't accomplishment in 2006. We note in particular that these reporters' have made a point that we've made often in the past: that when a state budget gets done matters less than what lawmakers do in that budget.

Gov. George E. Pataki's 12th and final regular legislative session actually showed that the importance of getting a budget finished on time might have been overrated. Because of Mr. Pataki's impending departure, this year was the last waltz for the triumvirate who have controlled the state for more than a decade: Mr. Pataki, a Republican; Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, and the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, a Republican (Mr. Silver and Mr. Bruno, however, have indicated no intention of departing.)

For a second consecutive year, the governor and the Legislature got the budget done by its April 1 deadline, even though the governor was hospitalized for nearly three weeks in late winter after an appendectomy. But the outcome of the budget became complicated after Mr. Pataki claimed that many of his vetoes could not be overridden by the Legislature. In making that argument, he cited the expansive executive powers laid out in a 2004 court ruling that followed a legal battle with the Legislature.

With the threat of new legal challenges looming, both sides continued sparring over budget details. By late April, Mr. Pataki declared that "the budget is over," while Mr. Bruno said, "what I've learned in this business is it's not over until it's over."

With billions of dollars under negotiation and major programs hanging in the balance, including money for state hospitals and the creation of a new office to combat Medicaid fraud, it was not until June 23 that the budget was sorted out and the regular Legislative session ended, a day later than scheduled.

The robust spending increases, a lack of transparency in the budget-making process, and potentially costly giveaways to powerful interest groups, including labor unions, all came in for harsh criticism as the legislative session ended. And though lawmakers addressed many of the most contentious issues that divided them, some critics derided what they called Band-Aid solutions to pressing problems.

And: The Times has a very detailed sidebar listing specific bills and their fates here.

An editorial in the Daily News welcomes Eliot Spitzer's call for school reform, and his clear challenge to entrenched school funding interests that typically oppose such reforms.

. . . . When the Democratic front-runner talks about encouraging competition, improving accountability, dropping state mandates and rewriting union contracts--as Attorney General Eliot Spitzer did at the Daily News Editorial Board last week--it feels like change is in the wind.

The reforms are no-brainers for anyone who has studied what's wrong with public schools. But they still run up against heavy opposition from the old-line educrats and labor leaders who hold sway in the Democratic Party--which is why it was welcome to hear such talk coming from Spitzer and not just GOP candidate John Faso.

Spitzer didn't go into detail about how he would comply with the court order mandating more money for New York City's schools--an urgent priority--because his office still represents Gov. Pataki in appealing that lawsuit. But he made it plain that if he gets his way, he'll spend money statewide, with strings attached. "If we don't pair the resolution of this litigation with an effort to change the delivery system, then we will have missed an opportunity," he said.

One such string, Spitzer suggested, should be "pay for performance," which means rewarding teachers who take on tough assignments and produce measurable results in students. This seemingly obvious idea is impossible under standard union contracts.

Throwing a lifeline to inner-city kids stuck in failing public schools, he supports privately run charter schools and tax credits for parents paying private tuition. And he's foursquare behind mayoral control of our schools--a principle he would apply in Albany, putting the governor in charge of the Education Department and Board of Regents, which are now run, in effect, by the Assembly Democrats.

But the public-schools establishment remains dug in. That's the impression we got from this brief essay in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, in which a representative of the state's public-schools establishment renewed a familiar whine about public-school funding and how charter schools affect it.

Local school boards and school boards across New York state appreciate your July 5 editorial ("Deal with charters") regarding lawmakers' cautious approach to expanding New York state's charter school experiment. Certainly a separate funding stream for charter schools that doesn't penalize the host public school district or increase the local tax burden should be created. Many of these host schools already lack resources--that's the reason they're underperforming in the first place.

This last sentence, we admit, immediately and sharply diminished our interest in the piece. In a state where per-pupil spending is the nation's second highest, that argument that the academic problems in so many of New York's conventional schools are due to inadequate public funding is just not persuasive. That's especially true when so many different studies and reports (such as this one and this one and this one and this one and this one raise such pointed questions about how much academic ROI New York State gets from this high level of school spending. Heck, even the New York Times and Howard Dean have said that money alone is not the issue.

'Just when you think the New York State Legislature couldn't possible get any sleazier. . . . ' An editorial in the Syracuse Post-Standard joins the already large chorus of critics of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his law firm's efforts to troll for plaintiffs to sue the state.

Just when you think the New York state Legislature couldn't possibly get any sleazier, someone comes along to set a new ethical low.

Take the latest case involving Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Silver is one of the most powerful politicians in New York. His clout extends to nearly every corner of state government. His ability to deliver or hold back votes in the Legislature gives him enormous influence over, say, how the state park system is run and financed.

That's why it's particularly odious that Silver's law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg, is soliciting clients on its Web site to sue the state for any personal injuries suffered at state parks. In fact, the site lists most of New York's 176 state parks and describes the possible grounds for a lawsuit involving each. Here's the firm's spiel for Green Lakes State Park in Fayetteville:

. . . .

The firm doesn't list parks in the three other states where it has offices; only the parks in New York, where a member of the firm is Assembly speaker, are noted. For those aware of Silver's position with Weitz & Luxenberg (also documented on the firm's Web site), it seems an obvious attempt to trade on Silver's public position. It leaves potential clients with the vague notion that somehow, this high-powered connection will give the firm an advantage in suing the state. Taxpayers, of course, will foot the bill if the state has to pay damages.

. . . .

No bill gets passed in the Assembly without Silver's personal approval. No wonder meaningful tort reform and serious efforts to regulate the ethical conduct of legislators have been blocked for years. There's a personal-injury lawyer at the helm. . . .

An editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle argues that a new Center for Governmental Research poll showing that New Yorkers in the Rochester region think high taxes are a major problem should prompt the Monroe County Executive to rethink her approach to a budget challenge.

A meeting last week with local leaders and findings in a recent poll of Rochester-area residents should give Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks more impetus to rethink how to proceed in tackling the county's huge budget shortfall.

The Center For Governmental Research found that area voters identified taxes as the "greatest issue facing New York state a governor can do something about."

What's that got to do with Brooks? Lots. Taxes are the issue and New Yorkers, who have the highest combined state and local tax burden in the country, are sick and tired of them.

Brooks' proposal to increase Monroe's sales tax from 8 cents on the dollar to 8.75 cents certainly doesn't help matters. The increase would place Monroe's sales tax among the steepest in the country.

Not only are Democrats in the county and state Legislatures cool to Brooks' proposal, but so is the local business community. The Rochester Business Alliance calls Brooks' "community solution" to closing a $102 million budget gap over the next two years an "easy way out for local governments by creating pain for taxpayers."

At a meeting Friday involving Brooks, Mayor Duffy, state representatives and business leaders, RBA President Sandra Parker emphasized the need to find alternatives. "Let's get some ideas on the table," she said.

There's more.

In an op-ed in the Buffalo News, Syracuse farmer and reform-Albany advocate Mark Bitz argues that New York State voters must throw legislative incumbents out of office to win real substantive reforms in Albany. The piece reviews some distressing data on New York's recent problems attracting and retaining people and jobs, and the high costs that keep those results so distressing.

During the last 50 years, New York State's share of U.S. income has declined 37 percent, while Minnesota's remained constant and New Hampshire's increased 67 percent. New York State now ranks 45th among the 50 states in population and income growth, and population employed.

Although New York spends the most per pupil for education, our state has the 43rd lowest SAT scores and the 44th lowest graduation rate. Four out of 10 students do not graduate from high school in New York State.

From 2000 to 2004, New York lost over 1 million residents to other states, 300,000 more than any other state. The state has the highest per-capita tax burden of the 50 states, a burden that is 53 percent over the national average.

From 1994 to 2003, New York's population grew by 6 percent while Medicaid enrollment grew by 25 percent. One in five people in New York receive Medicaid benefits vs. one in seven people in the other 49 states. Medicaid benefits per recipient are 80 percent over the national average.

Per-capita state and local government debt is the second highest and 76 percent above the national average. Per-capita state and local government spending is the second highest in the nation and 46 percent over the national average.

Many attribute New York's poor performance to its climate and the economic rise of the South, Mexico and China. Yet, Minnesota, farther north and with a harsher climate, thrives. In Minnesota 72 percent of the adult population is employed vs. 58 percent in our state.

The Business Council of New York estimates that the cost of settling a workers' compensation case in New York State runs 76 percent over the U.S. average. Liability insurance is 28 percent above the national average. Electricity costs are 63 percent and property taxes 45 percent over the national average. From 1983 to 2002, the rest of the nation added 37 percent more high skilled, high paying manufacturing jobs, while New York lost 14 percent of the ones it had.

The primary reason for New York State's poor performance is the majority parties in the State Senate and Assembly. They exchange preferential laws, mandates and benefits for campaign contributions. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, lobbyists spent $264 million to influence elected officials in New York. Like a mighty river carves a canyon, the ever present monolithic power of these groups corrupts our democracy.

There piece notes that there had been some momentum for reform, beginning in 2004, but it dissipated before producing anywhere near enough progress.

[Legislative leaders] have not limited their borrowing, taxing and spending. They have not made Medicaid sustainable. They have not dealt with education funding inequities nor underperforming schools. They have not addressed the systemic issues--like workers' compensation, the generation, delivery and taxation of electricity, and excessive litigation and pain and suffering awards--that make the cost of doing business in New York State so high.

And: An editorial in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle argues that a new "budget reform bill" would tilt the playing field in favor of the state Legislature in annual negotiations over a state budget.

Rather than veto a bill approved by both houses last session, the governor declared his intention to do so unless repairs are made that place as great a reform burden on the Legislature as on the governor. He's right. There's not enough balance in this proposed legislation, and it still resonates with lawmakers' desire to drain off some of the budgetary power that the executive enjoys and has been upheld by the state Court of Appeals, New York's highest appeals bench.

For example, the bill creates an Independent Budget office that would assess revenue and spending projections objectively, apart from the overpoliticized environment that exists.

But some of the appointments, including the executive director, to the "independent" office would be the province of legislative leaders. There should be more checks and balances in the creation of this office so independent thinkers, not partisan ones, run the show.

There's much in this legislation that makes sense. The state needs independent budget forecasts. It needs a requirement that budget negotiations start in December, before the session actually begins. It needs a better system by which the state Budget Office reports regularly to lawmakers and performance measures accompany budget allocations. But reform also means more rank-and-file legislative involvement in budget matters and less funneling of power through the speaker and Senate majority leader.

And: Cara Matthews of the Gannett News Service reports that the 2006 legislative session saw some talk of procedural and process reforms but little action.

In a broader story about John Faso and Thomas Suozzi playing David to Eliot Spitzer's Goliath in the race for Governor, Joe Spector of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports on Faso's most recent criticism of Spitzer's property tax-relief plan.

. . . . Spitzer wants to expand the school tax relief benefit known as STAR, pledging that a middle-class family would see an 80 percent increase in STAR. He would pay for it by cutting the state budget.

But Faso said Spitzer doesn't put a cap on school spending, and therefore New Yorkers would face $20 billion more in taxes under Spitzer's plan compared with his proposal. In Monroe County, Spitzer's plan would cost $964 million more in taxes, Faso contended.

"We are going around the state as a truth squad against the representations of Mr. Spitzer," said the former state assemblyman from eastern New York, who already has locked up the Republican nomination.

Faso would cap school tax increases at 4 percent and double STAR benefits.

A Spitzer spokeswoman, Christine Anderson, said Spitzer's plan is the only one that helps middle-class people and lays out how it would be funded. "We couldn't be more clear in saying that Eliot has no plans to raise taxes," she said.

Meanwhile, the heavy tax burden continues to discourage New York's taxpayers. From a letter in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle:

The overall population of upstate New York continues to shrink. Residents and businesses are relocating to states with lower tax burdens and promising job opportunities. The solution is clear: Rein in government spending and reduce tax rates--currently among the nation's highest. Implementation is more challenging: A major portion of government expenditures is for essential services. Special interest groups lobby intensively for much of the remainder. Add politicians focused on re-election, and spending restraint evaporates.

Unless voters insist on fiscal responsibility as a prerequisite for holding office, high taxes and population erosion will persist as our upstate economy stagnates.

An editorial in the Poughkeepsie Journal argues that a new report on state spending in the 2006-07 state budget from state Comptroller Alan Hevesi shows, again, the need for a new commitment to spending restraint in Albany.

By Alan Hevesi's count, state spending will grow by nearly 13 percent or by about four times the rate of inflation, under the final deal agreed to by Gov. George Pataki and the Legislature.

This trend is simply unsustainable. The state has to start showing more fiscal discipline, a pledge both gubernatorial candidates in November's election must take and adhere to.

Pataki was wrong to concede to legislative wishes to add more spending toward the end of the session. In January, the governor unveiled a $110.7 billion budget that would have raised spending 4 percent. It was not perfect, but it was reasonable.

Predictably, the Legislature added to the total, but the governor initially vetoed about $3 billion worth of state spending added to his original budget plan. That, unfortunately, didn't end the matter. The governor and legislative leaders cut a number of last-minute deals, hiking the budget to $114.7, or a 10 percent increase over last year.

The news gets worse, according to Hevesi. He points out federal funds account for some of the state's budget, but when you take that portion out, you discover state spending alone will grow 12.9 this year.

. . . .

. . .over the years, neither [the Governor nor legislative leaders have] shown it is responsible enough to hold spending to the rate of inflation. Until that happens, the state's financial condition will continue to suffer--and taxpayers shouldn't expect any real relief anytime soon.

An editorial in the Buffalo News scores Albany for persisting in its tax-and-spend traditions and, in the process, ignoring the fact that many other states, including some a lot like New York State, are actually moving to reduce government spending and taxes.

Secure, it would seem, in its cocoon of tax and spend, New York's Legislature consistently fails to realize that other states act differently, and that their policies often lure people and businesses from the crumbling Empire Upstate.

Other states actually cut taxes. A recent editorial in the New York Post observed that other states are more fiscally responsible. Some 40-plus states have surpluses and are reducing tax rates. Why should New York? State and local taxes averaged $5,260 for every New Yorker in 2004, the highest in the nation at 53 percent above average.

As reported recently by The Wall Street Journal and from other sources: Texas slashed property taxes 25 percent and eliminated its business tax on capital spending; Arizona lowered income-tax rates 10 percent and suspended its county property tax; Oklahoma cut its income tax rate from 6.25 percent to 5.25 percent and killed its inheritance tax.

All growing Sunbelt states? No. Rhode Island, which rivals New York as one of the highest-tax states, introduced a flat tax that is scheduled to fall to 5.5 percent. That's far better than its previous rate, 25 percent of a person's total federal liability. Democrats created the flat tax. Maryland cut property taxes 15 percent; Pennsylvania approved a law in June that raises income eligibility for senior citizen tax rebates to $35,000. The rebates provide $650 to homeowners and renters earning under $8,000, and $500 to those earning under $15,000; Hawaii, with a $9.6 billion budget, cut income taxes by $50 million, the equivalent of a $550 million tax cut here; In Ohio, the governor accelerated a five-year phase-in of income tax reductions eventually planned to reach 21 percent. State tax collectors will withhold 8.4 percent less from paychecks beginning Oct. 1, on top of the 4.2 percent cut in withholding begun in January.

New York's property owners will get a tax rebate averaging $250 this fall, but lawmakers did nothing this past session to fundamentally address the state's over-spending and over-taxing. New York cannot continue to live the way legislators--especially from downstate--want, and still survive. The state will become a wasteland surrounding New York City, Long Island and Westchester. It's no coincidence that all three candidates for governor are challenging Albany's fundamental view.

At the risk of seeming vain, we note that the editorial also says that anyone who doubts the breadth of New Yorkers' opposition to this continuing commitment to taxing and spending should check out a blog that follows these issues--this blog.

For those who might want to shrug off the opinions of this page, read upstateblog.com any day. This compendium of newspaper stories, columns and editorials shows a surprising unanimity from here to Plattsburgh to Binghamton to Melville: Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats lead this state toward extinction. It's staggering how out of touch they are with what's working elsewhere.

We're staggered, too. By the way: We thank the News for the mention.

The Syracuse Post-Standard reports that

Two of the six Syracuse Common Council members who voted against a new tax deal for the Carousel Center expansion met Monday with Destiny USA executives to talk over their differences.

"It was a very worthwhile conversation that should have taken place a long time ago," Councilor-at-Large Kathleen Callahan said after the three-hour session at developer Robert Congel's headquarters in Clinton Square.

She said she and Councilor-at-Large William Ryan expressed in general terms the council's concerns about the tax deal to Destiny partner Bruce Kenan and Chief Executive Officer Michael Lorenz. Congel attended part of the meeting, she said.

Chief among the concerns, she said, was that the developer could get the benefits of a 30-year property tax exemption without building the big jobs-creating project he has promised.

Destiny executives and lawyers for the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency have said Congel could not get any benefits from the tax deal without adding at least 848,000 square feet of leasable space to the mall. But the six councilors have said they weren't so sure because of loose wording in the agreement.

There's more.

A strike is still possible, the Associated Press reports.

The president of the United Auto Workers said Monday that the union had made little progress in recent talks with Delphi Corp. and that a strike was still possible.

"We have not ruled out any of our options," Ron Gettelfinger said.

. . . .

Paul Siejak, president of UAW Local 686 Unit 1 at Delphi's plant in Lockport, N.Y., agreed that the possibility hasn't gone away, as Delphi presses its case through the court system. "It's been an ongoing saga because the threat of a strike has been out there," he said.

A comparison of 51 medium-sized labor markets accross the country puts New York at the bottom in terms of growth, Buffalo's Business First reports.

A comparison of 51 medium-sized labor markets puts Buffalo 46th in terms of job growth. It's one of seven areas whose employment trends have been characterized as cool or cold, the lowest possible ratings in a new study by Business First.

. . . .

The news is even worse 75 miles to the east. Rochester, beset with layoffs at Eastman Kodak Co. and other major employers, is 50th in the standings. The only market it beats is New Orleans, which was ravaged last year by Hurricane Katrina.

Business First analyzed the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, comparing each area's employment levels in May 2005 and the same month this year. It defined a medium-sized market as one that had 250,000 to 750,000 nonfarm jobs as of May 2006.

The Buffalo-Niagara Falls market, which encompasses Erie and Niagara counties, suffered a slight loss during the study period. It dropped from 550,000 jobs a year ago to 549,700 now, a decline of 0.1 percent.

Such stagnation is nothing new. The Buffalo area had virtually the same number of jobs eight years ago as it does today, and the current level of local employment is actually lower than it was in May 1990.

. . . .

The numbers are considerably different in Boise, Idaho, the only medium-sized market in America that is characterized as hot.

Boise, which has emerged as a high-tech and financial center for the Northwest, added 15,200 jobs between May 2005 and May 2006. That's a jump of 6.0 percent in just 12 months.

. . . .

If Buffalo could have matched the national growth rate, it would have added 8,250 jobs since mid-2005. If it somehow could have duplicated Boise's blistering pace of 6.0 percent, the local increase would have been 33,000 jobs in just 12 months.

. . . .

Five New York markets were encompassed by Business First's study, and all five landed in the bottom half of the standings.

Syracuse turned in the best performance, picking up 4,000 jobs between May 2005 and May 2006. That's an increase of 1.2 percent, putting it in 33rd place among the nation's 51 medium-sized markets.

Poughkeepsie (38th place) and Albany-Schenectady-Troy (39th) finished neck and neck with respective gains of 0.9 percent and 0.7 percent.