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