More good news in the Card Check debate - California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) tells reporters that she is "skeptical" of the Employee Free Choice Act, and that in this economy, the bill "is extraordinarily difficult, and a lighting rod for dissent."
We agree!!! As the article suggests, we're pleased that this adds to the downslide for this particularly burdensome and one-sided legislation.
My real question related to this article is, of course... Who cares what Bradley Whitford and Martin Sheen thinks about Card Check? West Wing was a television show where writers were in complete control of cause and effect. This is the real world where you can't edit out the disastrous effects Card Check would have on the economy and job creation.
Let's keep the heat on!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Weigh in on this budget before it's too late - i.e. TODAY
How bad is the "three men in a room" budget? Even the Buffalo News has issued a Call-to-Action on it.
Yesterday, we held a press conference (read the release) here at the Partnership as part of five simultaneous press conferences put on across the state by our Unshackle Upstate partners. Our message is the same as we've been echoing for the past two weeks - that one of the five Upstate Democrat Senators need to make the politically tough decision to say "no" to this budget. Mind you - I use the phrase "politically tough" in reference to Albany politics, as for any of us real people that live in the real world, saying no to this disaster of a budget doesn't seem like a very big lift.
Coverage of our press event was a no-brainer, as the state budget was top news in every media outlet (check out Channel 2's story on our message). Senator Stachowski's follow-up comments in the Channel 2 story are disconcerting, in his asserting that he'll be supporting the budget: "'At this point this is a budget I responsibly have to support because we're the majority and we did the best we could with the situation we were placed in,' Stachowski told WGRZ-TV." The "best we could"? Yeah, and Shane Hurlbut was doing the best he could when he walked in front of Christian Bale's camera.
Let's take a quick look at how we believe Albany has fallen short of "the best we could"...
Which raises the question again - who does this budget benefit? So far, besides the "three men in a room" attempting to justify their actions with smooth rhetoric, the only group that we've heard come out in favor of any aspect of this budget (specifically, the increase in personal income taxes on the "wealthy" i.e. small businesses) is the Working Families Party in yesterday's Buffalo News. I continue to be astonished that any entity that is representative would be praising a budget that will inflict upon its members job losses through higher taxes on small business, added household utility costs, an increase in the cost of health insurance through new taxes, the elimination of STAR rebates, and a host of new fees and taxes on everything from fishing licenses to rental cars to life insurance. Living in NYS will get a lot more expensive if this budget passes - for everyone, including union supporters. Is "sticking it to the rich" really that important of a goal?
We don't care if you answer the Partnership's, Unshackle Upstate's, the Business Council's or the Buffalo News' call-to-action in opposition to this budget... Just weigh in before it's too late.
Yesterday, we held a press conference (read the release) here at the Partnership as part of five simultaneous press conferences put on across the state by our Unshackle Upstate partners. Our message is the same as we've been echoing for the past two weeks - that one of the five Upstate Democrat Senators need to make the politically tough decision to say "no" to this budget. Mind you - I use the phrase "politically tough" in reference to Albany politics, as for any of us real people that live in the real world, saying no to this disaster of a budget doesn't seem like a very big lift.
Coverage of our press event was a no-brainer, as the state budget was top news in every media outlet (check out Channel 2's story on our message). Senator Stachowski's follow-up comments in the Channel 2 story are disconcerting, in his asserting that he'll be supporting the budget: "'At this point this is a budget I responsibly have to support because we're the majority and we did the best we could with the situation we were placed in,' Stachowski told WGRZ-TV." The "best we could"? Yeah, and Shane Hurlbut was doing the best he could when he walked in front of Christian Bale's camera.
Let's take a quick look at how we believe Albany has fallen short of "the best we could"...
- In October, Unshackle Upstate outlined $7 billion worth of ready-to-implement reforms of state government;
- In March, Unshackle Upstate outlined Medicaid reform that would not only cut costs, but strengthen the program;
- Unshackle Upstate has been advocating for the restructuring of public employee benefits, including the implementation of a Tier V system for state employees;
- The Partnership has advocated for the reinstitution of legislation that would allow IDAs to incentivize schools, hospitals and senior homes and put people in NYS to work (and paying income taxes) on over $2 billion worth of construction projects;
Which raises the question again - who does this budget benefit? So far, besides the "three men in a room" attempting to justify their actions with smooth rhetoric, the only group that we've heard come out in favor of any aspect of this budget (specifically, the increase in personal income taxes on the "wealthy" i.e. small businesses) is the Working Families Party in yesterday's Buffalo News. I continue to be astonished that any entity that is representative would be praising a budget that will inflict upon its members job losses through higher taxes on small business, added household utility costs, an increase in the cost of health insurance through new taxes, the elimination of STAR rebates, and a host of new fees and taxes on everything from fishing licenses to rental cars to life insurance. Living in NYS will get a lot more expensive if this budget passes - for everyone, including union supporters. Is "sticking it to the rich" really that important of a goal?
We don't care if you answer the Partnership's, Unshackle Upstate's, the Business Council's or the Buffalo News' call-to-action in opposition to this budget... Just weigh in before it's too late.
Monday, March 30, 2009
State Budget Spends MORE?!!
When we get the state budget each year, we analyze it to see if while attacking the parts that will make Upstate business uncompetitive (which Albany never seems to fail us on), there are positive things that we can comment on, as well. This year's analysis of the "three men in a room" budget is an easy one... It's a disaster. We had it analyzed by 8:30 this morning.
It's pretty infuriating to see comments in the media like "state spending rose $10.5B, but $7.2B of that was federal stimulus money." I may be wrong here, but I thought that the federal stimulus money was supposed to be used to stimulate the economy, or, at the least, provide fiscal relief for states. Not give out-of-control state governments a license to spend MORE!!!
It's interesting - we're spending an awful lot of energy as a nation looking into how companies such as AIG and GM are using stimulus money - which is good (at least it would've been good had it been done proactively instead of after all hell broke loose). Let's hope that Washington begins to put the same scrutiny on states, because it's pretty certain that this "three men in a room" budget misses the boat on the intent of the historic federal aid.
You have to go back only a couple months to remember Gov. Paterson saying that everyone will have the "share the pain." Well, this budget is painful for a lot of people - small businesses, students, everyday citizen taxpayers... The only entity that seems to have come away unscathed is New York State, itself - to the point, even, that they've left $170MM in pork for the state legislature to divvy out. A week ago, there was a threat of layoffs in state government. Nope. There's been talk of a cost-saving Tier V level of the state employees' pension system. Nope.
I guess - to be fair - there had to be SOME pain to the "three men in a room." It can't be easy to tell 18 million people that while they're being forced - those who have kept their jobs, that is - to cut their household budgets, the state has found itself able to spend $10 billion more while making relatively no changes at all. Maybe at least for a split second one of them might've thought they'd get something thrown at them? Even after going on to explain that the reason Albany can spend $10 billion more is because it will be taking $7 billion more out of their pockets? I don't know - I wouldn't be comfortable doing that. But that's me.
Good thing is, as Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over 'til it's over." Let's get on these five Upstate Majority Senators who have the clout to stop this thing from happening. At this point, an on-time budget pales in importance to a budget that's not going to batter our economy.
It's pretty infuriating to see comments in the media like "state spending rose $10.5B, but $7.2B of that was federal stimulus money." I may be wrong here, but I thought that the federal stimulus money was supposed to be used to stimulate the economy, or, at the least, provide fiscal relief for states. Not give out-of-control state governments a license to spend MORE!!!
It's interesting - we're spending an awful lot of energy as a nation looking into how companies such as AIG and GM are using stimulus money - which is good (at least it would've been good had it been done proactively instead of after all hell broke loose). Let's hope that Washington begins to put the same scrutiny on states, because it's pretty certain that this "three men in a room" budget misses the boat on the intent of the historic federal aid.
You have to go back only a couple months to remember Gov. Paterson saying that everyone will have the "share the pain." Well, this budget is painful for a lot of people - small businesses, students, everyday citizen taxpayers... The only entity that seems to have come away unscathed is New York State, itself - to the point, even, that they've left $170MM in pork for the state legislature to divvy out. A week ago, there was a threat of layoffs in state government. Nope. There's been talk of a cost-saving Tier V level of the state employees' pension system. Nope.
I guess - to be fair - there had to be SOME pain to the "three men in a room." It can't be easy to tell 18 million people that while they're being forced - those who have kept their jobs, that is - to cut their household budgets, the state has found itself able to spend $10 billion more while making relatively no changes at all. Maybe at least for a split second one of them might've thought they'd get something thrown at them? Even after going on to explain that the reason Albany can spend $10 billion more is because it will be taking $7 billion more out of their pockets? I don't know - I wouldn't be comfortable doing that. But that's me.
Good thing is, as Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over 'til it's over." Let's get on these five Upstate Majority Senators who have the clout to stop this thing from happening. At this point, an on-time budget pales in importance to a budget that's not going to batter our economy.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Taxes on "Rich"
Albany appears poised to implement the tax hikes on the "wealthy" (NY Daily News). "Wealthy," of course, is in quotes because targeted within that classification are thousands of statewide small businesses on whose backs the Governor and State Legislature want to put the state's inability to cut the cost of government. Up until yesterday, there was word that the leaders were working on a carve-out to protect small business, but I guess for now, at least, that's gone by the wayside.
Still unfortunately absent from the discussion - with the exception of Gov. Paterson's threat early this week to lay off about 9,000 state employees - is reform. The scariest thing about that is where will not changing anything leave us in the future? So this year, Albany raises taxes on small businesses and plugs holes with federal stimulus money... What's going to happen next year when there is no federal stimulus money coming? In a state where employers already face the highest taxes in the nation, overwhelming energy costs and overregulation - how can we be expected to want to persevere in the face of a future that appears even more expensive in New York State than the present?
I'll say it again... For New York's 19 million people, our budget is $121B. California's $90B covers the state's population of 36 million. More revenues for Albany to spend is not the answer.
That being said, I urge you again to join the effort to stop the "three men in a room" from passing these taxes as part of the budget. Call upon our five Upstate Majority Senators to put Upstate first and send this punitive, job-killing budget back to the drawing table.
Still unfortunately absent from the discussion - with the exception of Gov. Paterson's threat early this week to lay off about 9,000 state employees - is reform. The scariest thing about that is where will not changing anything leave us in the future? So this year, Albany raises taxes on small businesses and plugs holes with federal stimulus money... What's going to happen next year when there is no federal stimulus money coming? In a state where employers already face the highest taxes in the nation, overwhelming energy costs and overregulation - how can we be expected to want to persevere in the face of a future that appears even more expensive in New York State than the present?
I'll say it again... For New York's 19 million people, our budget is $121B. California's $90B covers the state's population of 36 million. More revenues for Albany to spend is not the answer.
That being said, I urge you again to join the effort to stop the "three men in a room" from passing these taxes as part of the budget. Call upon our five Upstate Majority Senators to put Upstate first and send this punitive, job-killing budget back to the drawing table.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Brookings Institution - Northern Border
First and foremost, I'm thrilled to report that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced this week that he will not support the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter, who supported the bill in 2007, was seen as the key vote by organized labor that would help them reach the 60 votes needed to pass the bill in the Senate (it's already passed the House in previous years). This is great news, as for now, at least, this ill-conceived legislation will be going nowhere.
I wanted to write about that yesterday, of course, but couldn't as I was attending a full-day session at the Brookings Institution in DC on the CanAm Border, highlighted by keynote speaker Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Coming from an organization that represents a CanAm border community and deals with border issues on a daily basis, for us there wasn't a great amount of new information, but certainly it was a good day of discussion of multiple perspectives.
Part of the day was dedicated to a draft report commissioned by Brookings and drafted by Dr. Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute, who suggests that the keys to the success of the CanAm border are decentralization - understanding that different regions have different needs and that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't necessarily work for everyone; precision - a better understanding of what the specific needs are related to border crossing; and consensus - regionally and federally across the two nations.
What's interesting - and I had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Sands about this - is that we have an issue in Buffalo Niagara that could be a poster child for this discussion - shared border management (SBM). Remember, that's putting all customs operations on the side of the border that has the room for it - on the Canadian side here and on the U.S. side in the North Country. We have decentralization - it's an issue specific to the two NYS border crossings; and we have precision - we know exactly what needs to be done. The thing we're lacking is consensus, and that lack of consensus isn't regional... It's between the U.S. and Canada. If Dr. Sands is right, we're 2/3 of the way there (with the hardest part, of course, to go).
Secretary Napolitano's stance on SBM was that we first need to determine if both nations want it, and then we can get into negotiations about the details. It's interesting, because it seems the details are what would make either of the nations decide if they even want SBM - I'm certain that if it means imposing on Constitutional rights in each country, as has been the problem in past negotiations, then both sides would probably rather do without it (to put it mildly). If there's the possibility of compromise... Then maybe we move forward with the discussion. Napolitano did admit that finding an agreement and overcoming the hurdles that have already been established will be difficult.
SBM got a lot of play at the conference, as did the upcoming implementation of WHTI requirements. Congresswoman Slaughter spoke in the morning, reiterating that she's urged DHS to postpone WHTI going into effect again until after the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010. Later in the day, Secretary Napolitano reaffirmed that WHTI would start on-time (June 1), and that her department was doing a detailed inspection of border operations to ensure that it will be implemented as smoothly as possible.
Portions of yesterday's conference will be posted on Brookings web site - I'll post them when they're available. As I said, there was some interesting discussion that you might find useful.
I wanted to write about that yesterday, of course, but couldn't as I was attending a full-day session at the Brookings Institution in DC on the CanAm Border, highlighted by keynote speaker Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Coming from an organization that represents a CanAm border community and deals with border issues on a daily basis, for us there wasn't a great amount of new information, but certainly it was a good day of discussion of multiple perspectives.
Part of the day was dedicated to a draft report commissioned by Brookings and drafted by Dr. Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute, who suggests that the keys to the success of the CanAm border are decentralization - understanding that different regions have different needs and that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't necessarily work for everyone; precision - a better understanding of what the specific needs are related to border crossing; and consensus - regionally and federally across the two nations.
What's interesting - and I had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Sands about this - is that we have an issue in Buffalo Niagara that could be a poster child for this discussion - shared border management (SBM). Remember, that's putting all customs operations on the side of the border that has the room for it - on the Canadian side here and on the U.S. side in the North Country. We have decentralization - it's an issue specific to the two NYS border crossings; and we have precision - we know exactly what needs to be done. The thing we're lacking is consensus, and that lack of consensus isn't regional... It's between the U.S. and Canada. If Dr. Sands is right, we're 2/3 of the way there (with the hardest part, of course, to go).
Secretary Napolitano's stance on SBM was that we first need to determine if both nations want it, and then we can get into negotiations about the details. It's interesting, because it seems the details are what would make either of the nations decide if they even want SBM - I'm certain that if it means imposing on Constitutional rights in each country, as has been the problem in past negotiations, then both sides would probably rather do without it (to put it mildly). If there's the possibility of compromise... Then maybe we move forward with the discussion. Napolitano did admit that finding an agreement and overcoming the hurdles that have already been established will be difficult.
SBM got a lot of play at the conference, as did the upcoming implementation of WHTI requirements. Congresswoman Slaughter spoke in the morning, reiterating that she's urged DHS to postpone WHTI going into effect again until after the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010. Later in the day, Secretary Napolitano reaffirmed that WHTI would start on-time (June 1), and that her department was doing a detailed inspection of border operations to ensure that it will be implemented as smoothly as possible.
Portions of yesterday's conference will be posted on Brookings web site - I'll post them when they're available. As I said, there was some interesting discussion that you might find useful.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
21st Century Commission
Yesterday, the Erie County Legislature's 21st Century Commission, which was established to help craft the Erie County Legislature of the future, held a public hearing. Check out the Partnership's testimony.
It's amazing that we can still shop out recommendations made by Partnership volunteers that served on the Erie County Stabilization Project (ECSP) in 2005. A lot of the 128 recommendations made were implemented under the Giambra Administration - others have been looked at by County Executive Collins (interestingly, a good number of recommendations made by the ECSP fall in line with Collins' Six Sigma implementation). But the initiatives that target the Erie County Legislature continue to be ignored - until last night's hearing, of course.
It's both fascinating and frustration the way things work in New York State. Charters, legislation and home rule are often written seemingly to make sure nothin can change. Physical changes to the Erie County Legislature can only be implemented with the approval of the legislators that make up the body. A State Constitutional Convention that could make cost-saving reform of the way Albany operates can only be called for by the state legislature. And, of course, we have a Control Board who can't borrow money without the approval of the county, and a county that can't borrow money without the approval of the Control Board.
Which is why a great deal of credit has to go to Chairwoman Marinelli for starting this conversation about the future of the Legislature. Chances are - from news coverage of last night's hearing and a decade of talk about town - that the recommendations from the Commission are going to include a reduction in the size of the Legislature. Which means that legislators will be asked to support the possible elimination of their jobs. That's leadership that we haven't seen in a long time in this state.
From our perspective, that's important for our economy that we see government behave in such a proactive way. We're looking forward to more of this discussion.
It's amazing that we can still shop out recommendations made by Partnership volunteers that served on the Erie County Stabilization Project (ECSP) in 2005. A lot of the 128 recommendations made were implemented under the Giambra Administration - others have been looked at by County Executive Collins (interestingly, a good number of recommendations made by the ECSP fall in line with Collins' Six Sigma implementation). But the initiatives that target the Erie County Legislature continue to be ignored - until last night's hearing, of course.
It's both fascinating and frustration the way things work in New York State. Charters, legislation and home rule are often written seemingly to make sure nothin can change. Physical changes to the Erie County Legislature can only be implemented with the approval of the legislators that make up the body. A State Constitutional Convention that could make cost-saving reform of the way Albany operates can only be called for by the state legislature. And, of course, we have a Control Board who can't borrow money without the approval of the county, and a county that can't borrow money without the approval of the Control Board.
Which is why a great deal of credit has to go to Chairwoman Marinelli for starting this conversation about the future of the Legislature. Chances are - from news coverage of last night's hearing and a decade of talk about town - that the recommendations from the Commission are going to include a reduction in the size of the Legislature. Which means that legislators will be asked to support the possible elimination of their jobs. That's leadership that we haven't seen in a long time in this state.
From our perspective, that's important for our economy that we see government behave in such a proactive way. We're looking forward to more of this discussion.
Monday, March 23, 2009
"Five Senators in an Upstate"
Probably the first and foremost criticism of the way Albany operates is the notion that everything happens based on the decisions of the infamous "three men in a room" - the Governor, Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader. We actually had former NYS Senator Seymour Lachman, who authored the book "Three Men in a Room," here at the Partnership a couple years ago to discuss the dysfunction of how district representatives don't really have the opportunity in Albany to represent their constituents a good deal - if not most - of the time.
As a result, the underrepresented have long sought an answer to the "three men in a room" dilemma... And we may have found one - the "Five Senators in Upstate." The truth of the matter is that with a slim 32-30 majority in the State Senate, nothing can get done without the support of five Upstate senators - our own Bill Stachowski and Antoine Thompson, in addition to David Valesky (Syracuse), Darrel Aubertine (Watertown) and Neil Breslin (Albany). That gives them an awful lot of influence - if they choose to use it.
They didn't of course, in the passage of January's Deficit Reduction Package, which whacked Upstate business and personal taxpayers with new health insurance taxes and the "sweep" of NY Power Authority funds (the Buffalo News Donn Esmonde today asked where our Upstate leadership was in this decision). That being the case, there are now budget proposals on the table that are devastating to employers in Upstate New York, and we will be leaning heavily on our group of five senators to exert their influence in protecting us from:
Now's the time, too - the New York Post says the hurt is on its way.
As a result, the underrepresented have long sought an answer to the "three men in a room" dilemma... And we may have found one - the "Five Senators in Upstate." The truth of the matter is that with a slim 32-30 majority in the State Senate, nothing can get done without the support of five Upstate senators - our own Bill Stachowski and Antoine Thompson, in addition to David Valesky (Syracuse), Darrel Aubertine (Watertown) and Neil Breslin (Albany). That gives them an awful lot of influence - if they choose to use it.
They didn't of course, in the passage of January's Deficit Reduction Package, which whacked Upstate business and personal taxpayers with new health insurance taxes and the "sweep" of NY Power Authority funds (the Buffalo News Donn Esmonde today asked where our Upstate leadership was in this decision). That being the case, there are now budget proposals on the table that are devastating to employers in Upstate New York, and we will be leaning heavily on our group of five senators to exert their influence in protecting us from:
- The proposed $650 million assessment on energy and telecommunications;
- Additional health insurance taxes and assessments;
- Any increase in personal income taxes, particularly on small business owners.
Now's the time, too - the New York Post says the hurt is on its way.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Potpourri
Lots of fodder we want to weigh in on from today's Buffalo News:
Delay urged in implementing ID rules
As an organization that was in full support of delaying the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) to allow for the introduction of Enhanced Drivers' Licenses in New York State, we find this very interesting. What's good is the message that the NY congressional delegation is giving to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano regarding the difference between the country's northern and southern borders, which is a staple point of the Great Lakes Business Agenda. The delegation also raised in this story the issue of Shared Border Management, which the Partnership has always supported. What we hear from the Peace Bridge Authority is that SBM or no, the important thing now for the (finally) development of a new Peace Bridge is simply a decision, as the wavering over SBM continues to halt the project - the Authority simply can't move forward with any new bridge design without a decision being made. From the Partnership's perspective, SBM is the preferred way to go, but we understand the lift it would take in cooperation (and concessions, which are unlikely to happen) by Washington and Ottawa - so we encourage the conversation, but in a timely manner so we can get going.
Control board remains critical of labor contracts
As we continue to push for a decrease in the size and cost of government, facts will continue to come out that only emphasize our point - and the need for action. The Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority approved a new contract for city building inspectors yesterday that would raise their salaries in exchange for some concessions. One of the concessions: newly-hired inspectors will "only" be eligible for a maximum of 6.4 weeks in paid time off, as opposed to the 8.8 weeks that current employees receive. Completely out-of-touch with real life! For city workers to get 8.8 weeks of paid time off, that means that they're off for 1/6 of the year (or, of course, they can bank that time to collect in a lump sum in the future). And we wonder why government is unaffordable.
Despite ‘hard’ freeze, state hiring is up 8,000
We've had it drilled into our brains that cutting the size and cost of government is not a priority in Albany, but can we at least not hire MORE people and add MORE cost? Particularly when $3 billion in new taxes are still on the table? Why the State Senate Democrats, taking the reins of the majority under the guise of "change," needed to add 150 NEW positions is beyond us. Even justifying that as new responsibilities needing new personnel (which we don't necessarily buy), beyond that, why would the Assembly, having been in the Majority since the Stone Age, have needed to add 210 new people? Of course, this article questions the usage of the term "hiring freeze"... But in reality, there is a hiring freeze. It's in the private sector businesses who are footing the bill for spend-happy Albany.
Corfu mayor re-elected as opponent remains jailed
Where else but in Western New York can a man in jail for murder get 30% of the votes in a mayoral race? If people found out that he didn't pay his taxes, he might've won!
Delay urged in implementing ID rules
As an organization that was in full support of delaying the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) to allow for the introduction of Enhanced Drivers' Licenses in New York State, we find this very interesting. What's good is the message that the NY congressional delegation is giving to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano regarding the difference between the country's northern and southern borders, which is a staple point of the Great Lakes Business Agenda. The delegation also raised in this story the issue of Shared Border Management, which the Partnership has always supported. What we hear from the Peace Bridge Authority is that SBM or no, the important thing now for the (finally) development of a new Peace Bridge is simply a decision, as the wavering over SBM continues to halt the project - the Authority simply can't move forward with any new bridge design without a decision being made. From the Partnership's perspective, SBM is the preferred way to go, but we understand the lift it would take in cooperation (and concessions, which are unlikely to happen) by Washington and Ottawa - so we encourage the conversation, but in a timely manner so we can get going.
Control board remains critical of labor contracts
As we continue to push for a decrease in the size and cost of government, facts will continue to come out that only emphasize our point - and the need for action. The Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority approved a new contract for city building inspectors yesterday that would raise their salaries in exchange for some concessions. One of the concessions: newly-hired inspectors will "only" be eligible for a maximum of 6.4 weeks in paid time off, as opposed to the 8.8 weeks that current employees receive. Completely out-of-touch with real life! For city workers to get 8.8 weeks of paid time off, that means that they're off for 1/6 of the year (or, of course, they can bank that time to collect in a lump sum in the future). And we wonder why government is unaffordable.
Despite ‘hard’ freeze, state hiring is up 8,000
We've had it drilled into our brains that cutting the size and cost of government is not a priority in Albany, but can we at least not hire MORE people and add MORE cost? Particularly when $3 billion in new taxes are still on the table? Why the State Senate Democrats, taking the reins of the majority under the guise of "change," needed to add 150 NEW positions is beyond us. Even justifying that as new responsibilities needing new personnel (which we don't necessarily buy), beyond that, why would the Assembly, having been in the Majority since the Stone Age, have needed to add 210 new people? Of course, this article questions the usage of the term "hiring freeze"... But in reality, there is a hiring freeze. It's in the private sector businesses who are footing the bill for spend-happy Albany.
Corfu mayor re-elected as opponent remains jailed
Where else but in Western New York can a man in jail for murder get 30% of the votes in a mayoral race? If people found out that he didn't pay his taxes, he might've won!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
No one's safe from Albany - not even Biotech!
Wanted to bring to everyone's attention yet another business-killer proposed as part of the NYS budget for this year - a Bio Pharmaceutical Ban on Payments to Health Care Providers & Disclosure Provisions. In effect, the provision bans payments or gifts from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to physicians and other prescribers in excess of $50 per year. For some time, the ban has been proposed as separate legislation - never before as part of the state budget.
What this would do is put New York at a severe disadvantage for new private sector investment in life sciences by limiting manufacturers' ability to market their technologies, and, perhaps more importantly, to perform clinical research. The measure also requires disclosure of financial relationships of presenters of continuing medical education with these manufacturers.
Obviously, life sciences is an industry targeted for growth here in Buffalo Niagara, but we should never lose sight of just how competitive an industry it is. Imposing such limitations only add to the message that New York is unfriendly to business and innovation, and will without doubt cause life sciences companies that create prime, economy-building jobs to look elsewhere.
How do we know this? Because we can learn from our neighbor, Massachusetts, which passed similar legislation last year. That legislation caused at least one medical convention scheduled for Boston to cancel, and reportedly redirected others away from the state.
There is a definitive theme going on here - our opposition to bad legislation as of late has very much had to focus on government attempting to push its way into private sector business. We can only hope that at some point Albany will see the light that when you inflict pain on businesses, their investment will be taken elsewhere. This bill might be the zaniest of all because not only is biotech SO competitive that we're already fighting for every job we can get - but we just saw our neighbors to the east screw it up.
Perhaps the best part - being a part of the budget proposal, this provision is calculated as a $500,000 savings. Figure that one out!
What this would do is put New York at a severe disadvantage for new private sector investment in life sciences by limiting manufacturers' ability to market their technologies, and, perhaps more importantly, to perform clinical research. The measure also requires disclosure of financial relationships of presenters of continuing medical education with these manufacturers.
Obviously, life sciences is an industry targeted for growth here in Buffalo Niagara, but we should never lose sight of just how competitive an industry it is. Imposing such limitations only add to the message that New York is unfriendly to business and innovation, and will without doubt cause life sciences companies that create prime, economy-building jobs to look elsewhere.
How do we know this? Because we can learn from our neighbor, Massachusetts, which passed similar legislation last year. That legislation caused at least one medical convention scheduled for Boston to cancel, and reportedly redirected others away from the state.
There is a definitive theme going on here - our opposition to bad legislation as of late has very much had to focus on government attempting to push its way into private sector business. We can only hope that at some point Albany will see the light that when you inflict pain on businesses, their investment will be taken elsewhere. This bill might be the zaniest of all because not only is biotech SO competitive that we're already fighting for every job we can get - but we just saw our neighbors to the east screw it up.
Perhaps the best part - being a part of the budget proposal, this provision is calculated as a $500,000 savings. Figure that one out!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Some Card Check Stuff
I keep making statements on this blog about the lack of justification for the Card Check provision that takes away an employee's right to secret ballot. That statement is based on a host of conversations I've had with people in the community and in DC that say the justification for this legislation is that employers harass, threaten and intimidate employees during union organization efforts. I still can't see how making a private vote into a public vote would change that, but to offer the benefit of the doubt I had our interns check out as many labor web sites as they could find to help tell the story.
As you'd expect, the big labor groups' web sites are very informative and persuasive on the topic - in fact, on a lot of the points you really have to stop and say "now that makes sense." Some of the stuff, of course, is blatant hyperbole and propaganda ("One-quarter of companies illegally fire pro-union workers" - http://www.changetowin.org/), but for the most part, a lot of it seems well-founded with effective spinning of statistics and facts (sounds accusatory, yes, but we're talking politics here, and if you think there's no spinning of statistics and facts, I would refer you to http://www.disney.com/ for a lighter read).
What is glaringly apparent, however, throughout all the material is that the focus is wholly on the importance of unions in America, and why Card Check is needed to build union membership. I have searched through everything, and still - on labor's own web sites - fail to find a legitimate explanation as to why a very public card-signing process is a safer, more practical and more comprehensive way to decide on organization than allowing an employee a private vote through secret ballot. Seems if protecting a worker's right to choose is the goal, then a secret ballot - where the worker can vote without intimidation from ANYONE - should be everyone's solution.
Of course, we know that Card Check is not about protecting the worker's right - it's about building union membership to ensure enough finances for labor to elect the right people to office so more Card Check-type legislation can become a reality. I've yet to see or hear the justification for taking away secret ballot. And the sad thing is... It may pass without that justification!
From the Partnership's point-of-view, employers should not be threatening or intimidating employees. But the notion that it happens is not reason to take away an employee's right to make a very personal decision in private, and it's ESPECIALLY not reason to give the "other side" the open door to utilize any tactics they'd like on that one employee that's the hold-out with the unsigned card.
Not that we can expect this in New York, but check out what some other states are doing in relation to Card Check.
As you'd expect, the big labor groups' web sites are very informative and persuasive on the topic - in fact, on a lot of the points you really have to stop and say "now that makes sense." Some of the stuff, of course, is blatant hyperbole and propaganda ("One-quarter of companies illegally fire pro-union workers" - http://www.changetowin.org/), but for the most part, a lot of it seems well-founded with effective spinning of statistics and facts (sounds accusatory, yes, but we're talking politics here, and if you think there's no spinning of statistics and facts, I would refer you to http://www.disney.com/ for a lighter read).
What is glaringly apparent, however, throughout all the material is that the focus is wholly on the importance of unions in America, and why Card Check is needed to build union membership. I have searched through everything, and still - on labor's own web sites - fail to find a legitimate explanation as to why a very public card-signing process is a safer, more practical and more comprehensive way to decide on organization than allowing an employee a private vote through secret ballot. Seems if protecting a worker's right to choose is the goal, then a secret ballot - where the worker can vote without intimidation from ANYONE - should be everyone's solution.
Of course, we know that Card Check is not about protecting the worker's right - it's about building union membership to ensure enough finances for labor to elect the right people to office so more Card Check-type legislation can become a reality. I've yet to see or hear the justification for taking away secret ballot. And the sad thing is... It may pass without that justification!
From the Partnership's point-of-view, employers should not be threatening or intimidating employees. But the notion that it happens is not reason to take away an employee's right to make a very personal decision in private, and it's ESPECIALLY not reason to give the "other side" the open door to utilize any tactics they'd like on that one employee that's the hold-out with the unsigned card.
Not that we can expect this in New York, but check out what some other states are doing in relation to Card Check.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Erie County - Lowest Responsible Bidder?
First and foremost, how about Unshackle Upstate night in NCAA basketball on Saturday? Syracuse and UB playing for their conference titles and Binghamton capturing its first-ever trip to the NCAA Tournament? High-speed rail AND primetime college basketball?!! Maybe we are spoiled.
Just wanted to keep you up-to-date on legislation passed by the Erie County Legislature last week that is expected to be vetoed by the County Executive. The "Erie County Lowest Responsible Bidder Law" (Local Law 8-2008), another one of those labor-backed bills with the catchy names, passed with a 10-5 vote, and is intended to "ensure the delivery of construction services and/or purchases on a high quality basis while protecting the rights of employees of government contractors." As usual, that language is interpreted as "eliminate any open-shop (non-union) contractors from winning public works contracts."
The biggest problem with the bill is that it supersedes New York State law related to the definition of "lowest responsible bidder." A host of Senate and Assembly bill have been proposed to "strengthen" lowest responsible bidder - including one, A.806, which continues to fail in the State Legislature but from which much of the language from Erie County's bill is taken. The effort to limit competition between union and non-union contractors is apparently still a goal of much of the Erie County Legislature - despite its well-documented cost to taxpayers.
The best part of the bill is Section H, which allows "any resident of Erie County" who believes that a contract was awarded to a bidder who is not "responsible" can call for a public hearing. That's any Erie County resident, regardless of his or her qualifications. Gone are the need for letters-to-the-editor or even blogs when if you don't like what government is doing, you just call for a public hearing. I'd like to see government give the people power to call public hearings willy-nilly on spending decisions or earmarks/pork or, say, Card Check - for which we still haven't heard a valid justification.
Seriously, however, Section H opens the door for anyone - including opposing contractors who might've lost a bid - to publicly bash another contractor. There's a reason there is a process that governments must follow when bidding and awarding contracts - and nowhere in that process is the opportunity to submit your thoughts on another contractor. I guess we can't fault anyone for not being creative.
This is still America - and every contractor should have a right to bid on - and be awarded - public work.
Just wanted to keep you up-to-date on legislation passed by the Erie County Legislature last week that is expected to be vetoed by the County Executive. The "Erie County Lowest Responsible Bidder Law" (Local Law 8-2008), another one of those labor-backed bills with the catchy names, passed with a 10-5 vote, and is intended to "ensure the delivery of construction services and/or purchases on a high quality basis while protecting the rights of employees of government contractors." As usual, that language is interpreted as "eliminate any open-shop (non-union) contractors from winning public works contracts."
The biggest problem with the bill is that it supersedes New York State law related to the definition of "lowest responsible bidder." A host of Senate and Assembly bill have been proposed to "strengthen" lowest responsible bidder - including one, A.806, which continues to fail in the State Legislature but from which much of the language from Erie County's bill is taken. The effort to limit competition between union and non-union contractors is apparently still a goal of much of the Erie County Legislature - despite its well-documented cost to taxpayers.
The best part of the bill is Section H, which allows "any resident of Erie County" who believes that a contract was awarded to a bidder who is not "responsible" can call for a public hearing. That's any Erie County resident, regardless of his or her qualifications. Gone are the need for letters-to-the-editor or even blogs when if you don't like what government is doing, you just call for a public hearing. I'd like to see government give the people power to call public hearings willy-nilly on spending decisions or earmarks/pork or, say, Card Check - for which we still haven't heard a valid justification.
Seriously, however, Section H opens the door for anyone - including opposing contractors who might've lost a bid - to publicly bash another contractor. There's a reason there is a process that governments must follow when bidding and awarding contracts - and nowhere in that process is the opportunity to submit your thoughts on another contractor. I guess we can't fault anyone for not being creative.
This is still America - and every contractor should have a right to bid on - and be awarded - public work.
Friday, March 13, 2009
We need some better ideas than this...
How loudly can we beat this drum? In order for New York State to get out of its financial mess, Albany needs to cut spending.
This week, more "ideas" came from the state capitol on how to deal with trying fiscal times. First was the use of federal stimulus funds to mitigate the roster of so-called "nuisance" taxes that were included in the Governor's budget proposal. We have been warning for a long time that this would happen, and the danger inherent - first and foremost being that more "stimulus" funding is now being used for something that has NOTHING to do with job creation. Second, federal funding that was destined for health care is being sidetracked into the state coffers (a la NYPA funds and SUNY tuition increases). Third, the "Band-Aid" solution to solving the state's budget woes will only leave us looking for more cash in the near future - check out the Empire Center for New York State Policy's evaluation.
But wait, there's more... Also this week came three absolutely unbelievable proposals to expand benefits for state and local government employees, one of which is an extra two days off - in addition to vacation time, sick time, "comp" time and 16 holidays - for each child they have. Interestingly, the Buffalo News was very telling in their coverage of this story - in the print edition, the headline was an innocuous "State legislators propose more time off for workers." On-line yesterday: "Public Employees may get time off to give blood, play with their kids." That state government would be looking to bump Cadillac public employee benefits even higher in a time when private sector employees are facing layoffs is reprehensible. Even to put that legislation out when no solutions are being put forth on how to deal with the state's financial situation other than spend, spend, spend demonstrates that Albany is completely out-of-touch with the realities of the economy.
We'll continue to say it... Cut spending. The federal bail-out approach to the state budget will be ineffective, and why anyone would be suggesting RAISING the cost of New York State government through decreasing efficiency right now is beyond us. We have two choices: Continue to have government be the state's largest employer at the expense of taxpayers, or change something so that private companies - the ones who create jobs that aren't a drain on taxpayers - want to invest in New York.
This week, more "ideas" came from the state capitol on how to deal with trying fiscal times. First was the use of federal stimulus funds to mitigate the roster of so-called "nuisance" taxes that were included in the Governor's budget proposal. We have been warning for a long time that this would happen, and the danger inherent - first and foremost being that more "stimulus" funding is now being used for something that has NOTHING to do with job creation. Second, federal funding that was destined for health care is being sidetracked into the state coffers (a la NYPA funds and SUNY tuition increases). Third, the "Band-Aid" solution to solving the state's budget woes will only leave us looking for more cash in the near future - check out the Empire Center for New York State Policy's evaluation.
But wait, there's more... Also this week came three absolutely unbelievable proposals to expand benefits for state and local government employees, one of which is an extra two days off - in addition to vacation time, sick time, "comp" time and 16 holidays - for each child they have. Interestingly, the Buffalo News was very telling in their coverage of this story - in the print edition, the headline was an innocuous "State legislators propose more time off for workers." On-line yesterday: "Public Employees may get time off to give blood, play with their kids." That state government would be looking to bump Cadillac public employee benefits even higher in a time when private sector employees are facing layoffs is reprehensible. Even to put that legislation out when no solutions are being put forth on how to deal with the state's financial situation other than spend, spend, spend demonstrates that Albany is completely out-of-touch with the realities of the economy.
We'll continue to say it... Cut spending. The federal bail-out approach to the state budget will be ineffective, and why anyone would be suggesting RAISING the cost of New York State government through decreasing efficiency right now is beyond us. We have two choices: Continue to have government be the state's largest employer at the expense of taxpayers, or change something so that private companies - the ones who create jobs that aren't a drain on taxpayers - want to invest in New York.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Upstate - Too much attention?
This is fun. When's the last time Upstate New York was accused of getting too much attention from Albany? Wow. Because we might get a new train? That seems like a stretch of reality.
But, to offer the writer the benefit of the doubt, let's at least look at some points through some "Did you knows"...
Did you know...
But, to offer the writer the benefit of the doubt, let's at least look at some points through some "Did you knows"...
Did you know...
- That the threshhold for public works projects that are subject to Wicks Law are $3 million for New York City, $1.5 million for NYC suburbs and $500,000 for all of Upstate?
- That New York City schools have been exempt from Wicks Law all along?
- That the Buffalo Niagara region (Region 5) was subjected to a larger cut in NYSDOT funding for 2009 than other regions due to the fact that we - as a region - have done a better job of maintaining our roads (meaning less "need")?
- New York City has managed to be excluded from a host of unfunded mandates being proposed by Albany (today's Buffalo News)?
- Before last year's reform of the Brownfields Cleanup Program, out of the $1B that was spend on brownfield remediation and redevelopment over $700MM was spent on six projects in NYC while Erie County received 3% of that funding and Niagara County 1/10% of it; and that the downstate expense of the program caused DEC to put a moratorium on brownfields projects, holding up over $50MM worth of projects in WNY?
- While we continue to fight for hydropower and proceeds derived from hydropower to be used for economic development in the Buffalo Niagara region, it continues to be shipped downstate, or worse, was just recently swept into the State's general fund?
I love NYC - it's my favorite place in the world to visit, and I can't wait to get down there and see that shiny new Yankee Stadium. But to suggest that Upstate is spoiled by Albany is absolutely laughable.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Card Check and Albany Trip
One post, two topics:
First, to keep you informed, both the House and Senate introduced the Employee Free Choice Act yesterday. On the surface, that may seem like a step forward for proponents of the bill, but the reality is that nothing has really changed since the day before other than we now have specific bills to reference in our opposition. The delay in the bill, and even this forced introduction when the Senate doesn't appear to have the votes to pass it, are a good sign that the opposition message is gaining support. Which doesn't mean that the advocacy against this legislation should diminish... We will continue to oppose EFCA, and let you know how you can do the same. In the end, we still can't understand why any American would support giving up the right to secret ballot.
Second, we spent the last two days in Albany with our Advocacy Boot Camp participants and our partners in the Unshackle Upstate coalition. I'd say it was a very productive visit. Monday night's "Buffalo Niagara Night in Albany" event went very well - over 150 people attended and made their way through wings, beef on weck and over 250 Mighty Tacos. Oh yeah - a lot of good networking, too.
Tuesday, we took a group of about a dozen and had a number of meetings with the Western New York delegation, discussing the state budget/"Millionaire's Tax," the IDA "reform" bill, and the Unshackle Upstate Medicaid Reform Package, which was released on Monday. Of course, given the Governor's announcement Monday regarding the high-speed rail corridor from Buffalo to Albany, there was substantial discussion on that, as well. We were pleased to hear from Senators Stachowski and Thompson that there is discussion on-going regarding a new IDA bill, taking into account the burden of prevailing wage; and also that the Department of Taxation is looking into new tax forms for subchapter S-corporations that would separate them - small businesses that create jobs - from the "Millionaire's Tax."
Legislators reported that the state budget is expected to be done on-time, so the trip was a good kick-off to budget crunch time. We'll keep you posted on developments.
First, to keep you informed, both the House and Senate introduced the Employee Free Choice Act yesterday. On the surface, that may seem like a step forward for proponents of the bill, but the reality is that nothing has really changed since the day before other than we now have specific bills to reference in our opposition. The delay in the bill, and even this forced introduction when the Senate doesn't appear to have the votes to pass it, are a good sign that the opposition message is gaining support. Which doesn't mean that the advocacy against this legislation should diminish... We will continue to oppose EFCA, and let you know how you can do the same. In the end, we still can't understand why any American would support giving up the right to secret ballot.
Second, we spent the last two days in Albany with our Advocacy Boot Camp participants and our partners in the Unshackle Upstate coalition. I'd say it was a very productive visit. Monday night's "Buffalo Niagara Night in Albany" event went very well - over 150 people attended and made their way through wings, beef on weck and over 250 Mighty Tacos. Oh yeah - a lot of good networking, too.
Tuesday, we took a group of about a dozen and had a number of meetings with the Western New York delegation, discussing the state budget/"Millionaire's Tax," the IDA "reform" bill, and the Unshackle Upstate Medicaid Reform Package, which was released on Monday. Of course, given the Governor's announcement Monday regarding the high-speed rail corridor from Buffalo to Albany, there was substantial discussion on that, as well. We were pleased to hear from Senators Stachowski and Thompson that there is discussion on-going regarding a new IDA bill, taking into account the burden of prevailing wage; and also that the Department of Taxation is looking into new tax forms for subchapter S-corporations that would separate them - small businesses that create jobs - from the "Millionaire's Tax."
Legislators reported that the state budget is expected to be done on-time, so the trip was a good kick-off to budget crunch time. We'll keep you posted on developments.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Buffalo Niagara Night in Albany
We're in Albany tonight with our Advocacy Boot Camp attendees and our partners in the Unshackle Upstate coalition for Buffalo Niagara Night in Albany. Each year, while we throw a great party with all kinds of food from our end of the state, this is such an important trip for relationship building and for forwarding the position of Buffalo Niagara employers on a number of issues.
Interestingly, the Governor's visit to the Partnership last week was a good kick-off for our efforts in Albany, as the message will be the same: you can't tax, regulate and fee yourself out of a recession. We'll be pushing the message of reform, complete with a full-scale Medicaid reform package, which we'll be releasing tomorrow morning. Upstate employers - through the Unshackle Upstate coalition - continue to be the voice of new ideas for reform in New York State government. We figure that the status quo has gotten us into a budget deficit in the tens of millions of dollars... Maybe Albany will start listening.
I hope that if you're in Albany, you'll have the opportunity to stop by tonight. Enjoy the food, do some networking, and help us to emphasize that only in changing the way Albany operates will we be able to restore the Empire State to prosperity.
Interestingly, the Governor's visit to the Partnership last week was a good kick-off for our efforts in Albany, as the message will be the same: you can't tax, regulate and fee yourself out of a recession. We'll be pushing the message of reform, complete with a full-scale Medicaid reform package, which we'll be releasing tomorrow morning. Upstate employers - through the Unshackle Upstate coalition - continue to be the voice of new ideas for reform in New York State government. We figure that the status quo has gotten us into a budget deficit in the tens of millions of dollars... Maybe Albany will start listening.
I hope that if you're in Albany, you'll have the opportunity to stop by tonight. Enjoy the food, do some networking, and help us to emphasize that only in changing the way Albany operates will we be able to restore the Empire State to prosperity.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Shouldn't Reform be Preferable to Cuts?
State government continues to be pummeled by special interests carrying the message "don't cut us," but never offering any solutions. Recent television ads (we've all seen them) urge the state to support the "Fair Share" tax, aimed on paper at the state's wealthiest taxpayers, but in reality at small business:
These ads are the norm. If you haven't noticed, we're in a budget crisis in New York State, and more taxes on business are not the answer. In fact, by placing more financial burden on small business that do provide health insurance for their employees, you risk cutting the availability of coverage even further. Brilliant! Reform - cutting the size and cost of state government - is the obvious answer that seems to elude Albany. But, as we see from ads like the one above, talk of reform is short. It's very important to understand the difference between cuts vs. reform, as well, as "cuts" are easily demonized... The message is too easily cast as "You are not going to have something tomorrow that you have today." Isn't voluntary reform of a broken system a better alternative to forced cuts? We think so.
Yesterday, Governor David Paterson visited the Partnership. His comments focused on the state's addiction to spending. He reiterated Unshackle Upstate's point that the budget crisis in NYS is nothing new - that even when Wall Street was booming, Albany still spent and overspent. One thing he said particularly stuck with us... He said that if New York provided a more competitive business environment, Albany wouldn't need to invest so heavily in economic development incentives. We say amen.
But the political powers in Albany continue to push the state budget conversation forward without addressing how change will be made - and the budget is now due in less than a month. Gov. Paterson alluded to additional attacks - of the "low blow" variety - directed at him regarding health care cuts - first a television ad using a blind man to chastise him for proposed budget cuts related to health care, and then another that surfaced this week attacking him for the closure of two hospitals in Queens (video of anti-Paterson rally). Of course, there are holes: what the advertising blitz fails to point out is that only a few short months ago, the state poured $50 million (they wanted $36MM more) into saving these two hospitals. Again, very emotional - and probably effective - messages, but in a fiscal situation where we need solutions more than rhetoric... Not very helpful.
To demostrate that we practice what we preach... This Tuesday, the Unshackle Upstate coalition will roll out its 2009 Medicaid reform proposal. Not blind cuts that threaten health care, but thoughtful, strategic changes to the way the state does business that will not only save taxpayers money, but strengthen services.
Hey - that's a novel idea!!!
These ads are the norm. If you haven't noticed, we're in a budget crisis in New York State, and more taxes on business are not the answer. In fact, by placing more financial burden on small business that do provide health insurance for their employees, you risk cutting the availability of coverage even further. Brilliant! Reform - cutting the size and cost of state government - is the obvious answer that seems to elude Albany. But, as we see from ads like the one above, talk of reform is short. It's very important to understand the difference between cuts vs. reform, as well, as "cuts" are easily demonized... The message is too easily cast as "You are not going to have something tomorrow that you have today." Isn't voluntary reform of a broken system a better alternative to forced cuts? We think so.
Yesterday, Governor David Paterson visited the Partnership. His comments focused on the state's addiction to spending. He reiterated Unshackle Upstate's point that the budget crisis in NYS is nothing new - that even when Wall Street was booming, Albany still spent and overspent. One thing he said particularly stuck with us... He said that if New York provided a more competitive business environment, Albany wouldn't need to invest so heavily in economic development incentives. We say amen.
But the political powers in Albany continue to push the state budget conversation forward without addressing how change will be made - and the budget is now due in less than a month. Gov. Paterson alluded to additional attacks - of the "low blow" variety - directed at him regarding health care cuts - first a television ad using a blind man to chastise him for proposed budget cuts related to health care, and then another that surfaced this week attacking him for the closure of two hospitals in Queens (video of anti-Paterson rally). Of course, there are holes: what the advertising blitz fails to point out is that only a few short months ago, the state poured $50 million (they wanted $36MM more) into saving these two hospitals. Again, very emotional - and probably effective - messages, but in a fiscal situation where we need solutions more than rhetoric... Not very helpful.
To demostrate that we practice what we preach... This Tuesday, the Unshackle Upstate coalition will roll out its 2009 Medicaid reform proposal. Not blind cuts that threaten health care, but thoughtful, strategic changes to the way the state does business that will not only save taxpayers money, but strengthen services.
Hey - that's a novel idea!!!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
IDA Public Hearing
In Albany today, the Assembly Standing Committee on Local Governments is holding a public hearing on IDAs that will focus on the proposed IDA "reform" legislation - A.3659/S.1241. The Partnership has submitted testimony in opposition to this legislation for the hearing, as has Unshackle Upstate. We expect those in support of this legislation to be out in full force (in fact, we know they will be because the location of the hearing had to be moved for capacity reasons).
There are a number of things wrong with this legislation, including unreachable reporting goals, dissemination of private information and asking businesses to agree to factors that will be determined later in their relationship with the IDA. From the Partnership's perspective, however, we've stayed focused on the pieces of the legislation related of regional economic development. They are:
Wage mandates - Forcing wage mandates upon employers who receive IDA incentives will serve only to further raise the cost of doing business, and ultimately make the IDA incentives useless. Since IDAs are an effective way around the high cost of doing business, mandates such as these will only increase the uncompetitive nature of Upstate's economy. In fact, Ulster County in January suspended its prevailing wage policy linked to IDA incentives due to lack of projects (I do have to say - I love the "put up or shut up" notion that was presented... Wonder what would happen if the state/labor would back off of all of the regulations for a year and let the business community see what it could do! I bet the results would be verrrrrry interesting.)
Civic Facilities - The NYS Economic Development Council estimates that over $2B in "civics facilities" projects are being held up across the state ($112MM in Erie and Niagara counties) as labor continues to push for the burdensome mandates in the IDA legislation. The way we see it - that's over $2B worth of work for New York State employees looking for work, and a chunk of projects that could have been "shovel ready" for stimulus funding had they not been held hostage. Doesn't make sense.
Investment vs. Jobs - Much of the IDA "reform" legislation is aimed at punishing businesses for not creating enough jobs. However, it is important for the state to understand that often new private sector investment is equally as important as new jobs. Take a manufacturing company in Upstate that employs 250 people that is being wooed by North Carolina. They've developed a new technology and need to expand - however, their expansion doesn't necessarily mean new jobs, but it DOES weigh heavily in the decision to keep 250 people working in Upstate or move them out-of-state. Isn't that worth the IDA incentive? Economic development in a global economy is a highly competitive business, and we are competing with every tool we have - not only for new investment, but to preserve and grow what we have.
This one's going to be a battle to the finish, and while not every Partnership member will benefit directly from IDA incentives, it's an important effort that touches everyone. On one hand, allowing government to dictate the terms of your relationship with your employees through wage mandates is a slippery slope; on the other, we need to work and fight together to preserve and grow any economic advantages Upstate New York has... And IDAs are one of them.
There are a number of things wrong with this legislation, including unreachable reporting goals, dissemination of private information and asking businesses to agree to factors that will be determined later in their relationship with the IDA. From the Partnership's perspective, however, we've stayed focused on the pieces of the legislation related of regional economic development. They are:
Wage mandates - Forcing wage mandates upon employers who receive IDA incentives will serve only to further raise the cost of doing business, and ultimately make the IDA incentives useless. Since IDAs are an effective way around the high cost of doing business, mandates such as these will only increase the uncompetitive nature of Upstate's economy. In fact, Ulster County in January suspended its prevailing wage policy linked to IDA incentives due to lack of projects (I do have to say - I love the "put up or shut up" notion that was presented... Wonder what would happen if the state/labor would back off of all of the regulations for a year and let the business community see what it could do! I bet the results would be verrrrrry interesting.)
Civic Facilities - The NYS Economic Development Council estimates that over $2B in "civics facilities" projects are being held up across the state ($112MM in Erie and Niagara counties) as labor continues to push for the burdensome mandates in the IDA legislation. The way we see it - that's over $2B worth of work for New York State employees looking for work, and a chunk of projects that could have been "shovel ready" for stimulus funding had they not been held hostage. Doesn't make sense.
Investment vs. Jobs - Much of the IDA "reform" legislation is aimed at punishing businesses for not creating enough jobs. However, it is important for the state to understand that often new private sector investment is equally as important as new jobs. Take a manufacturing company in Upstate that employs 250 people that is being wooed by North Carolina. They've developed a new technology and need to expand - however, their expansion doesn't necessarily mean new jobs, but it DOES weigh heavily in the decision to keep 250 people working in Upstate or move them out-of-state. Isn't that worth the IDA incentive? Economic development in a global economy is a highly competitive business, and we are competing with every tool we have - not only for new investment, but to preserve and grow what we have.
This one's going to be a battle to the finish, and while not every Partnership member will benefit directly from IDA incentives, it's an important effort that touches everyone. On one hand, allowing government to dictate the terms of your relationship with your employees through wage mandates is a slippery slope; on the other, we need to work and fight together to preserve and grow any economic advantages Upstate New York has... And IDAs are one of them.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
What's in a name?
Our opponents have a knack for coming up with great names for their regulations and taxes. "Walmart Bill," is always the first one that comes to mind - a bill mandating that employers with over 100 employees provide health coverage that had absolutely nothing to do with Walmart other than the retail giant being demonized in order to gain support for the bill.
"Living wage" is another... By itself, it evokes emotion about workers who ought to be paid a certain wage determined by government - not based on qualifications, work ethic or experience - but simply because they have a job that in some way relates to public dollars or incentives. Brilliant name.
Now, we face the "Millionaire's Tax," which recently was re-named the even more ire-inducing
"Fair Share Tax." It was easy enough to loathe millionaires and their high-life in light of the state's economic problems (even though the bill was directed at those making over $250,000), but the notion that these people aren't paying their fair share of state taxes is a reprehensible one. The ads on TV prove it.
Hold on, though - those ads aren't really telling the whole story. First, regarding "fair share," the NYS budget has been borne on the backs of “wealthy” taxpayers, to the point, in fact, that the state deficit, due to the overreliance on these taxpayers, has been intensified by Wall Street’s topple. Currently in New York State, the top four percent of taxpayers pay 55 percent of personal income taxes. The top 25 percent pay 96 percent of the levy. “Fairness” is not the issue.
Second, what the ads fail to mention is that thousands of small businesses that pay personal income taxes as Subchapter S Corporations would be affected by the "Fair Share" Tax. Those are small businesses that in this recession we need to be putting their resources into job creation - not the state coffers. Albany continues to place the burden of huge state government on job creators.
Of course, the Partnership opposes this bill as another in a long line this year of legislative proposals intent upon driving employers out of New York State. Great name, though.
"Living wage" is another... By itself, it evokes emotion about workers who ought to be paid a certain wage determined by government - not based on qualifications, work ethic or experience - but simply because they have a job that in some way relates to public dollars or incentives. Brilliant name.
Now, we face the "Millionaire's Tax," which recently was re-named the even more ire-inducing
"Fair Share Tax." It was easy enough to loathe millionaires and their high-life in light of the state's economic problems (even though the bill was directed at those making over $250,000), but the notion that these people aren't paying their fair share of state taxes is a reprehensible one. The ads on TV prove it.
Hold on, though - those ads aren't really telling the whole story. First, regarding "fair share," the NYS budget has been borne on the backs of “wealthy” taxpayers, to the point, in fact, that the state deficit, due to the overreliance on these taxpayers, has been intensified by Wall Street’s topple. Currently in New York State, the top four percent of taxpayers pay 55 percent of personal income taxes. The top 25 percent pay 96 percent of the levy. “Fairness” is not the issue.
Second, what the ads fail to mention is that thousands of small businesses that pay personal income taxes as Subchapter S Corporations would be affected by the "Fair Share" Tax. Those are small businesses that in this recession we need to be putting their resources into job creation - not the state coffers. Albany continues to place the burden of huge state government on job creators.
Of course, the Partnership opposes this bill as another in a long line this year of legislative proposals intent upon driving employers out of New York State. Great name, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)