Recession finally hits state government

Most of us have had to learn to do with less these past couple years.

I've personally used the phrase, “not in the budget” about four million times, whether it was while out shopping with the kids, or turning down a friend's request to go out to dinner or to a movie or whatever. We all have to prioritize and most often prioritizing means skipping what you want to to in order to afford what you have to do.

“Not in the budget” has become somewhat of a catch phrase. I'm hardly the only one saying it. The recession has affected almost everyone I know in some way or another. Many of my friends have lost jobs, or had to do more at their jobs, picking up the slack left because someone else at their job got a pink slip.

Private companies deal with the pain of recession by reducing their workforce if they can't find other ways to save enough money to make them viable during the bleak economic times that fall upon us from time to time.

Government, it seems, hardly goes that same route.

My budget – much like yours – is determined by my paycheck. My paycheck – much like yours – is determined by how many hours I work, multiplied by how much my employer is willing to pay me for each hour of work done.

Government's budget, meanwhile, is determined by how much they raise in taxes; whether they be sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes or “fees,” which are really just taxes with a different name.

Basically, people get paid what their employer is willing to pay. Government gets paid whatever they want.

This has been the formula for far too long.

One thing that rang out loud and clear from the election is that people aren't fond of that formula. People don't like being told what to do or how much to pay. Government is supposed to work for us. Not the other way around. And many of the people who won their elections in November campaigned on just such a mantra.

It looks like New York State might have gotten that message … to a degree. Last week Governor David Paterson announced that come January 1, there will be 900 fewer state employees than there are right now. The last day of this month, 900 people will get their pink slips and told to move on.

Of course, those 900 people are none-too-happy about this. And the unions that represent them aren't either.

But in Paterson's defense, he did give those unions an opportunity to save those jobs if they were willing to make concessions to save the state money. The unions, however, refused.

Paterson can't force concessions on the unions. They already have a contract. But he can reduce the number of employees. So that's what he did.

It's sad to see people lose their jobs. But it beats allowing the state to be held hostage by public employees unions.

Come January 1, this could all be moot if the incoming governor, Andrew Cuomo belays that layoff order.

If he does, we all might have to get part-time jobs just to pay our taxes. Or we'll have to learn to do with even less.

Redefining "lost"

A story published over the weekend really kind of raised my ire.

For those of you who may have missed it, Neale Gulley's piece in the Sunday paper discussed the recent line item veto's by Governor David Paterson and how they would affect Western New York. Specifically, the piece mentioned a $9,450 procurement from Assemblyman Robin Schimminger to the United Way of the Tonawandas.

The story said the organization “stands to lose $9,450 they already got from Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, D-Kenmore, for a new computer system.”

“We were told the money would be there but we’re waiting for the paperwork,” the organization's director of finance and administration said. “it was submitted a couple weeks ago.”

So if I read Gulley's story correctly, the organization obviously didn't “already got” anything. They were promised it by Assemblyman Schimminger but it hadn't been delivered yet. And since they didn't already have it, they didn't lose it. They just didn't get it.

If I tell you I'm going to give you a dollar and then don't, you didn't lose a dollar. You just didn't get the dollar I said I was going to give you. That might make me a bad guy, but it doesn't really make you a victim.

Since the $9,450 in question here isn't from Assemblyman Schimminger's bank account, maybe he shouldn't have promised it in the first place. Seems to me there's a saying here about your mouth not writing checks your butt can't cash.

Further, the story explained that the money was there for the United Way of the Tonawandas to use, but they hadn't done so by the end of the fiscal year, so they lost out.

If you call me today and ask if you can borrow a cup a sugar, I'd likely say yes. If you fail to pick up that cup of sugar in a reasonable amount of time, I'll probably just end up using it myself. Several months down the road if you happen to stop by and say, “hey where's my sugar you said I could borrow,” I'd probably look at you like you had multiple heads. And if I don't have the extra sugar anymore I'm not going to feel guilty about it.

That's not much different that the United Way's not using the money it had been promised.

You still couldn't tell anyone that you “lost” a cup of sugar that you never had. Especially if it was your laziness or disorganization that prevented you from getting the sugar in the first place.

You may think I'm being hard on the United Way here. After all, they're a great group with great goals and they help a lot of people. But I'm just using them as an example – just like Gulley did. And no matter how good they are, that doesn't mean that we have the money to give them.

The reason for Paterson's vetoes in the first place is because the fiscal state of the empire state is deplorable. And we just can't give money out the way we used to. In fact, had we not been giving this money out in this manner for the last 30 years, maybe we'd be in a lot better shape now.

Someone somewhere will try to make the argument that this is “just $9,450” and considering the size of the state's budget, it's proportionally just a drop in the bucket and they should be able to find the money to honor Schimminger's word.

In all, Paterson vetoed $700 million in expenditures.

I guess it's true what they say, “ten grand here and ten grand there and eventually you're talking real money.”

Who's the addict now?

Government likes to use code words so they don't look quite so much like the bad guys.

For example, it seems like every couple weeks we hear about a new plan by the state to “raise money” to “fill the budget gap.”

Of course, by “raise money,” what they really mean is, “raise taxes.” And “fill the budget gap” actually translates to “spend more.”

I'm never a fan of government increasing our taxes. Nor am I a fan of them spending more. But some plans, I must confess, irk me more than others.

The latest harebrained scheme by Albany, specifically Governor Paterson, is to raise taxes on tobacco products, including a $1.60 a pack tax increase on cigarettes … and (here we go again) collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations.

Disclaimer: I smoke somewhere between half a pack and a pack a day. Save yourself the time of emailing me about how bad smoking is, okay? I know. I'm not under the impression that cigarettes have Vitamin C in them. I didn't miss the label that says they're bad. I know. But this is America and I have the right to ignore conventional wisdom and do something that's bad for me. Okay? Good. Moving on.

The $1.60 a pack tax increase bothers me by itself. Raises taxes on addicts is more than cruel. It's got to be a sin. Maybe not one of the seven deadly ones, but a sin nonetheless. And the argument that maybe the state will tax people into quitting is flawed on so many levels. If that's the argument, the state is attempting to push it's own moral standards through tax code. Again, that's just evil.

For me, however, there's something worse than taxing addicts. There's something worse than using taxes to push their morals. And that's attempting to levy taxes on sovereign land.

The State of New York has no more right to levy taxes on Native American soil than it does to levy taxes on Florida or France. The many reservations found within the confines of the state are – essentially – each their own country as set forth in the many treaties we've made … and ultimately broken.

Of course, I'm sure Governor Paterson would love to be able to tax Florida and France, too. Just like I'm sure he's trying to devise a way to tax our brainwaves and white blood cells. After all, there's that “budget gap” to fill.

This concept of taxing reservations is not new. It's been pushed hard twice before and floated a number of times. You likely recall parts of the New York State Thruway shutting down over a decade ago over this exact same issue. As much as I abhor violence, I can't blame Native Americans for protecting their way of life. And if they were to do it again, I'd root for them.

The problem is simple. New York State spends more than it makes. The solution is equally simple. New York State should spend less.

The fact that certain people in Albany seem to think it's easier to declare war on the sovereignty of Native Americans than to reign in spending should tell you all you need to know about the disease that infects state government.

A drug addict will steal from loved ones, burglarize homes and even knock off convenience stores to get money to get their fix.

Albany – apparently – is no different.

Rather than allow our elected officials to knock off the metaphorical convenience store that is our Native American reservations, we should get them the help they need. Just like we'd send a drug addict to rehab, we should send our elected officials for their own treatment.

Dear Governor Paterson: I never liked you

I have my biases just like anyone else.

Add to that the fact that I'm somewhat vindictive and not particularly forgiving and, frankly, it makes me the type of person whose bad side you don't want to get on. And if you are on my **** list and you fall? Well, I'm not going to feel guilty about enjoying it.

I'm not saying this as a threat. It is merely a disclaimer. Usually you get those at the end in small print, but I like to put mine out front.

I was never a fan of David Paterson. I'm not afraid to call him “the accidental governor.” I mean, let's be honest here. If Eliot Spitzer were a combination of more discreet and less freaky, we still wouldn't know anything about David Paterson. And we'd all be just fine with that, I'm sure.

When Paterson assumed the role of governor, he had a radio tour to introduce himself. I was working for WECK and WLVL at the time and got the same email every other talk show host in the state got; announcing that the new governor might consider being a guest on my show to tell the taxpayers what he was all about.

I called the number on the email, hoping to set up a live interview with the governor, the third we'd had since I had started my talk show several years ago – but the first who had offered to do a live interview. Or at least, I thought that's what the offer was.

I wish I could recall the conversation verbatim, but I cannot. I do remember whoever I talked to telling me that Cheektowaga and Lockport were not important enough to warrant the new executive's time. The woman on the other end of the phone didn't seem to care that radio waves were capable of traveling and just because the stations were licensed to Cheektowaga and Buffalo didn't mean that only residents of those communities would hear it.

“Yeah, we're licensed to Cheektowaga,” I told her, “but the majority of our listeners are actually from Buffalo, the second largest city in the state. You may have heard of it?”

The preceding paragraph is paraphrased, but that was the gist.

It didn't matter. She wasn't buying it. And just as quickly as David Paterson had become governor, I was done with him. Frankly, if his media people were that clueless, I could only imagine how bad he must be.

He didn't disappoint. He struck me as equal to his aide in terms of cluelessness. Honestly, I've been thinking for days of something he did that impressed me or gave me any sort of notion that he may have been more intelligent than I gave him credit for. I came up empty.

The thing that has frustrated me most about Governor Paterson has been his constant insistence that he was “making the tough decisions” by deciding to raise taxes. I've never gotten the impression that any politician ever has lost sleep over deciding to raise taxes.

Now, deciding not to run for a full term as governor cause your administration is plagued with scandal? I'm thinking that might have caused “the accidental governor” to lose a few winks.

So it's been decided that this partial term will be his last. Good for us. I would have to say to the governor, though, “Why wait? I mean, really. Just go now. You haven't accomplished anything yet. And now that you're a lame duck, you're not going to.”

In short, allow me to add myself to what is surely going to be a long line of journalists who suggest to to governor that he should do us all a favor and resign.

If that seems vindictive to you, it's because it is. Not that it matters. He won't care about my opinion. I'm not from a big enough city.

Tax refund holding to be expected

I'll be honest. Sometimes I kind of snap to judgment.

After having a while to think about things, though, sometimes that snap judgment turns out to have been wrong.

Last week, I ran across a story about New York State not sending out refund checks until June in order to temporarily fill a budget gap. Governor Paterson had made the decree and State Senator Bill Stachowski (is he really still a state senator) announced his disapproval of keeping the people's money from them.

I agreed with Stachowski.

Then it occurred to me: If I'm agreeing with THAT guy, something must be wrong. Let me rethink this.

Well, as it turns out, I changed my mind. I'm actually totally okay with the state keeping our income tax returns until June. Or October for all I care, actually.

Now, first things first. Either the original story failed to mention – or I failed to hear – that this would only be for people filing their tax returns after March 1. So anyone who has already filed a return should still get your refund back in a timely manner. And anyone who files by the end of the week will also get your refund back in a timely manner.

In other words, if you haven't procrastinated, neither will the state. And on top of that, if you get off your dupa and file your return by Sunday, you will get your money back in a few weeks. Just like normal. And if you procrastinated and can't get off your dupa … well, who am I to feel bad for you.

But wait, that's not all. There's a far greater and more compelling reason for me to actually like the idea of the state keeping our tax returns.

Yes, as Senator Stachowski states, it's your money and the state is keeping it as though it were an interest-free loan. But … you asked them to borrow it.

Yes. You did.

Okay, maybe this isn't specifically true of you, but a lot of people did. I'd hazard to bet that most people did, actually.

You see, at the beginning of each year … or any time you change jobs, you can ask your employer to change the amount of money that's withheld from your paycheck in state and federal taxes. Personally, I tend to ask my employers to withhold as little as possible so I get to keep more of my money on a weekly basis, therefore getting less (or no) refund the following spring. In other words, I don't want to give the government an interest free loan. I feel I can better manage my own money, thank you.

Some people, though, ask their employers to take out extra money to send to the state and the feds so they get a bigger refund. They could take $20 a week (or whatever) and set it aside in an interest bearing account at a local bank or credit union. But they're too lazy to do that. They'd rather have the government keep it – interest free – cause its easier to let the government take care of them than for them to take care of themselves.

Folks, if you're going to let the nanny state take care of you, you better be willing to deal with the side effects and repercussions that come from it. Sometimes you won't like the way they decide to take care of you. But if you've allowed yourself to become a pet, you better get used to the leash.

And in this case, the side effects – or leash as the analogy goes – is that the government has decided it needs this money a little longer more than you need it back. After all, it's already been allowed to keep your money interest free for 14 months. What's a few more?

Now some of you will think this column to be facetious, but I assure you, this is my true and honest, well thought out opinion. And if you think about it, maybe it'll become yours, too.

Paterson should go now ...

I'm not a big fan of the federal government telling the states what they may or may not do.

I'm a fairly large proponent, in fact, of the nearly-forgotten 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, unless the Constitution specifically says it's the job of the feds, it's up to the states to make their own decisions.

See, in the rest of the world, the word “state” and “nation” are synonyms. We were designed as a group of countries with a common goal, but each being allowed to act in its own best interest by its own group of elected officials.

Sometimes, though, the elected officials are absolutely horrible. As is the case in the governor of this fair state of ours, David Paterson.

So when I learned over the weekend that President Barack Obama was pushing Paterson not to run for governor next year, I was a bit dismayed. Let the president worry about his own problems and let us worry about ours.

And then I got to thinking. I like the idea of Paterson not being elected to a full term as governor. After all, his idea of making tough decisions is raising taxes and fees. Cause it's really tough to ask people to shell out more money, right?

So while Obama may be overstepping his bounds, I like the goal – getting rid of Paterson – so I'll support the move.

After all, its not like Obama is asking him to step aside as president. He's asking him as the chief figurehead of the Democratic Party. See he wants as many Democratic governors in office as possible. And he thinks Paterson would lose the election next year, so he wants him to step aside so a stronger candidate can run.

Which, of course, then makes me think that maybe Paterson should run – and lose - allowing a Republican to take the governor's mansion, which would split up the monopoly the Democrats have on New York's government.

Not that the GOP is any better than the Democrats, frankly. Actually the Republicans taxed and spent just as heavily as the Democrats are when they were in charge of the State Senate and had George Pataki as governor.

But gridlock is good, no matter what H. Ross Perot said. Gridlock is the only thing that prevents us from more taxes, fees and regulations.

I look at it this way, if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I'm friends with both the Democrats and the Republicans … but only when they're fighting each other. It's sort of like when the Red Sox play the Yankees. Or that horrible movie Jason vs. Freddy. Who do you root for? I root for injuries.

So we need a bigger Republican presence in state government. But only to keep the Democrats as bay.

In the end, I hope Paterson does run for a full term, despite the president asking him not to. And I hope he gets crushed by the GOP candidate. As long as it's not Rudy Guiliani.