Quoted Text

ALBANY
Gov. Paterson says he’ll square off with unions
BY MICHAEL GORMLEY The Associated Press

    New York Gov. David Paterson is taking on the fight of his political life.
    He’s promising to stand up to public worker unions in Albany, where their hundreds of thousands of votes and millions of dollars donated to campaigns and spent on lobbyists have given them unmatched power.
    The question now is not just whether Paterson is up to the challenge, but whether it’s too late.
    “It can’t be business as usual,” Paterson said last week in casting doubt on unions’ effort to boost benefits through the Legislature. “This is not the time to sweeten the pot because we’re about to lose the whole pot.”
    It was a reference to what Paterson calls “the terrible truth” of New York’s fiscal health. That includes locked-in benefits and other spending in state budgets over the last several years that prompt his projection of $21 billion in budget gaps over the next three years.
    Even in a cynical place like Albany, where governors for years have made other dire predictions only to embrace bloated budgets as good compromises, Paterson is raising expectations.
    Last week Paterson appeared to side with fiscally tight New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is opposing a union lobbying effort to provide a second chance for employees to buy into a lucrative early retirement plan. Bloomberg says it would cost the city $200 million, an estimate disputed by lawmakers and union leaders.
    Now, Paterson is facing his own tests.
    The Democrat is starting to see the annual string of pro-labor measures to improve pension and other benefits for unionized public workers and retirees. Those efforts have passed with overwhelming or unanimous support in the Legislature, only to be vetoed by former governors George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer.
    But Paterson, in office just three months after 20 years in the Senate’s Democratic minority where he benefited from the bales of campaign contributions spread about by unions, lacks the public mandate of those who were elected to the office. And he lacks Bloomberg’s billions that would help him fi ght off the kind of nasty union TV ad campaign that hurt Spitzer early in his brief time in offi ce.
    Paterson, who rose from lieutenant governor when Spitzer resigned March 17 over a prostitution investigation, has also sought to rebuild bridges between the executive and legislative branches. That, however, can be seen as a sign of weakness in the Capitol’s brand of power politics.
    So far, his record is mixed.
    Despite forecasting a falling sky in March, he eventually supported an even greater increase in the record amount of school aid. He also allowed the teachers’ unions to attach a measure that will make it easier to get tenure, although in a slightly weakened form. The measure prohibits school districts from using student performance on standardized tests as a measure of whether a teacher should get tenure, which provides almost lifelong job security.
    But more recently, Paterson angered the United University Professions union, part of the powerful New York State United Teachers union, by giving the State University of New York about $140 million less of an increase than was sought.
    University workers rallied outside the Capitol chanting, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, SUNY cuts have got to go.” They said the cut put SUNY on the road to being “dismantled.”
    But as with most lobbyists and activists in Albany, the demonstrators had a better sense of outrage than math.
    Paterson didn’t “cut” SUNY funding, which will still increase by $20 million to $4.53 billion. That doesn’t include the $3.75 billion more in capital funding and another $6 billion in capital cash committed for coming years. And Paterson plans more as he commits to fulfilling Spitzer’s promise to bring SUNY to the national fore in higher education.
    The “cut” to which the unions referred was the 3.5 percent spending reduction Paterson is requiring of all agencies as revenues decline. He said the 2009-10 budget must result in a true cut of 5 percent to 10 percent.
    Paterson has another test headed his way.
    The Legislature will soon send to his desk a bill that would prohibit state and local governments from trying to change generous health benefits provided to retirees. That would take the costly item off the table in collective bargaining for at least a year while a panel considers the future of health care for retirees. That panel, created by the Legislature, is heavily represented by labor, whose members could eventually collect the benefit. There are no seats on the panel for representatives of local government.

Quoted Text

Quoted from Kevin March:
Wow.  Where do I get my Paterson for Governor sign?  Can I have a bumper sticker now? ...

Quoted from 78

Kevin,

Please pick up a sticker for me.  I also need one for AG Andrew Cuomo who is investigating fraud and misuse
of government revenues.

Now, where is that Democratic line on the ballot?  

Quoted Text

THE SON OF SAM, 1977
New York seemed to be going to hell in the summer of 1977. Already in perpetual fiscal crisis the city was plunged into a 25-hour blackout on July 13 that saw massive looting and arson. And the Son of Sam killer was still out there after more than a year, waiting to kill again, sending his perverse missives to the police and to New York Daily News columnist Jimmy Breslin. The killer had called himself the Son of Sam in his letters, which spoke of Papa Sam as a drinker of blood and master of Satanic mayhem. And on July 31, the Son of Sam struck again, shooting a young woman, who was killed, and her male companion, who would be blinded. But it would be the last attack. A witness on the night of that shooting saw a man in the neighborhood remove a parking ticket from a Ford Galaxie. The police tracked their records and found 24-year-old David Berkowitz, a dweeby, pudgy employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Trained as a sharpshooter with the M16 rifle in the U.S. Army, he had used a .44 pistol in all the shootings, killing six and wounding seven. Who was Sam? Sam, said Berkowitz, was a cantankerous former neighbor. But Berkowitz said he was the devil and that he transmitted his orders through the infernal and incessant barkings of his dog, Harvey.

Quoted Text

Paterson shouldn’t even think of reducing state retirees’ benefits

    Re May 19 article, “Gov. Paterson says he’ll square off with unions”: This talk of “standing up” to unions smacks of [former Gov.] Spitzer’s now infamous “steamroller” comment.
    Of greater concern is that this new tough stance will result in the erosion of workers’ rights and benefits under the guise of fiscal restraint.
    The article says that Paterson has a “test” heading his way over a bill (S.6457-A/A.9393-A) that would prohibit public employers from unilaterally reducing retiree health benefits, for one year, while a task force considers ways to provide affordable and reliable health care for retired public employees. Let’s not forget that these are benefits that were negotiated, signed off on by all parties and approved by state or county legislatures.
    Legislation is needed to protect current and future retirees from those with the bright idea that a few bucks might be saved by stripping retirees of hard-earned benefits or forcing retirees, with average pensions around $16,000, to pony up more money for health insurance. A bad idea, not to mention morally reprehensible.
    And don’t believe the hype from the state Association of Counties and the Empire Center who want people to believe that stripping retirees of health benefits will keep property taxes in check.
    They fail to mention that taxpayers will be paying for socially sponsored health benefits for those who no longer have benefits or are forced to give up their benefits because they can’t afford the premiums.
    If “squaring off” with unions is some kind of code for tossing agreements out the window and forcing seniors to choose between food or medical costs,
then we all, not just union members,
should be nervous.
KATHY GARRISON
Latham
The writer is president of the CSEA in the Capital Region.     

Quoted Text

Reducing retirees' health care benefits immoral
First published: Thursday, June 5, 2008

Regarding the recent Associated Press story, "Paterson says he'll square off with unions." This talk of "standing up" to unions smacks of Spitzer's now infamous "steamroller" comment. Of greater concern is that this new tough stance will result in the erosion of workers' rights and benefits under the guise of fiscal restraint.
The article says Paterson has a "test" heading his way over a bill (S.6457-A/A.9393-A) that would prohibit public employers from unilaterally reducing retiree health benefits for one year, while a task force considers ways to provide affordable and reliable health care for retired public employees.
     
Let's not forget that these are benefits that were negotiated, signed off by all parties and approved by state or county legislatures.
Legislation is needed to protect current and future retirees from those with the bright idea that a few bucks might be saved by stripping retirees of hard-earned benefits or forcing retirees, with average pensions around $16,000, to pony up more money for health insurance. A bad idea, not to mention morally reprehensible.
And don't believe the hype from the New York State Association of Counties and the Empire Center who want people to believe that stripping retirees of health benefits will keep property taxes in check.
They fail to mention that taxpayers will be paying for socially sponsored health benefits for those who no longer have benefits or are forced to give up their benefits because they can't afford the premiums.
If "squaring off" with unions is some kind of code for tossing agreements out the window and forcing seniors to choose between food or medical costs, then we all, not just union members, should be nervous.

KATHY GARRISON CSEA Capital Region President Latham