New York taxpayers could be spared as much as $760 million in unnecessary expenses by sharing services, according to Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.
“Tax dollars are tight and families are struggling,” said DiNapoli. “Now more than ever we need to find ways to cut costs and lower property taxes. A good number of local governments are already saving millions in tax dollars by pooling their resources and eliminating duplication. But there are 3,175 local governments in New York State. All of these counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts and fire districts should use this report as a road map to save tax dollars without hurting the quality of services they deliver.”
In other state economic news:
- Gov. Paterson ended talks with legislators in frustration that elected officials are unwilling to make unpopular decisions to close the state's budget shortfall. He ordered reductions in scheduled state payments to local school districts.
- DiNapoli said in another statement that the state needs to stop relying on gimmicks to handle its financial situation and enact meaningful, long-term reforms.
- While the national economic recovery moves forward slowly, Wall Street is apparently in full recovery mode and is on track to record record profits in 2009.
I really like the governor
I really like the governor but, when is he going to come to terms with the idea that New Yorkers won’t let you cut anything? I can hear state residents gassing the buses up right now. They will be circling Albany within the week to “fight” for their pork projects.
I agree Charlie, our
I agree Charlie, our politicians say they want to trim the budget and fix our problem, but no one seems to have the guts to do the unpopular thing. Our representatives would do well to remember that we elect them to do a job and that job does not involve pandering or constantly planning their re-election campaigns.
I'm reminded here of the State Senate debacle earlier this year. All that needed to happen to get our government working again during that standoff was a single Senator from either party joining the opposite party in the chamber to create a quorum. Instead of having the guts to do something that would be unpopular with their party, every single state senator hid in their partisan cave and waited for somebody else to fix their problems.
Dear NYS Government,
Get on the friggin' team and start doing the job you were elected for, you spineless, useless, tribe of incompetent pansies.
/rant
Gee Chris, why don't you say
Gee Chris, why don't you say what you really mean? Everyone keeps complaining about the elected officials, and we keep electing them. You can't have change without making changes. These people, both in Albany and Washington seem to forget who they work for, and who pays them! It's up to the citizens to take our Country back, because complaining about them is a waste of your ulcer. How about TERM LIMITS, and a citizen's ranking of the elected and grade them on how they're doing. If they score poorly, replace them. Your kids have to get good grades in school to continue; you have to excell in your job to get promoted and make more money (except for the union slugs, but that's another topic); you have to excell in the Military to get promoted, not just time in grade/service (another union slam). So why shouldn't the people who we allegedly put in office not be graded in their job. What a concept.
Sharing services would save
Sharing services would save the taxpayer money, but where are our, well payed politicians, going to make the cuts?? NYS has borrowed from Peter to pay Paul and now Paul is broke too. Hmm I think we should start by trimming the fat, by lowering the salaries of the millionare politicians in Albany and Washington. Now theres a thought Brucey. Alot of our tax money is spent paying these guys salaries. I would love to see the payroll totals, and percentages, say for 1 year. A majority of our tax money is spent paying these guys.
Im more tham a little sick of these big wigs getting richer still, and cuts being made in the WRONG places. GOD FORBID we made cuts in their salaries, and in the number of politicians suckin the clock dry. How about consolidating Albany and Washington?? Guys what a great concept, Grading politicians!! I know Im just repeating myself again, but I took off my rose colored glasses long ago.....
I've said this before, but it
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Term limits accomplish nothing.
California enacted term limits more than a decade ago -- so long ago that all of the politicians who were in office then are now termed out.
Nothing changed. In fact, the state is in worse shape.
Why? Because it's not the electeds who are the problem. It's the lifer staffers and the political parties leaders that keep the status in status quo. There's no term limits on those groups of people.
Posted by Karen Miconi on
Posted by Karen Miconi on December 1, 2009 - 4:35pm
How about consolidating Albany and Washington??
You are against state rights? Or would you like each state to leave the Union and each be a country onto their own?
Just wondering?
Howard, the new people might
Howard, the new people might be inept but, at least they are not making decisions based on the desire to hold on to power. I also think our system is setup to benefit those who have enough money to run or are willing to sell their vote for the money it takes to get elected. It takes far too much money to run a wining campaign at that level. For regular people, your choice is to sell your soul to a political party or to a lobbyist.
Term limits have to go hand in hand with public financing of campaigns to be effective. Karen is also right, the jobs should be part time and the elected officials should only be reimbursed for their expenses. Then we will see how many people are in it for the right reasons.
Bea said"Or would you like
Bea said"Or would you like each state to leave the Union and each be a country onto their own?"
You mean how our forefathers actually intended it to be? Just wondering
Bud, which founding
Bud, which founding fathers?
Federalism in the 1780s
Federalism was the most influential political movement arising out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation. Leading Federalists tended to be (or be sympathetic to) merchants, traders, craftsmen and manufacturers, and capital-holders. In their opinion, only a far stronger national government could address the many, and growing, crises roiling the infant United States, which they identified as:
faltering domestic security
uncertain economic conditions and investment climate
fragmented markets and hampered internal commerce
poor and declining international credibility
failure to provide for the common defense against Native or European threats
lack of protection for property and coin lent out or otherwise risked
inter-state feuding over land claims, contributions, etc.
The movement was greatly strengthened by the reaction to Shays' Rebellion of 1786–1787, which was an armed uprising of yeoman farmers in western Massachusetts. The rebellion was fueled by a poor economy that was created, in part, by the inability of the federal government to deal effectively with the debt from the American Revolution. Moreover, the federal government had proven incapable of raising an army to quell the rebellion, so that Massachusetts had been forced to raise its own.
In 1786, with Shays' Rebellion highlighting several deficiencies in the government under the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist push for a convention to propose amendments to the Articles was successful. This convention almost immediately dropped its original mandate and instead set about constructing a new Constitution of the United States. Once the convention concluded and released the Constitution for public consumption, the Federalist movement became focused on getting the Constitution ratified.
The most forceful defense of the new Constitution was The Federalist Papers, a compilation of 85 essays written in New York City to convince the people of the State of New York to vote for ratification. These articles, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, examined the defects of the Articles of Confederation and the benefits of the new, proposed Constitution, and analyzed the political theory and function behind the various articles of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers remains one of the most important documents in American political science.
Those opposed to the new Constitution became known as the "Anti-Federalists". They generally were local rather than cosmopolitan in perspective, oriented to farming rather than commerce, and were happy enough with the current system. However, the Anti-Federalists also included luminaries such as George Mason. The Anti-Federalists had doubts about the new proposal, especially about the absence of a Bill of Rights and the potential for an elected monarchy.
Because George Washington lent his prestige to the Constitution and because of the ingenuity and organizational skills of its proponents, the Constitution was ratified by enough states to become operative on June 21, 1788. The outgoing government under the Articles of Confederation scheduled elections for the new government, and set March 4, 1789 as the date that the new government would take power. However, the Anti-Federalists cause was not totally fought in vain. During the ratification debates, they had secured a promise that the new government would submit a set of amendments to the states, incorporating a Bill of Rights into the Constitution. This promise, known as the "Massachusetts compromise", was made good on September 25, 1789, when Congress submitted twelve articles of amendment to the states. Ten of these articles achieved passage on December 15, 1791 and are what we now know as the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment set the guidelines for federalism in the United States.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first Federalist movement and the Anti-Federalist movements were exhausted, so they dispersed. A new movement took on the name of "Federalism", and, like its predecessor, it generated an opposition movement, this time called "Republicanism".
You can read the rest at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States#Federalism…
"Those opposed to the new
"Those opposed to the new Constitution became known as the "Anti-Federalists". They generally were local rather than cosmopolitan in perspective, oriented to farming rather than commerce, and were happy enough with the current system. "
Ah, if only the anti-federalist would have won ... (though I'd disagree that the anti-federalists were anti-commerce).
But even so, to Bud's point -- even the Federalists would be appalled at what actually grew into the Federal government as we know it today (with the exception of Alexander Hamilton, who would likely say the government hasn't become centralized enough!) Basically, the predictions of growing power of the centralized government that the anti-federalists feared and the federalists didn't take seriously has come to pass.
Howard, My question is "which
Howard,
My question is "which founding fathers?" wanted to see the states stand alone?
No one, in that day and age, could foresee the growth in this nation or the technology that would come.
Their ideals were solid, at the time. Their vision was clear based on the information and knowledge they had.
Would you be comfortable with 48 contiguous countries standing alone? Do you really believe that each state, standing alone, could survive?
The freedom the founding fathers sought was based on "united we stand". It would seem to me that they believed that the states had to be united in order to form that 'more perfect government'.
Without that unity, the individual states (really countries) would constantly be vying for additional territory. Would we have 48 countries constantly at war?
The founding fathers didn't appear to want another Europe.
"Would you be comfortable
"Would you be comfortable with 48 contiguous countries standing alone?" yes.
"Do you really believe that each state, standing alone, could survive?" yes.
"Without that unity, the individual states (really countries) would constantly be vying for additional territory. Would we have 48 countries constantly at war?"
The first part of your statement is an unfounded characterization of what the union would have looked like without federalism. The second part is an unfounded assumption of what would have happened.
I highly recommend Bill Kauffman's book on Luther Martin, available at Present Tense Books.