Defenseless

The President has spent vast sums on "stimulus" programs that have done nothing to revive the economy.  However, the White House has now chosen to address the deficit by slashing a federal program that truly does provide a vital service to the nation, and that historically has had a positive effect on the economy: the military.

   The cuts will, unfortunately, affect muscle, not fat. The White House chose to ignore an inefficient and bloated procurement process that hurts more than helps the armed services. Mr. Obama also chose to ignore a political process where elected officials hike the cost of needed weapons systems by holding back their support unless contracts for frequently unnecessary "bells and whistles" that just happen to be made in their districts are included.   

   On January 3, the White House published its key position paper "Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense."  The new policy totally overturns America's deterrence position, which has prevented another world war for over a half century. 

   By repudiating the national defense requirement that the nation be prepared to fight a two front conflict, it places the US in danger of being incapable to deal with simultaneous crises in different parts of the world. 

     The primary accomplishment of the new policy is a sharply reduced armed force, including a reduction in personnel by over a third, and a slashing of our last-ditch nuclear deterrent by eliminating a third of our nuclear sub force.  The cuts may not end there; another $600 billion could be eliminated from the defense budget unless savings are found elsewhere in the federal government. This is on top of the sharp reductions our military has already endured over the years. Since 1990, the Navy has been cut from 600 ships to 288, the Army from 18 divisions to 10, and the USAF from 37 combat wings to 20.

    Those advocating a reduced defense budget cling to the incorrect notion that US military spending is larger than the combined budgets of several of our adversaries. That oft-stated cliché is totally incorrect.  For example, most of China's defense budget both openly excludes numerous items that the U.S. considers military-related, and secretly hides vast expenditures in other budget lines.

    Obama's position depends on a "best case" scenario.  In its summary of how to maintain a viable nuclear deterrent, the policy statement notes: "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy."  This wishful thinking has guided much of the Obama Administration's nuclear policy.  It has surrendered to Moscow on antimissile radar deployment in Europe, and in its ABM policy in general.  It has virtually ignored China's soaring nuclear capability, Russia's return to belligerence, North Korea's atomic threats, and Iran's eagerness to use nuclear weapons.

   An example of the intellectual dishonesty that prevails in the White House can be seen in the Administration's policy towards fighter aircraft.  The F-22 program was drastically scaled back, using the excuse that the less costly F-35 would do the job as well.  The administration then cut back the F-35, too.  The end result is that many of our pilots will be flying deteriorating craft older than they are. 

   The same holds true for land-based systems.  Due to a failure to replace older and less capable artillery systems in the prior administration, our army now must face the reality of being outgunned on the field of battle.   

   The President's new policy is not a slight change; it is a dramatic and unprecedented shift in a concept that has kept us safe since 1945.  Estimates are that further cuts in defense spending could cost New York State 26,000 jobs, and harm 2,707 small businesses.

    It deserves a far more critical analysis than it has been given by either the press or in Congress.

The Governor's Proposed Budget

    Governor Cuomo's budget presents a mixed bag. It contains  laudable achievements in reducing one shots and fiscal sleights of hand, and takes courageous steps in addressing a long standing educational issue.   However, it fails to control runaway union costs, and the practice of imposing unfunded mandates.  It also doesn't provide a desperately needed measure to revive the upstate economy, by ignoring hydrofracking.  

          

      The Governor notably demands that the powerful teachers' lobby accept some responsibility for the pitiful condition of our public schools, and pushes for new standards of performance.  The unacceptable fact that NY spends more per pupil than any other state, but gets generally dismal results in return, has been intentionally overlooked for far too long by governors, state senators and assembly members bowing to the activist teachers' union in return for contributions and votes.

     Clearly, the state government cannot resolve its systematic budgetary dilemmas until the elaborate political giveaway to public sector unions, the Tribrough Amendment, is repealed.  That is the law which requires both Albany and all local governments to retain for their employees contractual perks including automatic "step" increases even after the expiration of union contracts.  By failing to address this, county officials throughout the state will continue to be caught between a rock and a hard place.  They must comply with unyielding union demands, adhere to unfunded mandates, and meet expenses under the long-overdue property tax cap. New York State's Conference of Mayors, school district leaders and others are urging that Triborough be repealed.

             

     Putting public sector union costs on a realistic and fair basis is the right course of action.  However, the Triborough Amendment prevents this. The Manhattan Institute's recently released report, "Triborough Trouble," condemns the costs of this three decade old law.  Guaranteed pay hikes for state government employees alone due to Triborough cost $140 million a year.  That figure doesn't include the numerous other county and local union costs. For example, Increases for NYC teachers total $150 million, and adds $93 million to school budgets statewide. Those numbers represent only a fraction of the problem. As the report further notes, Triborough makes it almost impossible to fruitfully negotiate reasonable, common sense updates to new contracts.

      For far too long, state elected officials have failed to confront runaway union costs out of fear of losing campaign contributions.   It's time for that to change. 

Honest Redistricting is Key to Restoring Honest Government

            For far too long, New York has had the dubious distinction of having “the most dysfunctional legislature in the nation.”

The reason for this is clear: competitive elections in New York State are virtually nonexistent.    They have largely vanished due to practices such as using taxpayer funded newsletters as thinly veiled campaign literature; the use of member items to force voter loyalty; and, most importantly, the establishment of districts that virtually insure reelection bids.

It is doubtful that any of these corrupt practices will ever be corrected by incumbents whose reelection is guaranteed no matter how badly they behave.  Add to these misdeeds the clearly illegal acts of numerous elected officials who have been caught stealing money, in one way or the other, from the public treasury, and the increasingly worrisome practice of voter fraud, and you have a clear picture of a legislature that is, by every measure, a disgrace.

Despite their dismal performance, more incumbents leave office through death and indictment than through losing re-election.  The facts are staggering: The re-election rate since 2002 has been 96%.  In one particular year, 2006, 100% of all incumbents that ran for reelection won.  That would have been embarrassing even in the old Soviet Union.  The situation is getting worse.  As Citizens Union reports, “The number of uncontested state general election legislative races (in which there is no opponent or no major party challenger) increased from 1 percent in 1968 to 19 percent of all seats in 2010.” More State Senators and Assembly members leave office due to death and indictment than they do to losing campaigns.

 Last year, former NYC mayor Ed Koch spearheaded a drive to demand nonpartisan redistricting. Before the 2010 election, almost every incumbent state senator and assembly member signed a written pledge to support that goal, a vow they completely ignored once the voters finished casting their ballots.  Federal law mandates that district lines must be redrawn to comply with the census taken that year.

A special report by Citizens Union was recently released, noting that:

            “The rigged system of redistricting is corrupting the spirit and reality of representative democracy in New York.  It has become a form of collusion between the two parties, drawing safe districts that protect incumbents and limit voter choice by effectively ending competitive elections.  This in turn…[gives] disproportionate influence to special interests.  An independent redistricting commission would empower people to choose their politicians, rather than vice versa. No election reform would do more to heal the harsh but artificial polarization of our politics while adding real accountability to Albany.”

            Having elected officials determine their own districts is absurd.  A truly nonpartisan redistricting commission should exclude elected officials, their direct staffs or other appointees, their families, and their business associates. The same should hold true for party officials.

It is clear that democracy in the Empire State is in a deep crisis which can only be resolved by a truly representative legislature that is the product of genuinely fair elections.