No Respect

I had the great misfortune of accidentally stumbling into a replay of the most recent Rotterdam Town Board budget vote meeting. Overall, it was probably one of the most embarrassing public displays ever by an elected body.

Personally, I was deeply disturbed by the proposed budget by the Supervisor which would’ve resulted in a 7.4% residential tax increase, and a whopping 11.4% commercial tax increase. It is incredulous that this budget was submitted by an administration that ran for election on a platform of lowering taxes!

Now, I’m supposed to be relieved by the surprise 11th hour budget proposal, subsequently adopted in a contentious 3-2 vote, by 3 of the dissenting Town Board members that results in a 3.5% residential tax increase and a 7.4% commercial tax increase? I’m not. Seemingly, I’m supposed to be enamored of these three so-called “3 Musketeers” for being my tax relief champions. That’s equally ludicrous! All of these officials campaigned on lowering taxes. Obviously, they can’t deliver. They should be voted out.

The truly disgusting part is not only did we just get a tax increase, but we got it by way of severe dysfunction and incivility. I’m reminded of that campaign question about getting along after elected that I’ve discussed a few times since. The Rotterdam Town Board has achieved the epitome of dysfunction, evidenced by the manner of budget deliberations, or lack thereof. Apparently, the members of the Revitalize Rotterdam Team are each choosing to go their separate ways…and they don’t seem to be hesitant about expressing their displeasure with one another quite rudely. The Supervisor demands respect yet then shouts at another Town Board member to “shut their mouth” while also calling them a “liar.” The councilmember on the receiving end of the insults is outraged by the show of disrespect yet is the same member that publicly shredded a resident a few months ago in an equally harsh manner. The bickering is childish, unprofessional, and utterly disgraceful. It’s also counterproductive. The fact that it is done publicly makes it even more so.

The reporter for the Spotlight seems equally out of touch – headlining a recap of the circus with stating the budget “cuts spending, lowers taxes.” That’s just plain wrong. The budget they adopted RAISES taxes. They only cut spending and lowered taxes relative to the previous outlandish proposal which really means they didn’t do either.

There should be one realized objective driven by one critical question: 0% tax increase by asking the question, what is absolutely essential? I’ve offered my views on how to achieve this objective in the past (November 2008). Until our elected start addressing the question properly we as taxpayers will get no respect.

Call an Ambulance

The Town of Rotterdam is poised for a public referendum on a new tax district to support ambulance service. REMS will be the supposed beneficiary of those tax funds should the tax district vote succeed.

The debate on this issue has raged for far too long, in my opinion. Is the creation of a tax district for ambulance service a valid approach to provide a necessary, vital service? Absolutely, no question. A better question would be is a tax district to support ambulance service necessary? Absolutely not, no question.

The real question is, are you willing to pay higher taxes? At this exact moment, I’m not. Not because I don’t think ambulance service is important – in fact, I consider it necessary and vital. And it’s not because I can’t afford to pay the tax if it is approved because I can. I’m against it because I’m not willing to increase my tax burden further, at this point in time.

There are alternatives, however. First, it’s not a situation where people will be faced with no ambulance service at all. Mohawk Ambulance is eager to fill any void created by the disappearance of REMS. In fact, they already compliment a competent REMS with competent service of their own. There will be ambulance service. I’m not about to begin arguing which service might be better qualified because I’m not qualified nor interested in doing so. I’m arguing taxes, pure and simple, while attempting to take panic out of the decision equation.

As I said, I believe ambulance service is necessary and vital. I also said I don’t wish to pay additional tax to support it at this time. Contradictory? Not necessarily. If we assume that ambulance service is a desirable necessary and vital service, then the question is asked and answered, in my opinion, especially when I’m not willing to assume a larger tax burden. I believe ambulance service should be funded through the General Fund by using our existing tax dollars. (Current policy and practice, in fact, supports this approach.) Since budgets are tough all over these days, this desire puts an even greater demand on our elected officials to find the appropriate cuts elsewhere to pay for it. If they can’t do it when something is deemed necessary and vital, they’ll never ever be able to do it on anything. It’s time to make the hard decisions…and funding ambulance service shouldn’t be one of them. But raising taxes in arguably the most difficult environment we’ve ever seen shouldn’t be the solution.

I ran for office recently with a campaign largely based on No New Taxes. I lost, so maybe it’s me that’s out of step. We’ll find out soon enough. The vote is scheduled for Tuesday, December 14, 2010 from 8am -8pm.

Civil Discourse

The Rotterdam Town Board conducted a public hearing last week regarding the proposed new tax district. The room was filled with plenty of concerned citizens with differing views on the subject. What really made this meeting significant in my mind was the constructive nature of it. Many people spoke up. Views were expressed passionately. Several different suggestions were offered. It was an informative encounter, and I think, a productive exchange of ideas. That was possible because it seemed that people were listening to each other. If we want to find lasting solutions, then it has to begin by respecting the views of those that disagree with you. Civil discourse is an essential element to effectively solving not only this problem, but every problem and sadly, that kind of discourse is usually elusive. The other night everyone seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the issue at hand and the need to find an acceptable solution. When all is said and done, I’m confident we’ll find that solution. No one has a monopoly on being “right” and if we really want to make progress on the difficult issues facing us then we’re going to have to be able to respectfully explore all the alternatives available to find the best path forward.

Below is a copy of the remarks I delivered at the public hearing expressing what I think is the best path forward on one of those difficult issues.


TOWN BOARD REMS HEARING 092309


A. I support REMS remaining as our ambulance provider under the right conditions.

B. I DO NOT support a tax district to accomplish that objective.


While I admire and appreciate the effort and dedication that the new administration of REMS and others have demonstrated in their progress toward improving financial affairs at REMS, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people in town are against paying more taxes.

Currently, we’re assisting REMS through the general fund – in essence, our current tax dollars have been reallocated to provide this support. That is an approach that appears to be working and I support it in the short-term. In the longer term, I’d prefer to see REMS become self-sufficient.

As a community, I think we all agree that REMS provides a vital public safety service and as a result, we rightly have provided financial assistance through the General Fund. Yes, of course, that’s your tax dollar. But it is a reallocation of your CURRENT tax dollar, not a new tax. IF, as a community, we are in agreement that REMS provides a VITAL, NECESSARY function, then General Fund assistance is the appropriate approach. I believe that approach provides better transparency and accountability than a new tax district would. I also think it allows for quicker financial adjustments to be made if necessary to maintain public safety.

I don’t think we should be in a rush to increase the tax burden, and in no way do I mean to imply that you have not considered matters carefully. But I don’t accept the underlying premise being made about what the tax district will ultimately cost.

---If the cost is expected to be so minimal, then why is the tax district necessary at all?

---If the cost is expected to rise, then isn’t the new tax just as likely to annually increase?

---Lastly, and importantly, does it make sense to create a dedicated revenue stream at this juncture to support an organization in undisputed financial peril? Doesn’t that actually provide a disincentive to manage finances efficiently going forward, knowing there is a tax that could simply be raised instead?

Aside from either of these two approaches is the approach of possible privatization. To ignore it and then lock out the option in perpetuity through the creation of a tax district is a bad move, in my opinion. At the very least, it needs to be considered and explored further. That’s called due diligence.

The overwhelming sentiment expressed to me as I’ve gone throughout town is people can’t afford another tax. At the very least, any further consideration of a tax district should occur through a referendum allowing direct consent of the people. If it takes a referendum to abolish a tax district, then it certainly ought to take a referendum to create one. I’m heartened to learn that a referendum will now be part of any eventual decision.

I don’t think there is a person in this room that questions the importance of reliable ambulance service. There probably isn’t a person in this room that questions the determination of REMS to straighten out their financial difficulties. There’s a lot of fear being peddled with regard to this issue. No one should be afraid. REMS does and is doing a great job for us. I’m confident we can figure out the best approach without compromising public safety or creating a new tax district…because the people need and expect us to.

No New Tax Party

The Daily Gazette reported today on an extraordinary new effort taking shape. The effort is a grassroots independent ballot line initiative that I am pleased to say I am part of. I thought it appropriate to clarify our initiative in my own words, now that Mr. Lamendola has given you his interpretation of our effort.

Our candidate slate is comprised of:

Brian McGarry for Rotterdam Town Supervisor
John Mertz for Rotterdam Town Council
Michael O’Connor for Rotterdam Town Council
Brad Littlefield for Schenectady County Legislator District 4

We are collectively, trying to collect petition signatures in an effort to create a new independent ballot line, the No New Tax Party. It is a monumental task.

Our message is simple and straightforward: No New Taxes. We are all committed to 0% tax increases for the next 2 years. We believe it is a realistic and achievable goal. More importantly, we know from knocking on hundreds of doors that it is what the people need, want, expect, and demand. The taxpayer is maxed out. He desperately needs relief.

This is not, as Mr. Lamendola reports, an “insurgency.” Insurgency implies that our cause is illegitimate. Insurgency also negatively introduces a suggestion of unlawfulness or armed revolt. Our effort can more accurately be described as a grassroots movement. It is intended to create a totally new dynamic of governance. A dynamic where taxpayer concern is placed first. We aim to shed the labels and constraints of party politics we’ve grown accustomed to and replace them with a true commitment to fiscal restraint and tax dollar efficiency. We intend to be held accountable.

Are these ideas brand new? Of course not. We’ve all heard politicians promise these things before but they have failed in large part to deliver on that promise. Our effort is the tangible incarnation of the displeasure associated with that failure. We have taken the highly visible tax protest gatherings we’ve witnessed across the nation to the next logical level. Action. We’ve become candidates for office to facilitate solutions to the dissatisfaction already so prevalently displayed. Despite what appear to be insurmountable odds against our success, we are motivated to try nonetheless. If we fail, we’ve tackled an “impossible” task and reinforced its impossibility. (Or maybe we’re just the wrong messengers.) If we succeed, then we’ve suddenly made the “impossible” possible. We intend to succeed and believe we can.

It’s been suggested in some circles that our actions are “destructive.” I prefer to think of our actions as creative. I’ve heard the term “creative destruction” by some and maybe that is the best description. We are challenging the status quo for sure and in that sense, success would certainly lead to the demise or destruction of certain party interests, I suppose. I think that’s a good thing. Governance should be about the people’s interests. Our goals, however, revolve around what we intend to create, not destroy. We need to transcend the negativity and distractions that currently engulf our electoral process and return to a mindset of accomplishment that best serves the electorate’s needs.

7th of July

It’s appropriate I think that today, July 7th kicks off petition signature gathering for Independent Nominating Petitions in New York State. There is a sea change of voter sentiment in progress. There have already been two major successful Tea Party events in Albany alone. The New York State Senate demonstrates new lows in dysfunctional government and disregard for the voters of New York daily. People are truly fed up. I think we will see them actually do something about it next election. My belief stems directly from the conversations I’ve had with voters after knocking on their doors.

Assuming I can successfully navigate NYS Election Law, you’ll soon have ballot alternatives at least when it comes to the Town of Rotterdam and Schenectady County. Not alternatives just to be alternatives but alternatives offering real solutions. The “revolution” is beginning. It’s time to declare your independence again by seeking out these alternatives when you enter the voting booth. Our elected leaders must be held accountable. Many of them have forgotten that they are elected to serve us. We can do better. We must do better.

So as you begin to enjoy your summer with election thoughts far from your mind, know that the next level of independence – independence from two-party politics and gridlock, independence from the strangle-hold of ever-increasing taxes, independence to achieve the quality of life we deserve and tax relief we require – is a knock on your door away. Will you answer it? I hope so.

Tell Me I Can't

I love it when someone tells me “it can’t be done.” The argument usually goes a little something like people have tried before to do it and didn’t succeed so you’re wasting your time. It doesn’t seem to matter if they desire the change or not. They just are resigned to the fact that it can’t ever change. Never. Ever.

I’ve been told exactly that several times in recent memory. The first instance is when I started to try to get the residents of Masullo Estates involved to obtain long-overdue road reconstruction and drainage relief for the neighborhood. Every single person I encountered said it would never happen. I was wasting my time. Did I know how many times they had already tried and failed? This was a decades old problem that no one was ever going to address. Never. Ever. Thankfully, enough people were willing to go along with my foolhardy notion that this time might be different. They didn’t believe me but they were willing to stand with me. John Mertz was among them. He may have been the only other person to actually believe we could do it. He certainly was as committed as I was. It took nearly 5 years, but we persevered and emerged with an approved project.

During that period, I also mounted an effort that most everyone thought was sheer lunacy. I opposed Wal-Mart and their plans to build a new super center in an inappropriate location. No one believed that the behemoth that was Wal-Mart could possibly be thwarted…but we prevailed there too…despite the declarations that it simply couldn’t be done. Strangely enough, John Mertz was an advocate with me on that victory too.

I’ve been told that to run an independent campaign against the major parties, with limited resources, and without mud-slinging was also a pipe dream, no matter how noble. We’ll find out soon enough if I can prevail on that count.

Lately, I’m hearing a similar sentiment when I talk about my 0% tax pledge. There is no doubt in my mind that it’s the right message and is attainable. Still, I occasionally run into the person that says, “It can’t be done.” When I ask them why they think that the reply is something like, “because taxes always go up – it’s just the way it is and you’ll never be able to change that.” Incredible isn’t it? They just reluctantly throw up their hands and say oh well, that’s the way it is so I guess I have to accept it. I don’t accept it.

I had the great privilege of watching my oldest daughter obtain her MBA from Union College this weekend. I can’t describe in words how proud of her I am. She worked hard. I bring this up because the commencement speaker struck a theme of perseverance I could personally relate to. Interestingly, his remarks contained a secret I learned myself long ago and perhaps is the reason for my own successes. Failure is a key component of success. Every time you fail, you actually get one step closer to your desired goal, because you learn something. You learn what doesn’t work. It sounds cliché, but it is the absolute truth. It’s all about perseverance. You don’t have to accept the status quo simply because it is. You can change it.

So please… tell me I can’t. It’s the biggest motivating force there is. The more I hear it, the more confident I become that I’ll eventually reach the goal. I won’t ever stop persevering. Never. Ever.

Translate Your Outrage

It’s that time of year again. Tax time. I posted my thoughts last year in a post titled Taxman, (http://rotterdamny.blogspot.com/2008/02/taxman.html ), but feel compelled to revisit the topic.

In last year’s post, I rhetorically asked, “how much is enough?” Though the answer to that question varies, there is one answer that seems to embody all the others. That answer is “less.” Every single person I speak to is in agreement that the burden is overwhelming and must be reduced. In these difficult economic times, that burden becomes especially noticeable. It’s way past time to actually do something about it.

The natural next hurdle is just how to accomplish that task. It starts with a cap on spending. First and foremost, we’ve got to hold the line on any new tax proposals. Like the first President Bush once said, “No New Taxes.” He failed to honor his pledge, we can’t. We absolutely have to make that commitment. To make it happen, we have to eliminate strategies that simply call new taxes fees, or pay raises stipends. We have to ask ourselves what is essential, not necessarily to me as an individual but to the needs of the community overall. That process involves setting priorities and then subjecting those priorities to the fiscal restraint necessary to achieve them without breaking the back of every hard-working citizen. Wants and needs are not the same and we’ll need to be able to distinguish between them. There is no free lunch and we shouldn’t expect one.

Disagree? Even George Harrison didn’t contemplate the tax wrinkle Governor Patterson recently proposed. A tax to file your taxes. If that is not the epitome of tax excess than I don’t know what is. It disgusts me and it should disgust you too.

That brings me to the first part of my solution which I have proffered previously. The concept is not new. Vote the incumbents out of office in favor of those that will restore real fiscal discipline. Forget complicated tax credits targeted to certain groups. Put the money back in the pocket of the person who earned it. Enough is enough.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. I’d abolish the tax code as we know it, if it was up to me. It’s not. What is up to me, and what is within my control, is who I pull the lever for at election time. I’m done tolerating the lip service of those that run for office, only to disappoint me by increasing my tax burden. Those officials currently in office won’t be there as a result of my vote next time.

I can’t be alone in my outrage, can I? It’s time for all of us to translate that outrage into different outcomes. We can’t afford to let matters get any worse.

Budget Review

(intended budget hearing remarks prefaced by previous post)

I’d like to begin by drawing attention to an article in today’s newspaper. “There Will Be Pain.” That’s a quote from Mayor Bloomberg, roundly regarded as a pretty sharp budgetary navigator. His proposed budget spares no one and no thing and will surely be very unpopular with those affected. But his approach serves as a blueprint for us in some respects.

The very first question when considering the budget should be: what is absolutely essential? In my mind, that usually suggests police, fire, and paramedic services – basically, safety-related services. Much of the anticipated increases are in fact, locked in contractually anyway if I understand correctly what I’ve been told and most people, I think, are rightly reluctant to cut in those areas.

The second question becomes: can we cut other departments? Without even looking, my initial gut reaction is to cut every single item by a straight, equally applied percentage. Equal pain, if you will. Some view that as simplistic but I’d love to hear the argument for why it can’t be done. There’s always a lot of talk about “fairness” – so where is the fairness to the taxpayer that routinely is asked to pay more for less?

That’s right, MORE for LESS. We keep hearing that old, worn-out cliché, DO more WITH less, but in actuality we always PAY more and then GET less. Every level of government is too big and too expensive and if the example can’t be set from the top level down than we should seriously consider setting it from the bottom level up – starting with our own Town government.

The harsh reality, if anyone has the guts, is to start doing without. Layoffs are ugly but it’s going on across America and I’d like to know why our own Town government should somehow be exempt? Start with my suggested across-the-board % cut and perhaps you retain jobs if that is an objective, but in my opinion it should be more about priorities at this juncture.

Looking for specific cuts? Start with the easy stuff. Freeze salaries for town employees rather than doling out raises, even if they seem inconsequential. I’m personally irked by the apparent end-around on the previously considered councilmember raise by including what you’re calling a stipend instead. I don’t recall voting for a Deputy Supervisor position and any additional duties it involves should be considered a privilege. My mindset on this is a reflection of my belief in being citizen legislators and certainly not a reflection of any perceived shortcoming on Mr. Signore’s abilities.

We should also be cutting back on things like office supplies by eliminating any unnecessary mailings or interoffice correspondence or the like. From what I recall, virtually every department has a projected increase on that line. We paid a lot for state-of-the-art telephone systems and other technology and we ought to be squeezing every penny out of our technology by thinking of creative alternatives to achieve results. I realize in the scheme of things, these items are small potatoes but they start to add up when viewed cumulatively and more importantly, cutting them reinforces and cultivates a culture and atmosphere of ACTUALLY doing more with less.

One budget area that concerns me is the legal and attorney lines. Why are the budgeted amounts increasing on the scale they are? In fact, the department request was even larger. What gives? I remember arguments that having a contracted legal team would be cheaper for us than having our own Town Attorney, especially since most of the pending tax litigation seems to have been resolved. Similarly, what about considering a Town Engineer to replace what appears to be a significant burgeoning of contracted engineering expenses?

We’ve spent inordinate amounts of money on a plethora of studies…many for worthwhile endeavors…but it’s been money ill-spent probably because many of these capital-intensive, infrastructure projects have not come to fruition and will likely have to be delayed even further because of the economic backdrop. The data collected may not be valid later on. I’m not suggesting that we suspend all these projects but realistically, we both know priorities and timetables will not be friendly to our objectives. We should be giving serious consideration to changing our engineering approach.

Another line that jumps out at me is the Economic Development Specialist for $11,875.00. What the heck is that for? It seems redundant to me. We already have an IDA, involvement with Metroplex, an Economic Development Chairperson in the form of Mr. Mertz, and of course, each of you, who I thought were elected in part to foster that sort of activity. It sounds like an unnecessary liaison type of position that we could do without.

There has been an indicated desire to tap the surplus to mitigate the tax increase. I’m not necessarily against that notion but I caution strongly that doing so is merely a recipe for putting off until tomorrow that which should be done today. The Town collectively does that trick well. No increase now, followed by a big increase down the road does no one any good. It’s time to start the bloodletting by cutting EVERYTHING that can be cut. If it’s not contractual, then it should be on the table – period.

My comments are not meant to imply you’re doing a horrible job or are insensitive to the budget reality. But it’s way past time to take the burden off the taxpayer. The taxpayer needs real, lasting relief, not some politically expedient quick fix. With declining revenue streams, it’s time to get the machete out and start hacking.

A tax increase is not acceptable to me…and it shouldn’t be to you either. We need to make deeper cuts and we need all of you to muster the resolve to do so.

Budget Prelude

(Intended opening budget remarks)

I began reviewing the Preliminary budget that was posted on line line by line but I’m going to move on to more general comments because…

Page 1 Town Board Major Subtotal indicates a 28.879% overall decline from ’08 Adopted to ’09 Prelim. I believe that is incorrect. That is based on town board salaries of $15,000 each thus increasing the ’08 major subtotal by $20,000. The correct ’08 subtotal s/b $46,900 which yields an approx 1% increase in comparison.

Based on the fact that the very first line in the 62 page document was inaccurate, it didn’t seem very productive to continue examination.

I’ll make a few observations nonetheless, which I will address further in my prepared comments:

TB Conf = 750
TB Subscriptions = 450
Supvr Conf = 350
Supvr membership dues = 600
Compt Conf = 2230
Compt membership dues = 100
Tax membership dues = 50
ASR Conf = 1500
ASR membership dues = 400

Town Justice Office Supplies = 7750 3% increase
Supvr Office Supplies = 4000
Compt Office Supplies = 2500 11.1% increase
Tax Office Supplies = 700

Supvr Office salaries for various positions 24.04% increase
Tax Collection salaries avg 6% increase
ASR salary reflects 5% increase

Telephone services for all these areas reflect increased expenditure too which I’m wondering if is a one time increase for installation of new system?

Overall legal services show nearly a 15% increase
Overall Supvr Office shows 20.6% increase
Overall Compt Office shows nearly 6% increase
Overall Tax Collection Office shows nearly 6% increase
Overall ASR Office shows roughly a 37% increase

ALL of this contained on the first 3 pages!

Outrage

The Rotterdam Town Board conducted a well-attended 2009 budget hearing last night. I prepared the best I was able by examining the Preliminary Budget posted on the town website on Monday. Of course, the Tentative Budget had been available previously as well. The document, if you’ve examined it, is an unwieldy beast of some 62 mind-numbing, vomit-inducing pages. With a contemplated 8% tax increase looming, there was plenty of unprettiness contained not only within its pages, but in the room as well.

Anger was palpable. People have had more than enough. Another tax increase of any magnitude will not be received well at all by the masses.

Supervisor Tommasone made a decent enough presentation to lead the night off. I think we all understand the revenue constraints we face. The real problem is the expenditure side of the equation. We simply have to reduce spending in order to survive. That’s not an easy task. In fact, the challenge is enormous in many respects. The Comptroller and others have done an outstanding job in many of their revenue forecasts. The bulk of our town budget is locked in contractually for things like police services and such. Those items cannot change by next week when by law we must adopt a budget. But the preliminary budget as it stands contains many salary increases, a costly newly proposed Economic Development Specialist position, and line items like office supplies, conferences, etc. that certainly can be reduced or eliminated.

I’m angry. Actually, I’m fuming mad. I almost did not attend the meeting because I don’t like to be that angry publicly. I also strongly dislike the procedural manner that our town budget hearings manifest themselves. “Town Hall style” Q & A went mostly unchecked, resulting in much off topic discussion and several hours of venting. The Supervisor bore the brunt of the wrath, with the rest of the Town Board occasionally weighing in from around the room. Too many distractions, I thought. I much prefer comments at the podium directed to the entire Town Board. I purposely brought prepared remarks to deliver in hopes it might help temper my rage but the format sucked me into a free-for-all that forced me to improvise poorly. I’m not proud of my conduct.

I’m not optimistic about prospects for next week. I certainly don’t think the Town Board will achieve 0%, or even desires to, without seriously raiding the surplus. Even a generous tapping of the surplus may leave us staring down the barrel of something on the order of a 5% increase.

We need to make deep, painful cuts to spending regardless. I suggested a simplistic approach to that task, in addition to identifying specific smaller potato cuts. Apply an equal % cut to every line that isn’t contractual. With one week available to achieve results, this would apply the pain equally and relieve the Town Board from needing to identify priorities. It may not be an ideal solution, but it works for me.

Later, I’ll post what were my intended remarks last night.

Failure Is Not An Option

The taxpayer strapped on more massive debt when the government announced it’s takeover of the troubled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions the other day. As a taxpayer, I hate it when I’m forced to shoulder someone else’s blunder. Where’s my bailout?

But the simple fact, like it or not, is that allowing these mortgage giants to fail was not an option. I’m pretty certain it isn’t going to be the last “bailout” we see in the short term either. It’s a fact the credit markets are in dire straits for myriad reasons. The real prospect of a catastrophic banking system collapse would be unimaginably worse. Why and how we got to this point is somewhat beside the point until we regain the integrity and stability the system needs.

This move wasn’t desirable to anyone but it was necessary. A benefit will be a reduction in mortgage rates which will help return some much needed liquidity to home lending. My favorite description of the takeover by a pundit was, “The fat tail risk of an Armageddon has been reduced.” Basically, that means immediate matters just got a little better.

Taxman

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me

Taxes. George Harrison captured the emotion we all feel when we begin to realize just how much in taxes we pay. Just how much is enough?

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

We’re getting absolutely crushed by taxes, in New York State particularly. Property taxes are skyrocketing. Sales taxes are incrementally increased with greater frequency. George might have been exaggerating about the degree to which we’re taxed in his lyric, but his disdain for the taxman was never clearer.

So what will it take to reverse the pain? I know I don’t have the answer but I know where to start. Don’t vote for the incumbent at election time. I know it sounds wacky but how else are we going to get our elected officials to listen? We need across the board spending cuts in conjunction with no tax increases. One without the other is a losing game.

For example, Schenectady County is already in dire fiscal straits with budget shortfalls. How does that happen? It’s poor, some would say incompetent, budget forecasting. The problem, I think, is that they do the forecasting in reverse, essentially manufacturing the projected numbers to get them to what they already intend to spend. Somehow it continues. People complain but they fail to translate that outrage into different outcomes. In short, we keep getting screwed. More to the point, we keep letting them screw us.

I’d abolish the entire tax code as we know it, if it were up to me. It’s not.

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

Don’t I know it.

Last Word

The Rotterdam Town Board wanted a raise. I opposed it. It didn’t pass.

The Town Board decided to form a committee to study and recommend pay raises. I opposed it. It passed anyway.

It is inevitable that a pay raise for Town Board members will be passed in the next budget regardless of whatever suggestions might come out of the committee.

Part of the logic being used to advocate for the pay raise is based in a belief that greater pay will result in attracting better qualified candidates for office. Fortunately, there is a very prominent example for us to examine to determine if that belief is valid. Our own New York State Legislature is maneuvering to give themselves a pay raise too. Yes, the very same dysfunctional body responsible for perpetually late budgets and highest-in-the-nation tax levies. Their desires for a raise aside, let’s take a look at their existing gig.

The base pay for a state legislator is $79,500. That’s second only to Michigan and California and compares with an average salary in New York of about $45,820.

Each legislator also gets $8,800 for attending the January to June session plus per diem expenses. Special committee days draw $143 per day. More than half also get anywhere from a few thousand to more than $30,000 more in stipends for additional committee posts. Add it all up and most are making $100,000 or more.

Now I don’t mean to compare apples to oranges by comparing our Town Board members to State Legislators which of course, is what I’m doing isn’t it? My point is that we offer quite a nice premium package to our state officials for delivering late budgets and ever-increasing taxes. We’ve certainly attracted the best-of-the-best with higher compensation on that front, haven’t we?

The underlying default claim to a raise is how hard they work. I’ll grant them that claim. They work hard. We all do. If only that was enough for demanding more money. No one forces someone to run for elected office and assume the associated pitfalls of the personal sacrifices made in order to serve.

I hope this is my last word on this subject.


Facts and figures credited to Michael Gormley, The Associated Press

Sacrifice

It’s time to acknowledge what each of us already knows. Anything of value usually costs money and involves personal sacrifice.

I have been fortunate to earn an exceptional living. Of course, it was borne of my parents’ sacrifices to provide the tools to enable that success. Likewise, despite my better-than-average salary, I live modestly; choosing to invest my resources toward the betterment of my children’s future. As a town, I believe we need to approach matters similarly.

Our current infrastructure is either lacking or deteriorating. That needs to become a priority of our tax dollars. Everyone agrees until the bill arrives and then no one wants to ante up because the benefit will likely be disproportionately enjoyed by those that come after us. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the beast.

So the mindset that prevails is usually one where we look to higher branches of government to provide. That’s flawed…and an approach that simply isn’t going to work as available monies become scarcer for various reasons. We need to take care of ourselves and the best way to do that is through succeeding generations.

Again, it comes back to money. Where is it going to come from? From us, in the form of taxes. But we all know we can’t shoulder any bigger burden. That leaves one option. With resources finite, they must be reallocated. Everyone complains that taxes are too high but complains again when services are reduced. You simply can’t have it both ways despite the “smart growth” rhetoric that has raged for years. Good infrastructure breeds economic development, not the other way around.

It’s going to take time. There won’t be a lot, if any, immediate gratification. In short, it’s going to mean sacrifice. No one likes it but it’s necessary. If we’re methodical, we can build the base we need to thrive.

Since we agree the current tax burden is excessive, we need to begin with reducing it and prioritizing where our tax dollars are utilized. We could debate where best that is for eons but I’d suggest we start by cutting expenditures uniformly 20-30% across the board. Every service feels the pain equally. That alone forces us to do more with less to provide as much as we can and will serve as a means to eliminate the “waste and inefficiency” we’re always hearing about but have a hard time identifying. Just like you and me, the powers will have to ask themselves what they can do without when faced with having less money.

With a proper Comp Plan in place (priority one), we can begin to whittle away at some of what is needed. Some of that involves rectifying (and yes, paying for) problems created by past mistakes. It’s likely to be slow and ugly getting started but I believe it will be worthwhile in the end.