Provoking Melancholy States in the State of New York

New Yorkers are miserable. But at least now we know why. Specifically, a state government that eats much of your paycheck is concurrently making you sad. The phenomenon of Empire State-based dejection has been analyzed before. Now, Allysia Finley of the Wall Street Journal has highlighted a Science magazine study that specifically claims people who can’t keep much of what they make are directly rendered disconsolate about it. As New York’s residents know quite well, that includes them:

The study finds that New Yorkers are the unhappiest people in America and their neighbors in Connecticut come in a close second, followed by Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, California, and Illinois.

Many forlorn-heavy states share political tendencies:

Eight of the ten happiest states lean right while eight of the ten unhappiest tilt left. While the study by no means proves that being liberal makes people unhappy, it does reflect some of the unfortunate implications of living in a blue state.

It’s not that liberals are naturally miserable people. Necessarily. That said, their policies do make humans gloomy. There’s one particular trend among depression-provoking, left-tilting states: they like your money and help themselves to it.

Considering how much New York’s crime rate has dropped and schools have improved in the last decade, taxes seem to overwhelm even these two critical factors in the happiness equation. According to the Tax Foundation 2008 analysis, three of the top five unhappiest states—New York, Connecticut and New Jersey—have the highest state-local tax burdens.

It’s too bad oh so selfish individuals are focused on keeping what they earn and rewarding themselves for their labors with little treats to get through life. The government would prefer for you and your comrades to alternately surrender and gladly fund state workers’ generous pensions and union-level salaries:

In states with high property, income, and sales taxes like New York, people have less money to spend on other things that make them happy. They have less money to spend on vacations, hobbies, home improvements, eating out and child care. Another problem may be that people receive a low return on their tax dollars.

The government could at least buy you something nice with your money:

The study’s authors note that people are least happy in states that impose high taxes but don’t provide matching public benefits (e.g. good highways to relieve congestion and reduce commute times). It’s in states where taxes disproportionately subsidize public employee pensions and entitlement programs, but don’t much improve the general public’s quality of life, that people are most unhappy.

This intuitively makes sense. If you’re paying more than a third of your income in taxes, as many New Yorkers do, then you expect to realize the benefits from your hard-earned tax dollars. You expect quality schools, good roads, low crime rates, and quick commutes. You expect your local and state governments to be responsive to your needs, not to the cash flows of entrenched public employee unions and other special interests.

But it should be painfully hard to justify high levies even if we can see that the state is buying worthwhile things. People have the right to expect that the government can pave roads and fight crime without confiscating an oppressive portion of incomes. Regardless, we’re not exactly seeing platinum-paved avenues and jet pack-equipped cops in return for the involuntary investment.  And inhabitants are fed up enough that they’re bailing:

Many liberal state governments like those in Albany, Trenton and Sacramento are spending more and more on entitlement programs and public employee pensions, racking up more and more debt, and imposing more and more taxes to pay for it all—while ignoring their taxpayers’ needs. Taxpayers, however, aren’t just getting unhappy. They’re getting out. United Van Lines’ 2009 annual study shows that New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois are among the states with the highest outbound migration while Alabama and Tennessee are among the states with the highest inbound migration.

People don’t cross intra-American borders permanently without cause: often, profligate states give them a push, and inertia carries them the rest of the way.

And personal sunniness only compensates for a finite level of darkness.  Even with a good attitude, environment plays a crucial part in one’s well-being. When conditions get rotten enough, many people simply find new surroundings.

That’s especially true when one gets ripped off for the privilege of living within a certain jurisdiction. No matter how onerous the federal burden becomes, there are always better options in competing states. If New York’s elected officials comprehended the value of free markets, their domain would naturally be in better shape on its own, not to mention relative to its 49 competitors for residents.

Unfortunately, Albany’s incumbents could wager that the people who don’t flee are actually pleased with the way things are. More likely, those that remain are at worst complacent non-voters; at best, they care for the state but want to improve it and see good things through. Everyone left behind should work to establish that they stayed by choice and yet remain unpleased. The prospect of saving money while simultaneously increasing happiness should provide ample motivation for citizens to pursue fixes.

In the meantime, if New York’s politicians can’t bother to minimize their role, they ought to use some of the money they seize to assuage residents’ troubles.  Namely, they could buy us Klonopin and Prozac, or at least ice cream and lager.  Such consumable remedies would help us cope with the apprehension and/or despondency caused by dealing with their policies.  Eh, never mind: they’d probably add a user fee and make us pick up our medicine at the DMV.

Senate Rejects $ame-$ex Marriage Bill

The New York State Senate rejected the same-sex marriage bill yesterday 38-24. There was some hope from proponents of the bill that it would pass, but the mere $50 million in state revenue it would allegedly generate wasn’t enough of an incentive. I guess Governor Paterson will have to find new ways to solve the budget crisis.

And let’s be honest about the bill’s intentions. There is a budget crisis right now, and this vote had nothing to do with “marriage equality,” it had to do with an anticipated boost in revenue for the state from marriage licenses and gay tourism.  Well, I think it’s it’s time to think outside the closet on how to solve the state’s budget problems. It’s time to cut state jobs, benefits and salaries. It’s time to cut waste and programs that are no longer needed. The state government needs to downsize. Plain and simple.

As for gay marriage itself… is there any reason the state should be involved in this issue, or traditional marriage? Why not get government out of the marriage business all together? 

Still, something must be said about the bogus arguments by pro-gay marriage advocates, who avoid the term “gay marriage” in favor of the euphemism “marriage equality.” Calling gay marriage “marriage equality” is like calling wealth redistribution “fairness.” It’s nonsensical. It’s a strawman argument that attempts to equate gay marriage with racial equality.

Of course, no one need think this issue is over. Far from it. The fight will continue. The left will try to punish those who voted against the bill. I am guessing, however, that Barack Obama gets a pass for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman, because I haven’t seen any liberal bloggers outraged over yesterday’s vote promise to oppose Obama in 2012.

$ame-$ex Marriage Not About Equality

The next time you are told by Senate Democrats in Albany that same-sex marriage is an issue of “equality,” you can say that is pure crap… and you’d be right. The New York Times reports that gay marriage might now have a shot in the stat… but the motivation is not equal rights… it’s about revenue for the state.

Senate Democrats, who have thus far refused to hold a vote to legalize same-sex marriage, have nonetheless floated the theory in negotiations that the state could expect to take in more than $50 million a year in new revenue from the legalization of same-sex marriage, from a combination of marriage license and tourism revenue.

If the equality claim wasn’t enough to get enough Democrats on board, will this justification work either? I doubt it. I think the voters want to see real solutions to budget problems, like capping spending, cutting waste, and the like. But, imposing gay marriage on the state by justifying as a budget fixer is bound not to sit well with the voters.

New Jersey ‘09 = New York ‘10?

New Jersey and New York are similar neighbors.  For one, both are homes to NFL venues.  Of course, the Garden State hosts two teams, even if they’re equipped with out-of-state license plates, while the Empire State has one, as long as the Bills count as a pro squad.  The resemblance goes beyond an affinity for football and/or cavernous stadiums: they’re also both states in which Republican presidential candidates don’t bother to campaign.

But New Jersey’s demonstrated willingness to vote counter to their reputation should inspire conservative hope in an adjacent state.  Specifically, one winner from Election Day 2009 isn’t running until 2010.  Rick Lazio has to feel optimistic about his chances to become New York’s next executive now that Chris Christie is the new New Jersey Governor.  Can Lazio reproduce Christie’s success next November?

Based solely upon the state’s last major election, a Republican winning New York’s governorship in 2010 would be as shocking as Chuck Schumer switching parties or Chuck Rangel resigning with quiet dignity.  This state was even more in the tank for Obama than its next-door buddy: the Hoper and Changer won New York’s electoral votes thanks to receiving 62 percent of the tally, compared to the meager 37 percent obtained by John McCain.

New Jersey looked practically moderate with its 57-42 Obama victory, although that was still a considerably higher percentage than the rest of the nation.  Still, Christie’s triumph may provide the first indication that even the ramparts guarding Democratic strongholds are buckling.

Importantly, both are obviously renowned as immensely blue states.  Perhaps not coincidentally, both are also similarly rotten when it comes to economic and personal freedoms.  Consequently, liberal states’ residents may finally be tiring of liberal policies’ results.  New Yorkers might find themselves in the same situation; all they need now is a genuine conservative alternative.

Will they get one?  Most notably, Lazio was antagonistic toward gun rights while in Congress; Christie is likewise soft on the traditional conservative issue.  Analysts can debate whether Christie’s stance cost him votes or actually helped him win in a liberal-heavy state.  Either way, Lazio should only indulge in so many exceptions: he ought to generally act like an elephant and not a RINO.

Instead of running as a feckless moderate, Lazio should seize upon rightward momentum and campaign to reverse the state government’s eternally creeping domination.  It’s more than simply being a principled candidate who actually takes stances: it’s pragmatic, too.  He should wager that, as in other states, voters here would be sympathetic to a new course that involves less of their money being taken and used to buy whatever junk Albany wants.

Lazio would further have to prove he’s not like most other politicians who are changed by the capital.  Again, he can use New Jersey’s winner as a model: Christie’s anti-corruption stance and reputation undoubtedly aided his efforts to topple a greasy weasel like Jon Corzine.

Fortuitously, opposing huge budgets while fighting smoky room shenanigans are tasks that complement each other like Guinness layered over Harp.  Lazio just has to stand up and then hold his ground.

There’s at least one issue where New York’s GOP candidate is in the clear: the relatively svelte Lazio won’t have to deal with cheap, lame weight jokes.  Still, Republicans can hope Andrew Cuomo brings on Corzine as a consultant.  Creigh Deeds is looking for work, too.

Anyone Better than Paterson Out There?

It’s an ominous moment for one’s career when the President of the United States tells you to quit your job.  Granted, it’s the same president who spends his free time micromanaging banks and car companies, but David Paterson can’t feel comfortable about an anti-endorsement that submarines his chances of staying governor.

Regardless, the nation’s head is in agreement with most New Yorkers: Barack Obama disapproves of Paterson. The problem is whether any other candidate will improve on Paterson’s pathetic, distressing, shameful, and risible tenure.  Is there anyone who could 1) transform business as usual in the capital after 2) winning first?

In this state, the troublemakers aren’t limited to one particular affiliation: former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno became part of the problem as he abandoned Republicans for the Albany Party.  Plus, George Pataki may as well have been a fifth- or sixth-generation Rockefeller considering how willingly he spent tax receipts.

Of course, Democrats aren’t in the clear, especially considering their leading non-Paterson gubernatorial contender.  Most notably, Andrew Cuomo may attempt to continue father Mario’s horrific legacy of making New York like East Berlin: he could be another leader who favors taxing and regulating people until they feel hopping over the border is the only option.

Or, this could all be an extraordinary Obama ploy to discard his marginalized secretary of state.  That’s if there’s any traction to the so-far unconfirmed rumors that Hillary Clinton is heading back to try to win the governorship of her not-really home state.

As for her 2000 opponent, Rick Lazio could angle for a rematch.  The problem is that he mostly got votes from conservatives when he ran for the Senate because he wasn’t the former First Lady, not because he agreed with them on everything.

So, wow, could Rudy Giuliani be the best hope for change?  He may not run, and he might make Lazio look like a right-winger by comparison on some social issues.  But he would be more than a governor: Giuliani would be in charge.

It’s more about personal style than partisanship.  This state has been ruined by closed-room shenanigans throughout recent history, but the dodgy shenanigans would end if the erstwhile mayor got promoted.  Giuliani isn’t going to let someone like Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver bully him into compromising on anything, especially pertaining to how much of our money to waste.

Giuliani’s just-maybe potential run might be perfectly timed: it would coincide with an election that’s looking to represent voters’ collective breaking point.  As with national-level politics, New Yorkers could finally demonstrate that they’re sick of a government that tells them what to do when it’s not spending much of their money.

They may have a reasonable chance to alter the gloomy landscape next year, but it depends on the candidate.  The right may be repulsed by numerous Giuliani positions.  But he’s, mildly, a law-and-order type who’s also big on slicing taxes.  Most importantly, he’d run the state instead of letting Albany run him.  If not Giuliani, then yay, go Lazio, although he must show his credentials go beyond being a New York State Republican.

Pedro Espada’s Son Gets Cushy Senate Job (UPDATED)

Ah, isn’t it  nice to know that now that Democrats are back in control of the state senate that they can go back to their same old sleazy ways? Apparently Senator Pedro Espada’s son has been given a cushy senate job worth $120,000 a year.

Weeks after Senator Pedro Espada Jr. helped resolve a standoff in the State Senate by ending his alliance with Republicans and rejoining the Democratic caucus, his son was hired to a senior position on the Democrats’ central staff, Senate aides confirmed on Tuesday.

His son, Pedro G. Espada, is a former state assemblyman and New York city councilman who currently works for Soundview HealthCare Network, a nonprofit group founded by Senator Espada. On Aug. 6 — less than a month after Senator Espada returned to the Democrats — Pedro G. Espada, 35, joined the Senate payroll as deputy director of intergovernmental relations, a job that pays $120,000 a year. The position had been vacant.

So, was this job part of the deal that sent Espada back to the Democrats? Certainly seems like it… but, don’t expect anyone to admit that:

Senate officials denied that the younger Mr. Espada was hired as part of deal with Senator Espada, who became Senate majority leader after rejoining the caucus. But they declined to answer detailed questions about the circumstances of Pedro G. Espada’s hiring, such as whether he was a candidate for the job before Senator Espada returned to the Democratic caucus.

Senator Espada claims there was no quid pro quo, but seriously, does any believe that? Democrats were desperate to regain control of the Senate, a mere $120,000/year job for Espada’s son seems like a good deal for gaining back power doesn’t it? After all, it’s only taxpayer dollars.

UPDATE: Rick Lazio calls for investigation.

UPDATE: Espada’s son will resign from job!

UPDATE: Another statement from Rick Lazio:

“The resignation of Pedro G. Espada does absolutely nothing to change the Attorney General’s responsibility to investigate this matter. Attorney General Cuomo must continue his probe. Cronyism and corruption can not go unchallanged. We need to set higher standards of conduct for the people we entrust with the future of our state. We must get to the bottom of this issue and work to fundamentally change business as usual in Albany. Without sweeping change and a constitutional convention to create a unicameral legislature, I believe that New Yorkers will never get the government they want or they deserve.”

New Yorkers Prefer When State Senate Not In Session

As Matt noted in a recent entry, a recent poll found New Yorkers would rather see Democrats control the State Senate than Republicans.  At the same time, a Rasmussen survey also points out that the biggest percentage prefers that both parties take off:

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of New York voters say the Senate is more of a danger to the state when it’s in session. Only 34% say it’s a bigger danger when not in session. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not sure.

It’s sad that a plurality thinks this state functions most efficiently when those we elect do nothing.  But it’s not surprising to anyone who resides in or near a city like, say, Buffalo, where every single newly-added job has long been considered a major victory.  Similarly, it’s barely startling to discover that “Only 12% of New York voters believe the state is heading in the right direction these days. Seventy-six percent (76%) say it’s gotten off on the wrong track.”  In a related story, 12 percent of New York voters are astoundingly easy to please.
 
This is a bad omen on a broader scale, too.  New York State has served as a laboratory for the Obama administration: our representatives have been taxing at will and spending even more for, coincidentally, about as long as Upstate’s economy has been rotten.  Unfortunately, living under an activist government isn’t an area where we should feel thrilled about being at the forefront.
 
New Yorkers have seen what happens when the government thoroughly immerses itself in our lives while helping itself to a high percentage of our paychecks.  Accordingly, we have bad news for the rest of the nation.  Meanwhile, in the midst of a crippling recession, many of us hope for idleness from a specific type of employee.  Fortunately, the crummy workers in question can be fired; it only takes determined, irritated voters. 
 
HAT TIP: Meredith Turney via Twitter

Written by guest blogger Anthony Bialy.