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.

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.