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.

The feature about a Buffalo-based vocational center was totally unbiased, except for the way the entire article is about how awesome it is to spend federal and state money on  jobs training aimed at people whom the paper considers to be disadvantaged.  To quote an entirely fair passage:

It’s part of the preapprenticeship program at the Outsource Center, 1649 Fillmore Ave., on Buffalo’s East Side, where primarily minorities and women go to learn skills in the construction field. The program is a rarity in the inner city, especially since unions have relocated to the suburbs and taken their training programs with them.

“East Side,” “minorities,” and “women:” the story checked off the publication’s three favorite politically correct categories of victims in one sentence.  That’s an accomplishment in its way.  Still, maybe The News should instead be analyzing why unions flee the city in the first place; the answer might explain why it’s such a labor to find employment here.  That’s especially since all’s not well in the workers’ paradise:

The Outsource Center suffered a major loss of income earlier this year when the Buffalo Employment & Training Center, which paid $2,225 for each of the 39 trainees who went through the program, stopped making referrals in March.. .  James Finamore, executive director of the Buffalo & Erie County Workforce Investment Board, which oversees the BETC, said that it was because the Outsource Center failed to reach its required 70 percent placement rate, and has yet to get accredited.

So, what is this Buffalo Employment & Training Center that picks who gets what funding?  Their page notes that they are “Funded by: Buffalo & Erie County Workforce Development Consortium, Inc.”  In turn, the site for said consortium identifies who’s footing the bill for all this:

Primarily, the organization administers Federal and State Workforce Investment Act funds, youth funds, Welfare-to-Work Grant funds and such other funds as approved by the Workforce Investment Board of Buffalo and Erie County. It may also administer other government or private grant funds for employment and training program purposes.

Great: there are some “private grant funds” in there.  Regardless, the mostly government-backed micromanaging and macro-spending on training amounts to a waste.  It’s true no matter how well-intentioned the efforts are.  Such programs are themselves the problem.  Endowing them draws cash from the same economy that’s allegedly being helped, which won’t precisely help trainees’ work prospects.

The only way to ameliorate the situation is to decrease bureaucratic interference.  Let taxpayers keep the money in question so that businesses will have funds to teach their own people; even better, it would allow more companies to exist, period.  Cutting job training from the state and federal budgets is the best way to increase the quantity of jobs.  It sounds counterintuitive, but Buffalo’s dire status proves that the opposite doesn’t work.

Sadly, unhelpful trainee courses have received sanction from what’s supposedly a news story in Buffalo’s daily rag.  It’s the one whose staff largely ranges all the way across the political spectrum from liberals to leftists.  The paper can brag all it wants about being named the state’s “Newspaper of Distinction;” in fact, they’ve been doing so daily above the nameplate.  Of course, the clumsily-named New York State Associated Press Association granted the award, so take journalists awarding trophies to themselves for what it’s worth.

But it couldn’t have been much of a competition.  The triumphant paper is either oblivious to how deeply it’s in the tank for left-wing goals or knows and shamefully doesn’t care.  Too many editorial workers resemble adult versions of schoolchildren victimized by pro-Obama lyrics.  They adore Barack Hussein Obama, Mmm Mmm Mmm.

Their de facto endorsement of Outsource Center embodies it all.  Just in case anyone’s not sure if the story in question could serve as a textbook example of bias, it closes with a quote from apprentice Joseph Cole that concisely summarizes the paper’s stance:

“You know how President Obama will say, like, everybody got a job to do? So everybody has some accountability?” Cole said. “Well, with this program right here, it will prepare us to do our part.”

The president could use this quote in a speech advocating his next stimulus package; unfortunately, that’s not an honor any real journalist should want.  Those News minions connected to the article don’t trust people to find an occupation and strive upward on their own; instead, they think working stiffs need the help of the city, county, and of course the paper itself.  The Buffalo News is happy to let you know that “Yes We Can” and “Hope and Change” have officially replaced “Get a Job.”

For those of you unfamiliar with thi bill, amongst other things, it would require prevailing wages to be paid on projects financed by public industrial-development agencies (IDAs). For those who need help with the math, that would obviously increase the cost of construction significantly.

Collins cited a recent report by the state Economic Development Council that said union-wage requirements would increase labor costs for upstate construction projects by 57 percent. A study by the Rochester-based Center for Governmental Research found that prevailing-wage mandates would tack on an average of 28 percent to upstate projects, he said.

As someone in the field of architecture, this legislation directly affects me. Increases in construction costs only make this area less attractive to potential developers. Sam Hoyt and Senator Antoine Thompson, lead sponsors of the bill, ought to be thinking about the companies that will build elsewhere for less money and the jobs that will be lost because of this bill, and not so much about the unions they feel beholden to.

The proposition of a bailout of the auto industry isn’t really about bailing the industry as it is about bailing out the autoworkers unions. With above market wages and ridiculous benefits packages, they drive up the costs of assembling cars the same way union contractors drive up the costs up construction.

The Buffalo News looks at the options:

If the government doesn’t bail out GM, the cash-strapped company will likely be forced into bankruptcy. Many experts say that this would prompt a cascading collapse that would deeply damage parts suppliers, dealers and other automakers – adding millions to the unemployment rolls.

But others argue that a government bailout of the American auto industry would amount to throwing good money after bad and that bankruptcy is GM’s best option.

“Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers’ competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, said Thursday.

The debate over a proposed $25 billion bailout of America’s Big Three automakers is likely to culminate next week, when Congress tackles the issue in a special session.

Of all the bailouts the federal government has considered in these troubled times, this one cuts especially close to home. GM employs 1,389 at its Tonawanda Engine Plant, part of a grand total of 8,200 Western New Yorkers who work for the Big Three or their suppliers.

Add to that countless GM retirees, and it’s clear that the Buffalo-area economy would suffer deeply if GM were to fail.

And I am not interested in taxpayers bailing out the unions. Let them fail. The unions need a reality check, and bankruptcy is the best option in the long term. It might be tough in the short term, especially for WNY, but we to think of long term solvency, not a quick fix that will only empower the government and the unions… that doesn’t solve a thing.

Meanwhile, labor union officials worry that if GM or another automaker were to go bankrupt, it would give a judge freedom to nullify labor contracts, creating more doubt for workers and retirees.

“We already experienced this with Delphi,” said Kevin Donovan, assistant director of UAW Region 9. “We don’t want to experience it with GM or Ford or Chrysler.”

Yet to critics of the Big Three, the shredding of union contracts would be one of the advantages of a GM bankruptcy. “Private equity or strategic investors would buy the assets, shut down some plants, fire some union and exempt workers, and probably use the leverage of Bankruptcy Court to get a better deal from the unions,” conservative blogger Jim Manzi wrote on the National Review’s Web site Thursday.

In contrast, “a bailout of GM would be a pure exercise of political power to deliver taxpayer funds to one organized group of citizens at the expense of the country as a whole,” Manzi wrote. “It should be avoided.”

On Capitol Hill, grave doubts have been expressed about an auto bailout.

“I have automobile plants in my district. They pay $25 to $35 per employee per hour,” said Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee. “I am sure that I am going to be asked, ‘Congressman, I work at Honda or Mercedes, I make $40 an hour; why are you going to take my taxpayer dollars and pay it to a company who pays their employees $75 an hour?’

Bailing out the auto industry sends the wrong message to the unions. It tells them they can just continue doing business as usual because the taxpayers can just pull them out of the hole the unions dug themselves into.

Honoring a campaign pledge, Erie County Executive Chris Collins suspended the controversial, union-friendly apprenticeship law that business leaders felt unnecessarily drove up the cost of county-financed public works construction projects.

The Erie County Legislature enacted the apprenticeship law two years ago, despite concerns raised by the business community that the law favored unions, limited those who could bid on projects and, effectively, increased construction costs for the cash-starved county.

The law mandated any firm that bid on a county construction project had to have an approved apprenticeship and training program.

“It was the most anti-business, anti-taxpayer law in the county,” Collins said.

To suspend the law, Collins on July 21 submitted a new set of rules and regulations that withdrew the apprenticeship requirement to the Erie County Legislature. The Legislature’s majority had 60 days to block the new set of rules, but failed to do so.

“We did this in the open,” Collins said. “This has been in the light of the day for the past 60 days. We did not try to sneak it past anyone.”

Last summer, then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer also suspended apprenticeship requirements for all state projects.

Erie County Legislator Michael Ranzenhofer, R-Clarence, said the apprenticeship law drove up construction costs between 20 percent and 30 percent.

“It was so un-American and so unfair,” he said. “There will be no more special treatments.”

First, Sam Hoyt. Are you freaking kidding me!?!? Really, are you freaking kidding me?

Okay, now, I’ve got to talk about NY-26.

Alice Kryzan won. Jon Powers lost.

Rochester Turning asks what happened? I’m gonna give my thoughts and answer the question.

Anyone would agree this campaign was Jon Powers’ to lose, and he lost it big time. He had the support of local party leaders. He had the support of the unions. He had the support of the netroots and the Democrat establishment in Washington. He should have won easily.

But, instead, Jon Powers got sucked into a brutal battle with Jack Davis. They hit each other constantly with negatives ads, leaving Alice Kryzan on the sidelines. Powers and Davis thought the race was between the two them. To a degree that is still true.

I don’t think Alice Kryzan won as much as Jon Powers (and I suppose Jack Davis) lost.

Alice Kryzan did run an incredibly effective ad. Personally, I thought she ran it too late in the campaign to move the race enough in her favor to win. One cannot ignore the significance of the Democrats of NY-26 rejecting the candidate their party leaders chose for them. They not only rejected the recommendation of their party leaders, but they rejected the netroots candidate. Powers touted his so-called grassroots campaign… but clearly it helps to have a grassroots campaign in your own district and not in Washington D.C. and everyone else but your own district.

Politico notes that the Democrat establishment had banked on Powers winning, and Kryzan’s upset victory certainly casts more doubt on the Democrats being able to win the seat.

But, there’s a potential wrench to be thrown in this race by Jon Powers. He did receive the endorsement of the Working Families Party, and is guaranteed a spot on the ballot in November on the Working Families Party line.

The question is, will he continue his campaign until November or not?

According to Monroe Rising, Jon Powers refused to concede, even when the outcome of the race was pretty much settled. What does that mean? We’ll have to wait and see. As of this post, Chris Lee has issued a congratulatory statement to Alice Kryzan. Lee said, “I want to congratulate Alice Kryzan on succeeding in the Democratic primary and invite Alice to join me in discussing the real issues that are important to Western New York.”

Alice Kryzan has emailed her supporters with her declaration of victory. “I am honored that the Democrats of this District have chosen me to represent them in the upcoming general election to be their next representative in Congress.”

I didn’t expect to hear from Davis, but the silence from Jon Powers is deafening. I suspect he is, at this very moment, deciding whether to pack it in, or to fight on as the Working Families Party candidate.

The news of Kryzan’s upset victory has caught some national attention from Politico:

Without their favored candidate, Democrats are a little more circumspect of their chances of picking up this Rochester and Buffalo-area district in November. Even though New York has become a reliable Democratic stronghold, this is one of the most solid GOP districts in the Empire State, giving President Bush 55 percent of the vote in 2004. 

Well, it’s past 1:00 AM and I have to go to work in the morning, so I’ll post this now and give more thoughts on the results of this race and a number of others…I assume I’ll also get to react to Powers’ decision to either continue his campaign  on the WFP line or to start looking for a new job.

In any case, congrats to Alice Kryzan. She’s going to lose in November, but I can’t help appreciating the upset victory she achieved tonight.

Something unfortunate has happened: the two Democratic frontrunners to be the candidate for the 26th congressional district (Jon Powers and Jack Davis) have succeeded in beating up each other rather than beating up the Republican candidate, Chris Lee. I am afraid- and this is my own personal opinion, so take it for what it’s worth- that the primary campaign has gotten so negative, that neither of them will be able to win the district this November.

You know, Democrats like to say they’re the ones who want to talk about issues. Well, the Democrats of this race have dominated this election, not with issues, but with attacks.  It doesn’t matter who started it. They both continued it.  And now, i’ve heard, Alice Kryzan has decided to jump into the fray and attack her opponents, quite directly, with a new ad.

When a member of the liberal netroots is willing to concede that the Democrats chances to take the 26th district are lost, then I think that says a lot.

So, while the Democrats in the race put personal attacks before the issues, I call on my liberal blogger friends to put party loyalty aside and give a serious look at Chris Lee. Look at his experience. Look at his vision. If you can put the country and the 26th district before your party, you will see that Chris Lee is the right person to send to Congress.

The race for the 26th district doesn’t have to be about party loyalty. It should be about sending the right person to Congress. I’m new to Western New York. I came from a state that is being crippled by loyalty to a party that has driven out the population and businesses. I left a state of increased taxes, not increased opportunity. I’ve come to a state being crippled by overregulation, high taxes, a corrupt political establishment. and ridiculously powerful unions.

Jon Powers isn’t going to put the district before party loyalty. He’s got the endorsement of local Democrat party leaders and the unions that have been a part of the problem. He’s already got the support of the Democrats in Washington, salivating over the idea of a new yes-man to join their ranks.

Jack Davis is as bad a Democrat as he was a Republican. He sees this race as being about him. He truly is his own special interest.  But, the attacks he’s engaged in with Jon Powers, and now Alice Kryzan, have shown that personal ambition trumps the issues and concerns of the voters.

I may be new to the area, but I see there is hope for Western New York. Just as Chris Collins has been able deliver real reform as Eric Country Executive, Chris Lee can deliver real reform in Congress. 

If all is lost for the Democrats in NY-26, it’s time to get on board with Chris Lee.

UPDATE: Here’s Alice Kryzan’s latest ad.

i didn’t get to listen to the original broadcast, but i listen to the entire audio of the debate. Buffalo Pundit posted his quick impressions Sunday, which were full of gushing praise for Powers and how he handled the questions he was asked. 

Well, I don’t know what interview he was listening to, but after I listened to it, I heard a much different Jon Powers than Buffalo Pundit did.

For starters, Jon Powers absolutely fumbled on War Kids Relief. He kept sticking to the same old script and talking points he’s used over an over, but when he was forced to answer a direct question he couldn’t make a clear answer. Buffalo Pundit, to his credit, did acknowledge this.

Powers kept claiming that the only money he received from War Kids Relief was the $!5,000 noted on the Form 990, but he made no mention of the money he recieved for his work with War Kids Relief when it was it was a project of Veterans for America. By failing to acknowledge that money he received he was being deliberately disingenuous.

Alice Kryzan, who has largely stayed out of the fighting between Powers and Davis, said she “still has questions” about the War Kids Relief issue, and said many in the district she’s spoken with still do.

What really got me about Powers performance was his hesitation to take any specific stance on an issue he was asked a direct question about. The long pauses and mumbling really stuck out. Powers hesitated on whether or not he supported federal funds to pay for abortions… but ultimately decided he did support it after being pressed to give an answer.

Kryzan said she opposesd a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.. Powers ducked the question by saying it was a state issue.

Both oppose free trade, just like Jack Davis.

Buffalo Pundit also credited Powers for making it “quite clear in many of his answers that they were crafted after soliciting, receiving, and considering input from people throughout the district.” Of course, the people Powers tends to visit are unions and union workers… and we know which candidate was endorsed by the pro-union Working Families Party, and has been endorsed by a big slate of unions. Of course, unions only account for <30% of the work force in Western New York, and that is a lot higher than average. Unions are a big part of the problem in this region, and those are the people Jon Powers seems to be going to in order to craft his positions.

Powers and Kryzan were generally advocating a similar immigration policy that George W. Bush was pushing for a while back, but wouldn’t admit it. Pretty sad.

Jon Powers says that his status an an iraw war vet gives him a unique voice to the debate… Of course, most of the Iraq war veterans running for Congress this year are Republicans, One them is Nathan Bech, who is running for congress in my home state of Massachusetts. Bech and Powers have different views on Iraq, but Jon Powers is using his status as an Iraq war veteran to give credence to his platform and shield himself from criticism. 

When asked about the military draft, Kryzan originally said she opposed it, then she said there may be a circumstance where a draft may be necessary.

This was another issue Powers avoided being specific about. But, Kevin Hardwick kept pressing for an answer… Powers eventually said he wouldn’t take it off the table.

So, basically, both Kryzan and Powers would support a draft under certain circumstances.

Powers used the draft issue to go into a spiel claiming that there was no call to service by the Bush administration after 9/11. that was a bold-faced lie… According to Powers all Bush did after 9/11 was tell Americans to “go shopping.”

What Powers either forgot or chose not to mention was that George W. Bush did have a call to action. It is called USA Freedom Corp. Powers desperation to blame George W. Bush for everything, even at the expense of the truth, didn’t even get by Kryzan, who, to her credit, criticized Powers for his misleading statement, noting that terrorists had also attacked our economy and our way of life, and President Bush called on Americans not to let the terrorists win by forcing Americans to live in fear… Though, she didn’t say it very eloquently, that’s the overall point she made.

OF course, Kryzan also had her silly moments.

She blamed our presence in Saudi Arabia and our dependence on foreign oil for the attack on 9/11, and she claimed that Bush hasn’t tried to get us off of foreign oil. Well, he’s the one telling the Democrats in congress to allow a vote on offshore drilling. Democrats left Congress for their summer recess without an energy plan to address rising gas pries and our dependence on foreign oil so, on that point, she was drinking the same liberal Kool-Aid that Powers was.

They both expressed their opposition to the Patriot Act, and blamed Bush for it giving too much power to the presidency and conflicting with separation of powers and checks and balances. Of course, the legislation was written by Democrats and Republicans, and John Kerry, who has endorsed Powers and advocated for his candidacy, used to brag about his role in writing it, and of course, he voted for it.

But, what really got me about Powers was his blatent attempt to give vague responses throughout the debate. Kryzan had her moments too, especially with Social Security. That was a big fumble for the both of them. They both said they would “protect” Social Security, without explaining what that meant. When asked if they’d raise taxes, increase the salary cap, they wouldn’t give a specific response. Kryzan said she supported a more “progressive system” but couldn’t say what that was. It was not her best moment, and it sounded like Kevin Hardwick was frustrated with both of them.

Kryzan absolutely nailed Powers over his claim he’d change Washington since he’s getting so much financial support from PACs and special itnerests which are a part of the existing Washington culture. 

Both said they oppose Bush tax cuts, which means they would raise our taxes. One would think that after the record economic growth this country experienced because of the Bush tax cuts that they’d swallow their pride and admit that it was good economic policy. But, should either of them win the primary, I imagine their rhetoric may soften significantly. 

Powers took his vague responses and nonanswers to the very end of the debate. When Kevin Hardwick asked if he’d support a pay raise for congress in his first term, Powers tried to change the subject by saying “the first thing we’re going to do is bring the troops home safely.” Powers reluctance to deviate from the script he’s practiced so much over this campaign was his downfall in this debate. When he decided to finally say “no,” (after repeated attempts for a direct answer from Hardwick) he was asked if he would accept a pay increase even if it passed. He simply dodged the question by saying, ”I’ll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.”

He always wouldn’t answer “yes” or “no” on if he’d accept a taxpayer-funded car. Alice Kryzan, on both these last two issues, was much more specific. She said no all-around.

I found it to be a very disappointing interview/debate. Kryzan did slightly better than Powers, since she gave more definitive answers to the questions than Powers did. Still, they came across as disappointing because despite both of their claims that they’re for change and would be a new voice in Washington, they both gave typical politician-style non-answers.

Robert Harding over at  The Albany Project noted liberal groups were pretty psyched by the news. Unfortunately, a tax hike on millionaires doesn’t “address the issue of high property taxes” as Harding suggests. Instead of addressing high property taxes, it shifts the burden of paying those taxes to the wealthy. If such a bill were to be signed by the governor, it would certainly dissuade wealthy people (business owners who employ people) from coming to the state, and encourage those that are here to leave.

Instead of raising taxes, the state needs to be more efficient and responsible with our money. High taxes drive people out and hurt businesses. Union bullying can’t blind people to the truth.

UPDATE, 8/20/08, 4:01 PM: The left-wing pro-union “Working Families” Party sent out an email moments ago, declaring victory in the Assembly,

Over the last few months, the WFP and its allies have pushed for a new approach to the property tax crisis. With the help of over 15,000 calls and emails from supporters like you, we got the message to Albany that New York needs real tax solutions.

It worked. In a rare bi-partisan vote, the State Assembly rejected the ‘tax cap’ gimmick and instead passed a groundbreaking bill that would give immediate property tax relief to working families without threatening our schools.

Gov. David Paterson, warning of deteriorating state tax revenues, ordered a “soft freeze” on hiring yesterday and directed state commissioners to come up with “serious, achievable and recurring” budget savings by May 16.

Paterson issued the order just hours after he declared that he’s likely to run for a full term as governor in 2010.

“Only job openings absolutely essential to your agency’s operations and protecting the health and safety of New Yorkers are to be filled,” Paterson told the heads of all state agencies.

Paterson warned of a “hard hiring freeze” – blocking all new hires – if commissioners fail to cut spending.

The limited hiring freeze will likely affect only a few hundred jobs, officials said.

Paterson required a detailed savings plan from each agency by May 16.

Paterson’s call shocked the state’s largest public employees union, which had planned on increases in hiring as part of the state budget approved earlier this month.

“We did not have any forewarning of this,” said Civil Service Employees Association union spokesman Stephen Madarasz. “We’re extremely disappointed there was no discussion of this direction.”

He warned that Paterson’s plan could be counterproductive, saying that adding enforcement jobs could bring in more revenue from fines than the cost of the positions.

So, this so-called “hiring freeze” would only halt the hiring of non-essential positions… considering the fact that our taxes are paying the salaries of these hires, I would hope that all the positions that are filled all the time are essential, and not redundant.

Madarasz can’t claim that this was totally unexpected either.. Talk of a hiring freeze of state workers has been discussed for quite some time. Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco, proposed a hiring freeze last month. Paterson may not have been on board at the time, but that doesn’t mean the idea wasn’t on the table.

Madarasz has to stop thinking about the best interests of the unions and think about the best interests of the taxpayers. If we’re paying the salaries of these new hires they damn well better be essential.