[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” specialty=”off” _builder_version=”3.0.51″ global_module=”1863″][et_pb_fullwidth_image admin_label=”Fullwidth Image J.H. Snider’s Blog” global_parent=”1863″ src=”http:\/\/newyork.concon.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/Blog-Header-PNG-e1452798289595.png” show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” animation=”off” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” alt=”J.H. Snider’s Blog” use_overlay=”off” animation_style=”none” animation_duration=”1000ms” animation_intensity_slide=”50%” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_post_title global_module=”891″ saved_tabs=”all” title=”on” meta=”on” author=”on” date=”on” categories=”off” comments=”off” featured_image=”off” featured_placement=”below” parallax_effect=”on” parallax_method=”off” text_orientation=”center” text_color=”dark” text_background=”off” text_bg_color=”rgba(255,255,255,0.9)” module_bg_color=”rgba(255,255,255,0)” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” title_font_size=”32px” _builder_version=”3.0.51″ background_color=”rgba(255,255,255,0)” parallax=”on” animation_style=”none” animation_duration=”1000ms” animation_intensity_slide=”50%” show_bottom_space=”on” \/][et_pb_image admin_label=”Image City & State Photo” _builder_version=”3.0.69″ src=”http:\/\/newyork.concon.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-12-CityAndState-PensionReformPhotoWithCuomo.jpg” show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” sticky=”off” align=”left” always_center_on_mobile=”on” border_style=”solid” force_fullwidth=”off” border_style_all=”solid” show_bottom_space=”off” \/][et_pb_text background_layout=”light” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” _builder_version=”3.0.96″ module_alignment=”left”]<\/p>\n
The New York Constitution mandates that a question be placed on the ballot every 20 years asking New Yorkers whether they want to call a state constitutional convention. On Nov. 7, this question will be on the ballot. If voters support calling a convention, their next steps are to elect delegates to the convention and then vote up or down any constitutional amendments proposed by the convention.<\/p>\n
Fourteen states have similar periodic referendums. As I\u00a0describe<\/a>\u00a0in a recent journal article, government employee unions, especially teacher unions, have in recent decades led the opposition to a \u201cyes\u201d vote, in terms of both organization and money.<\/p>\n The unions fear that a convention would reduce their bargaining power, especially over pensions worth hundreds of billions of dollars. These fears are highlighted in their communications to members. For example, in one widely used line, members are\u00a0told<\/a>, \u201cIf you stay home and don\u2019t vote [on the convention referendum], that\u2019s the same as voting against your pension.\u201d<\/p>\n Pro-convention groups, attempting to defuse opposition from this 800-pound gorilla of constitutional convention politics, have usually claimed that a convention would not risk union pension protections. For example, Bill Samuels, who leads the advocacy group \u201cPeople\u2019s Convention,\u201d\u00a0argues<\/a>, \u201cthere is no risk in New York State of labor unions losing their pension protections or other rights enshrined in our current constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n But such claims have been ineffective because the unions have been too smart to be fooled. They are keenly aware of the public\u2019s envy of government pensions, which tend to be more generous than private pensions, and fear a convention would enable the public to act on its envy.\u00a0Supporting their fears, Princeton Survey Research Associates International\u00a0found<\/a>:<\/p>\n Given these poll numbers, unions spending millions of dollars to protect billions of dollars is a no-brainer.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, unions\u2019 presentation of their concerns to the public has been grossly misleading. As with any politically sophisticated special interest group pursuing an unpopular agenda, the unions have tried to exercise their influence in the shadows while framing their opposition in terms of popular causes and groups.<\/p>\n With both convention proponents and opponents avoiding the pension issue \u2013 albeit each for different reasons \u2013 no state in recent decades has included a thoughtful debate about public pension policy as part of the larger conversation on whether to call a convention. But if unions have good reason to believe that a convention would debate pensions \u2013 and I believe they do \u2013 then the public deserves to have that debate prior to voting for a convention on the November ballot.<\/p>\n Here are some questions to jumpstart such a debate:<\/p>\n The periodic constitutional convention referendum was designed as an institutional mechanism \u2013 the only such mechanism in New York state \u2013 to allow the people to bypass a Legislature that either won\u2019t reform itself or is unduly influenced by special interests. In the coming months, government unions will spend millions of dollars promoting the argument that a convention won\u2019t function as intended. But perhaps the unions\u2019 true fear is that it will function as intended \u2013 at least regarding the big-dollar issue driving their opposition: preserving the unpopular status quo on government pensions.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n J.H. Snider is the author of Does the World Really Belong to the Living? The Decline of the Constitutional Convention in New York and Other US States, 1776\u20132015<\/a> and editor of The New York State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/a>.<\/p>\n Source:\u00a0<\/strong>Snider, J.H., Pension Issue Surreptitiously Drives New York ConCon Politics<\/a>, City & State<\/em>, July 12, 2017.<\/p>\n For a contrary view by two former iSolon board members (iSolon edits The State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/a> and The New York State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse<\/a>), see Galie, Peter and Christopher Bopst, When Rhetoric Attempts to Trump Reality: Why A Constitutional Convention Would Not Take Away Public Employee Rights<\/a>, Rockefeller Institute Blog, August 9, 2017.<\/p>\n I believe their essay has made a valuable contribution to the pension debate relating to a New York State constitutional convention, but I have seven questions their essay didn’t address to my satisfaction:<\/p>\n First, they assert that under federal law it is illegal to “retroactively reduce benefits to retirees or to adjust accrued benefits to current employees.” But many states have\u00a0retroactively increased<\/strong> benefits to retirees and current employees. Why is it legal under the U.S. constitution and federal law more generally to increase but not decrease contractual benefits?<\/p>\n Second, they do not discuss federal bankruptcy law, which provides a mechanism to override contract law. The interpretation of this vague law is still not settled when local government units go bankrupt. Practically, it becomes a question of not whether but what contracts will be broken and to what extent bondholders vs. pension recipients (and various subcategories within those larger categories) will be the losers. When government contracts are written in an inconsistent manner, it may also be impossible<\/a> to know which will be honored until there is a lawsuit to answer the question.<\/p>\n Third, the case of New York City pensions is not discussed. \u00a0New York City pensions are in much worse financial shape than New York State pensions. Indeed, they have among the largest unfunded liabilities of any government in the United States.<\/p>\n Fourth, they rely on government estimates for their estimates of unfunded pension liabilities. But government estimates are widely considered to have overly optimistic assumptions about the future.<\/p>\n Fifth, they don’t consider polls when citizens are asked to make tradeoffs between paying pension obligations and paying higher taxes or receiving substantial cuts in vital public services such as schools, libraries, health, and transportation. \u00a0Poll results tend to be very different when framed in this way. \u00a0If the pension issue became a politically salient issue after a convention were called, the tradeoff framing would most likely generate a more reliable electoral prediction.<\/p>\n Sixth, they don’t explain why public union leaders have privately been very worried about the public’s pension envy. The unions have excellent polling operations for internal use, and it is unimaginable to me that they haven’t polled the public on this question. It’s my judgment that union leaders don’t shoot from the hip; they have outstanding political smarts based on excellent research.<\/p>\n Seventh, assuming\u00a0arguendo<\/i> that\u00a0their argument is sound that a convention wouldn’t ultimately propose an amendment restricting pension rights, they don’t address the possibility that a convention might publicly debate such a proposal. Currently, public pension envy, including the reasons for it, is one of the many taboo topics that legislators of both major political parties don’t find it in their political interest to discuss. But conventions excel at discussing issues that powerful special interests don’t want a legislature to discuss publicly. That is partly because most delegates won’t face a re-election battle (e.g., delegates are limited to one-term as a delegate), as convention accountability comes through a popular referendum on whatever amendments are proposed. Special interests fear such a public discussion because they know it might get out of control and change public opinion at not only the state but also local government level where many of the same issues are on the bargaining table.<\/p>\n See also:<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text Other pro quotes” _builder_version=”3.0.83″ background_layout=”light” disabled=”on” disabled_on=”on|on|on” module_alignment=”left”]<\/p>\n “Another scare tactic being used to oppose the convention, this time by public employee unions that worry about threats to their entrenched clout, is the claim that a convention could vote to reduce their pensions. The protection for public employee pensions in the state Constitution cannot be eliminated without violating the contract clause of the federal Constitution, which bars states from rescinding contract rights.”<\/p>\n Evan Davis, N.Y.\u2019s democracy needs an overhaul<\/a>, Committee for a Constitutional Convention, New York Daily News,\u00a0February 25, 2017<\/p>\n Mauldin, John, Nobody Will Escape The Coming Pension Storm — It Will Be Every Man For Himself<\/a>, Forbes, September 26, 2017.<\/p>\n Public Opinion Data<\/strong><\/p>\n Schoen, Douglas, Voters Want State Government Reform<\/a>, Wall Street Journal<\/em>, Sept. 20, 2011. Schoen’s national poll<\/a>; his New York poll<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reason-Rupe Pension Public Opinion Survey<\/a>, Princeton Survey Research Associates International, February 6, 2015.<\/p>\n New York Voters Support Constitutional Convention Quinnipiac University Poll Finds<\/a>, July 13, 2017.<\/p>\n The Federal Government’s “Contract” on Social Security Benefits<\/strong><\/p>\n Weinberg, Sheila, Social Security Promises<\/a>, Truth in Accounting, August 17, 2017.<\/p>\n Pension Critics<\/strong><\/p>\n McManus, Bob, With UFT endorsement, de Blasio just raised a red flag for Preet Bharara<\/a>, New York Post, Feb. 2, 2017.<\/p>\n McManus, Bob, Bill de Blasio\u2019s only successful because he pays off the unions<\/a>, New York Post, Feb. 9, 2017.<\/p>\n McManus, Bob, Money for nothing: the ugly truth about NYC\u2019s schools<\/a>, New York Post, June 15, 2017.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Other<\/strong><\/p>\n Cropley, John, Teamsters near decision point on big pension cuts<\/a>, The Daily Gazette,\u00a0September 4, 2017.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nAddendum August 10, 2017 (and updated August 15, 2017)<\/h4>\n
\n
National Views of the Public Pension Problem<\/h4>\n