Guest commentator Nathan Jaschik is a retired transportation planner with 31 years’ experience with New York county and regional agencies and is a longtime activist seeking state government reform. Mary Anna Towler’s Urban Journal is on break this week.
The proposal to hold a state Constitutional Convention, on the ballot in the November 7 election, deserves voters’ serious attention. This will likely be the last chance in my lifetime to vote to bring real reform and democracy to New York State. We cannot throw away this opportunity because of a hysterical campaign based on exaggerated fears and outright falsehoods.
Claims that public employees will lose their pensions or that the costs of a ConCon will be hundreds of millions of dollars are simply wrong. Pensions are protected under the contract clause of the US Constitution, and the ConCon costs should not exceed $100 million – more likely $75-80 million. And if the ConCon is successful in reorganizing the state’s court system, that investment would yield an immediate $500 million per year savings to the state.
Fears that the “forever wild” protections or labor rights will be taken away are based on the unlikely assumption that the ConCon would be taken over by corporate hacks and that we would be helpless to stop them.
The irony in all of this is that both the proponents and opponents of a ConCon want the same thing – real reform of our state government through effective ethics enforcement, campaign finance reform, independent redistricting, and budgeting and finance policies that are transparent – reforms that will never ever be taken up by the legislature, and people who say we can do these reforms through the regular amendment process are dreaming. What this entire question boils down to is whether or not we can elect delegates who will attack these questions and come up with real solutions.
The opponents raise visions of corporate money flooding the state to elect delegates to do their bidding. This assumes that we the people are too stupid to recognize what is going on and do not have the capacity to counter with delegates who will do our bidding. If the ConCon is approved, we will have one year to both recruit delegates and develop specific platform commitments, including pledges not to touch those rights we are all rightfully concerned about, but which we might well strengthen.
Unions and NGO’s are now spending millions of dollars trying to scare New York citizens away from the only chance they have to make real reform that cannot be blocked by the legislature. Those very same unions and NGO’s are thus saying they are too weak or incompetent to wage a positive campaign and elect delegates we can have some confidence in. Let’s just throw in the towel and go another 20 years with worsening corruption, a rotting public infrastructure, and the business and population losses that go along with that.
Fortunately, there are many in this state who are willing to make the effort to do what needs to be done. We need that opportunity which only comes around once in a generation. But we can’t have a ConCon made up of knowledgeable and competent delegates unless we have a ConCon. So take that first step on November 7, vote “Yes” for the ConCon and then sign up on November 8 to work to elect the delegates we need.
And remember, the delegates to the ConCon cannot amend the constitution; they can only present proposed amendments to be voted on by we, the people. If they do fumble the ball – a highly unlikely prospect, given our history – the last word is still ours.
For an excellent rundown on the potential and risks of a ConCon, see the article titled “Constitutional Convention is New York’s Only Opportunity for Change,” by Peter Galie and Christopher Bopst, in a recent issue of City Limits.
This article appears in Nov 1-7, 2017.
We’ve (meaning people as opposed to corporations) have lost significant control of our governments at every level. Basically, oligarchs have largely subverted our democracy and taken over control of our governments.
That this has happened is abundantly apparent to anybody bothering to look. It shows up in the reality that ordinary people have largely not participated in (meaning benefited from) the HUGE gains in productivity that have taken place since a round 1970 — nearly all of that increase in the size of our collective economic pie have gone to oligarchs and their minions.
At the same, access to rudimentary health care by ordinary people has plummeted, so much so that the U.S. during this period of time has steadily moved from near the top of the group of first-world countries, in terms of minimum infant mortality, to our current position near the top of the group of third-world countries.
Put bluntly, we’re well down the path of becoming a third-world country with respect to most of the statistical measures that matter, things like income and wealth inequality, access to health care (Obamacare has helped a little in this respect, but only a little), entrenched multi-generational poverty, rampant institutionalized racism and other forms of rankism, significant deterioration in our rule of law — the list goes on and on (something like me in this respect).
Given this stark reality, I believe were we to hold a constitutional convention now, while oligarchs and their minions are largely in control, that they would be likely to prevail and take/use the opportunity to solidify and consolidate their gains.
Were democracy to once again flourish in the U.S. a constitutional conversion might be a good idea, but it’s a patently BAD idea now.
I should also mention it’s not we who are the main victims here. Rather, it’s our children and their children down through our future generations who are the biggest victims.
I share the author’s sentiment and frustration with the NYS status quo, however it seems there’s A LOT of confusion about the public pension issue… IF indeed pensions “are protected under the contract clause of the US Constitution”, then ConCon proponents should’ve been MUCH more vocal in educating the masses on this (though I don’t see any reference to the US Constitution in Article 5, Section 7 of the NYS Constitution). Additionally, in another article posted by City Limits (the publication the author cited), they link to a NYSUT page arguing against a ConCon and naming pension protection as an issue: https://citylimits.org/election-2017-pros-… City Limits does not appear to refute it… So which is it?? Who is spreading misinformation?? I’d wager that this is THE number one issue that folks in the pension system are (rightfully) worried about and it will most certainly drive the ‘NO’ vote. I can’t say I blame them.
The Mercer Family has invested money in a yes vote. Doesn’t this say enough? The right wing oligarchs are salivating at this opportunity and citizens united gives them the means to turn us into a red state. There could be many opportunities for privateering which voters would be duped on. No child Left Behind was one piece of legislation which was seized by privateers. There are so many opportunities for this and many voters are unaware. The days of Mr Smith goes to Washington are over. Look who voters just put in the White House. It is so naive to think the con con would be a panacea.
I’m shocked that Urban Journal would present this argument, which suggests it represents the position of City Newspaper on the topic. I thought I might have missed a counterargument published in previous weeks, but no, this is it. As comments above point out, Jaschik’s points defy common sense. His idea that opponents of the Convention who” raise visions of corporate money flooding the state… assumes that we the people are too stupid to recognize what is going on” ignores what currently frustrates most voters: that corporate money flooding state and Federal offices ALREADY has weakened the power of democracy. What magic will make delegates elected in the next General Election more loyal to state citizenry than those holding office currently?
Here’s just some of what I’ve learned in the last several weeks debating the topic of New York’s upcoming Constitutional Convention vote.
1. I was told the progressive movement is dead and there is absolutely no hope for anything positive for progressives from NY Con Con.
2. Those leading the “vote no” effort love to project an image of extreme weakness and hopelessness.
3. People have the audacity to say “We don’t or didn’t have time to plan and get things in place to do anything positive for progressives.” I’ll let everyone figure out what’s funny about that.
4. There seems to be nothing but doom and gloom in people’s thoughts about Con Con.
5. No matter if it’s a conservative or progressive group, they are using the exact same tactics of outright lies, misrepresentations, omissions and all around fear mongering. Persuading people to vote no, even with dishonest, dirty tactics is still better than tricking citizens of NY into thinking that once voters approve Con Con, they have no say in anything else that happens.
6. NY Con Con would make a terrifying horror movie.
7. “You don’t understand” is the very popular and demeaning phrase popular among the “vote no”crowd. I have been reading and researching for two years…so, I do understand.
8. I don’t follow the money…I don’t believe people are really outraged by the possible cost of Con Con. I laugh at the laundry list of wonderful things NY will do with the money not spent on Con Con.
9. The majority of people I have spoken with repeat false information about Con Con they have been fed.