All Over Albany

Holy crap, people. Go read Vielkind's article. Now.

... said Valerae on Sep 4, 2013 at 12:06 PM | link

A lot of those higher household incomes are going to be downstate: NYC, Long Island, and Westchester/Rockland/Putnam, also probably 2-income earners. Those income levels are NOT in the stratosphere for those locations given cost of living notably what it costs to buy even a small house. (I was born and raised in Westchester and couldn't possibly afford to live there, own a home, pay property taxes.) $178,000 in Westchester would afford you a middle class life style, nothing more.

Statistics like these tend to lead to outrage over overpaid elected officials who theoretically only work part-time, but I think you have to sort the data by geography. And if the legislators are also lawyers or business owners (Assemblyman McDonald is a small business co-owner of a pharmacy in Cohoes) then you are going to see some high incomes.

Those incomes (presumably actually earned, not stolen) don't trouble me nearly as much as the entrenched corruption in Albany's political system, the 3-men in a room syndrome, the autocratic control of the Governor, and the role of special interests in campaigns.

... said chrisck on Sep 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM | link

"Their analysis concluded that the average household income for a state legislator in 2012 was between $178,140 and $237,941 (median household income in the state: about $56k)." Statements like these need to be carefully considered by readers. Yes, they make more than the average New York household, but legislators also have earned at least a Bachelor's degree if not a higher degree. According to the Census Burea (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html) only 32% of New Yorkers have earned a Bachelor's degree or higher. I'd like to see the income of those households so that we can compare apples to apples here and decide if this really deserves as much attention as it will attract. If these are two-person incomes, and considering cost of living rates downstate, this seems, as chrisck stated, more like an attention-grabber than a valid point.

... said Annieg on Sep 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM | link

My husband and I are both professionals, he has a bachelors and I have "some college". Even so, our rep, Pat Fahy, has household income at 2-3 times ours but she also has around 1.5 million dollars in net assets. The income is one thing, but to be sitting on those kinds of assets - I can't even comprehend that kind of cushion. When my husband had an unexpected illness last winter we experienced what happens when you miss a handful of paychecks. I'm guessing the majority of these reps don't know what that's like. If they are true representatives of the people, shouldn't they be a reflection of us?

... said Valerae on Sep 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM | link

So, Valerae, what are you suggesting? That they have to give away their assets (savings, investments, maybe an expensive home) to run for office? It's one thing to set a kind of low salary for public office (even the Gov. earns far less than some of the local college presidents), it's another to expect politicians to give away their wealth for the privilege of serving the public. We would lose a great deal of talent if we applied that standard.

There are a lot of reasons why some people may have over a $1 million in assets. For starters, it wouldn't be unusually these days for an older candidate to have a substantial amount in his or her 401K as savings for retirement. There could also be family money, or spouse's money.

Also, I'm not entirely convinced of the wealth - "reflection of us" equation. I'm not sure I necessarily have to have a legislature who is exactly "me" to represent my interests. I'd actually hope they'd be smarter than me, and have skills and background I don't have to get the job done. Look historically at some notable politicians who have supported working class interests -- the Kennedy clan are 1 Percenters, but they have introduced major gov't programs to help the poor and working class. I'm not going to automatically assume that personal wealth means they can't understand the needs of regular people or that they don't have the moral commitment to fairness and equity and social welfare programs. In fact, a good number of the now affluent legislators came from humble roots. They aren't all Rockefellers. In the Capital Region, I doubt many of these legislators are more than a generation from working or middle class backgrounds and remember what it was like for their parents to struggle to pay the bills.

... said chrisck on Sep 6, 2013 at 8:26 AM | link

I agree with most of your points and no, would never suggest they give up their assets. It's just that I would prefer to see a closer reflection of the average Joe in my representation. To me, it looks like you *have* to have money in order to get elected and I think that's a problem.

I do get that these politicians may only be a generation removed from a middle class existence, but actually living in the middle class or below the poverty line will shape your views and behavior.

... said Valerae on Sep 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM | link

@Valerae -- I think we essentially agree. And campaign finance reform would allow Joe and Jill Average to run for office on an equal footing with candidates with greater resources.

... said chrisck on Sep 6, 2013 at 12:05 PM | link