The following appears in the October 21-27, 2011 issue of the Long Island Business News:

Managing New York’s local governments has not been an enviable job in recent years. Unfunded state mandates, plus a weak economy plus declining residential and commercial real estate values do not always equal easily balanced budgets.

However, hardworking magistrates who are not afraid to exercise their authority and take on entrenched bureaucrats are succeeding in keeping the wolves away from their municipal doors. Westchester County Executive Robert Astorino is a fine example of such an official. Since taking office in January 2010, he has proven to be an effective and tenacious executive who has put Westchester on the road to fiscal stability.

In my search for such a leader on Long Island, I drove out to Islip and spent some time with Town Supervisor Phil Nolan. Elected in a 2006 special election for the vacancy created by a judge who sentenced long-time incumbent Pete McGowan to jail, Nolan came to the job well-versed in the machinations of local governments.

As a former chief of staff to a mayor of Yonkers, Nolan learned a lot in a city that was broke and under the thumb of a state-appointed emergency control board. He figured out that scrutinizing every expenditure and saving money on even the smallest scale are not only the bases of good management but also send a strong message that business as usual will not be tolerated.

One of Nolan’s first shots across the government’s bow was the elimination of “confidential pay.” What, you ask, is that? It’s a good question because in my 40 years of studying government operations I have never heard of such an arrangement. The answer: In 2006, 21 Islip town employees secretly received additional compensation totaling $120,000 annually above union contracts. Newsday condemned this scam as “irrational and arbitrary compensation, flying in the face of civil service.” By revealing and terminating this perk, the establishment learned there was a new sheriff in town.

Next, Nolan significantly cut back the use of non-emergency vehicles by town employees. The number of autos used for personal commuting was cut from 155 to 83, a 46 percent drop that is saving taxpayers $200,000 annually. Responding to whining bureaucrats, Nolan said: “Some people might think this is trivial, but it is a classic example of use of public assets for private gain.”

To save the town another $50,000 a year, Nolan reformed mobile phone policies: Thirty-six percent of the phones were deemed unnecessary and the contracts were cancelled. Investigators discovered that approximately 3 percent were used by people who had left or retired from government service.

By applying a common-sense approach, Nolan has also cut back overtime yearly by $300,000 without compromising safety. Many weekend projects were put off until Monday and night work was reassigned to daytime. And, after a protracted battle with town legislators, Nolan received approval to eliminate an outlandish perk: health care benefits for part-time members of local boards. The savings: another $300,000 annually.

Finally, Nolan has pared back town employment from a high of 1,029 to 730, a 29 percent deduction. That’s pretty impressive.

Total cuts have averaged about $8 million a year for a total of $40.4 million since Nolan took office. With the town’s operating budget at about $120 million, these savings have made a big difference toward achieving balanced budgets without raising taxes. The proposed budget for 2012 once again calls for no tax increases and a spending increase within the inflation rate.

Islip’s fiscal success is also reflected in the town’s debt rating. In January, Fitch Ratings affirmed the town’s AAA rating and concluded the financial outlook is stable.

In economic development too, Nolan has been a leader, partnering with Brookhaven Supervisor Lesko on development around Long Island MacArthur Airport while casting an appropriately wary eye on claims of the Heartland Town Square promoters.

In these difficult times, governing requires more than attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies and fireworks displays. To succeed, leaders cannot be disengaged or complain they are victims. They must, like Nolan, be responsible, disciplined, hardworking and willing to fight every day for clear objectives based on sound principles that put the taxpayers first.

 The following appears in the October 7-13, 2011 issue of the Long Island Business News:

There is a subset of self-made billionaires who, in their twilight years, strive to be loved by liberal political movers and shakers.  They yearn for the New York Times editorial page to declare that they “have grown”—in other words, have adopted leftist ideological nostrums.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is an example of such a person.  In his drive to please Manhattan opinion makers in the chic Upper East Side and the radical Upper West Side, he has endeavored to create a nanny city that micromanages people’s every day behavior.  To score brownie points—actually given the Mayor’s obesity campaign that would be soy points—with this crowd, the Mayor, speaking at the opening session of the U.N. on September 20, chose to urge delegates to lead a worldwide crusade against global tobacco giants.

Let’s see:  the Middle East is a tinderbox, Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, the Palestinians are pushing for statehood, Europe is on the verge of financial collapse, but an anti-smoking offensive is Mayor Bloomberg’s number one international concern.  How absurd is that?

Another billionaire seeking love is 81-year old Warren Buffett of Omaha, Nebraska.  Buffett, who is the world’s third richest person and worth about $50 billion, supports Obama’s plan to raise taxes on those making over $200 thousand because he believes he is under-taxed and pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Buffett is dead wrong.  Contrary to what has become known as “Buffett’s Rule,” high earners do pay more than the average middle class taxpayer.  Those who reported incomes over $1 million in 2008 paid on their adjusted gross income an average tax rate of 23.3 percent.  Earner’s between $100 to $200 thousand, paid an average of 19.6 percent, $50 to $100 thousand—8.9 percent, $30 to $50 thousand—7.2 percent.  The Wall Street Journal rightfully called the “Buffett Rule,” that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries, “Omaha hokum.”

If Buffett gets his way, the impact on New York will be devastating.  That’s because a disproportionate number of high income earners live in the state.  Right now New York’s wealthiest, the top 1 percent earners, generate over 40 percent of state income taxes.  If the federal rate goes from 36 percent to 39.6 percent, the combined federal state and local tax rates will exceed 52 percent.  This will drive the wealthiest, who can afford to move, to neighboring lower tax states—Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania—or to the state income tax-free states of Florida, Texas and New Hampshire.

In a radio show interview on September 24, Governor Cuomo appeared to agree with this analysis saying, “We are in a competitive foot race every day with our neighboring states.  And people are mobile.  If you just keep raising taxes, people will move.”

Another serious objection to the “Buffett Rule” is that the cost of living in New York is significantly higher than other parts of the nation.  A report released in 2010 pointed out that a Dallas, Texas household living on $125 thousand annual income must earn $250 thousand to live the same lifestyle in New York.  That’s an incredible cost of living differential.  That explains why even our senior U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, whose National Taxpayers Union Rating is a dismal 2 percent, is leery about the “Buffett Rule.”  “$250 thousand makes you really rich in Mississippi,” said Senator Schumer, “but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York, and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay.”

New Yorkers are the highest taxed people in the nation.  And higher federal taxes will only drive up labor costs, discourage new investment capital and increase the states already alarming out-migration.  If Buffett believes he is under-taxed, instead of sticking the tax bill to struggling New Yorkers, he should write a check of his own to the “Gifts to the United States” fund established in 1843.