Golden Hill: Golden Goose or Golden Noose?

Golden Hill: A Golden Goose or Golden Noose?

Whenever I am considering the wisdom or legitimacy of any government program or proposal, I consider the underlying idea its proponents espouse by taking the idea to its full “gestation.” For instance, take minimum wages. Why mandate just $7.50 an hour? If it is really good for low-wage workers, how about just naming a sum that would really change the life of said workers, say $25 an hour? It brings clarity in a hurry. You know that those workers would be tossed out on their ears. Anytime you try pricing labor above its actual financial benefit to an organization, there will be fewer jobs. Remember, the equation is not just supply and demand, it is supply and demand coinciding at a particular price—the price at which the seller and buyer are willing to seal the deal.

Consider the unemployment rate for untested or uneducated individuals in Ulster County. You don’t need a statistician for this. Can your teenager find summer employment? In the late 1950s and early 1960s in Ulster County I could have worked three jobs if I had been allowed to drink coffee. Today, young people (and even older ones) rarely find even a part-time position.

I don’t want anyone to have to work for $5.00 an hour. On the other hand (this is why there are no one-handed economists), most beginning workers are worth only that or less to an employer (otherwise there would be no need to legislate a “minimum wage”). Once the new employee learns something, hopefully he/she becomes worth more to the organization and will be worth more pay. Sadly, under minimum wage laws, the employer may simply do that menial job himself rather than hire a youngster or trainee. In addition to the outright wage and benefit cost of the worker, the government paperwork on employee withholding and the time to train someone who may very well walk away after a couple of days or weeks, it is easier and less expensive to forego the new hire. The law hurts many of those it is supposed to help.

Which brings me to Golden Hill. If it is a good idea or an economic benefit to the taxpayers for Ulster County to be in the nursing home business by continuing to run Golden Hill, why doesn't the county buy the all private facilities in our county and run them, too? According to the Web, Ulster has the North East Center for Special Care, Wingate at Ulster, Ten Broeck Commons, Mountain View, and the Hudson Valley Rehabilitation and Extended Care Facility listed as residential homes in Ulster County. Is there something special about Golden Hill that makes it “the one” our county should run, and not the others? If so, I hope that gets some press before the legislature votes to spend your money on continuing to run it.

While you are at it investigative media, I would also like to know who gets to reside at Golden Hill? Is it a different demographic from those who are residents of the Hudson Valley Rehabilitation? Wingate at Ulster? I would like to see that spelled out. In light of the belief that “we owe it to our seniors,” exactly who owes it and to exactly which seniors?

Another thing impacting nursing homes and the ability of residents to pay personally for their care are the laws allowing me to put my house in my child’s name and live in it until I need nursing home care. Then, because I have successfully transferred assets to my heirs years before, I can count on you taxpayers to pay for my infirmity at a nursing home until I enter that big tax-free, government-free place in the sky. Taxpayers of all levels of wealth subsidize the wealthiest and most tax-savvy residents of Ulster County (and elsewhere). It’s hard to fault people who do take advantage of this estate planning technique. If you are the only one who does not, you look like a dope, but maybe you sleep like a baby.

How did such an unfair and unscrupulous law get on the books? Like all laws of that description, someone went to some congressman and lobbied—that is, promised votes or donated to his/her campaign— in other words, the law got passed because someone had the money or the pull to get it passed. I am sure they sold it as “the right thing to do,” or said “we owe it to our _______,” (fill in the blank depending on the law in question with seniors, children, teachers, etc.). You can bet it was not lobbied for by the un-connected poor schlep who will now pay for me to be taken care of for a lot of years if I am lucky and the taxpayers are not.

I had a very long conversation with an Ulster County legislator who said the numbers were “on the side of keeping Golden Hill.” I have no doubt this man is sincere and believes what he was saying. My question to him is: If it is a good idea and makes all residents of Ulster County better off, then let’s buy up all the facilities and make us all richer.

Deep in their hearts, I think the legislators know they should divest the county of Golden Hill for sound economic reasons and because government has no business in health care. However, there is a bureaucracy and union with vested interests in keeping the status quo. Therefore, they fall back on the tried and true “senior citizen is owed” ploy. If seniors were not allowed to give away their assets they could afford care in most instances, or at least many years of care before becoming wards of the county, state, and federal taxpayers. Better yet, the eventual heirs could take care of the person with the benefit of inheritance.

On another note, if the legislature votes to keep Golden Hill and there is an upgrade to or even rebuilding of the facility, who will be responsible for its cost overruns? Was the Ulster County jail not enough proof that public projects are problematic and expensive to taxpayers?

The unions and the families of Golden Hill residents continue to lobby the legislature, but there is no one lobbying for the taxpayer. Remember, the ultimate lobbying technique is your vote. Any legislator who votes for keeping Golden Hill should be tossed out in the next election. We can't keep obligating future generations to make ourselves “feel good.” We owe it to taxpayers now and in the future.