Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield's request for a massive rate hike is deplorable and cannot be approved. Averaging a nearly 26 percent surge in premiums, and affecting 1.4 million customers, such an increase would bear a dreadful cost.

In the best of times, the cost of health insurance is a heavy burden. And this burden is magnified at present in New York State. Over a hundred thousand workers have been laid off. And those New Yorkers who still have jobs are employed overwhelmingly by small firms which have always struggled to provide even bareboners coverage.

In this social and economic climate, to focus rate increases on individuals and small businesses is despicable. Moreover, it represents a miscalculation of judgement; the fact is that revenues will decrease as Empire customers drop their plans.

Empire announced that it may collapse if this rate increase is not approved by the end of the year. The Superintendent of Insurance, Salvatore Curiale, agrees, and to prevent this he sees no option but to approve the increase unless action is taken. Governor Cuomo recognizes the horrendous implications of such an increase and has proposed a reasonable solution. He is proposing a "bailout" that would provide Empire with an $85 million infusion coupled with a smaller rate increase of 8 percent.

The Liberal Party supports the governor's efforts and would urge an even larger bailout if the rate increase could be removed altogether. However, the Governor's proposal is being stymied by the political machinations of State Senate majority leader Ralph Marino. Senator Marino opposes such action, saying he prefers to await the report of a United States Senate subcommittee investigation into possible mismanagement by the insurer, a delay of months. But failure to act now would spell disaster for Empire and its customers. Can Senator Marino be so beholden to the private insurance industry that he would risk such ruin? It is imperative that the Senator stop posturing and seriously attempt to reach a compromise agreement with Governor Cuomo on this crisis. There is no place for partisan politics when the availability of healthcare for 1.4 million New Yorkers is in jeopardy.

Empire attributes its financial woes to the fact that it provides community-rated coverage, while its competitors have the option of denying coverage to individuals deemed to be "bad risks." Without ignoring the fact that the state legislature has granted Empire special advantage over other insurers due to community-rating, Empire is indeed at a disadvantage. However, the playing field will be leveled on April 1, 1993, when every insurer providing coverage in New York State will be required to accept any individual.

Empire is indeed ailing; whether the reason is intense competition, mismanagement, or both, it cannot be allowed to fail. Consequently, a financial boost is necessary at this time.

However, this bailout raises serious questions. After the immediate crisis is resolved, more attention must be paid to the U.S. Senate investigation of Empire. This inquiry was sparked by allegations of gross mismanagement, bloated salaries, excessive perks and lavish furnishings. It is crucial that New York State officials monitor the insurer carefully to make certain that this is not merely the first of many bailouts.

The Liberal Party of New York State calls on the members of the 103rd Congress to pass H.R. 1, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Introduced on the first day of the new session, this bill would required employers to grant temporary, unpaid leave to their employees under certain conditions, such as serious illness of a family member or birth of a child.

President Bush vetoed the original legislation last year, despite his 1988 campaign pledge to sign such a bill. The Liberal Party urged Congress to override his veto, but the effort was unsuccessful. Now, with a Democratic Administration firmly committed to family and medical leave, the opportunity has come to pass these benefits into law.

By enacting this law swiftly and with broad bipartisan support, the members of the new Congress will signal the end to the partisan gridlock and "blame-game" that characterized the capitol during George Bush's tenure and which strangled the original Family and Medical Leave Act.

Introduced by Representative William D. Ford of Michigan, H.R. 1 is co-sponsored by 8 Liberal representatives: Major Owens, Eliot Engel, Gary Ackerman, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn B. Maloney, Charles Shumer, Jose Serrano and Charles Rangel.

The Liberal Party today urged the New York State Legislature to name Carol Bellamy to fill the unexpired term of State Comptroller Edward Regan, who announced his retirement.

"Carol Bellamy received 49% of the vote when she ran for State Comptroller in 1990," said Fran Reiter, State Chair of the Liberal Party. "That's almost two million voters who believed that her background as a state senator, City Council president, trustee of New York City's largest pension system and her experience on Wall Street made her an outstanding candidate. The same holds true today."

Raymond B. Harding, Vice Chairman of the Liberal Party, said: "From every point of view, Carol Bellamy is the natural person to become New York State's next Comptroller. She has superior qualifications. The Liberal Party endorses Ms. Bellamy and urges the Legislature to name her as the next Comptroller of the State of New York."

The Liberal Party of New York State calls on the members of the United States Senate to pass S. 2, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

This legislation, commonly referred to as the "motor voter" bill, would require states to allow citizens to register to vote when obtaining or renewing a driver's license. Additional provisions would permit registration by mail and at a wide variety of government offices. Its companion bill, H.R. 2, was passed by the House of Representatives on February 4th.

Many of the provisions of S. 2 are already in place in New York State; therefore passage of this bill will not have a marked impact on election procedures in this state. Our rationale for supporting this legislature is much larger in scope.

This bill represents a strong step towards ending the paradox of America's role as the premiere democracy in the world: while encouraging the growth of democratic institutions and fair election procedures abroad, we have allowed bureaucratic obstacles to hinder access to voting here at home. By sweeping away such hindrances, this law will strengthen the best aspects of the American democratic system.

Republicans, most notably Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, have claimed that no evidence exists that higher rates of registration translate into higher voter turnout. These protest fall short of the truth. The 30 states that have implemented provisions of S. 2 have had significantly higher turnout rates than those 20 that have not.

The results of the recently completed campaign season are a clear testament to the beneficial aspects of increased voter registration and awareness. Passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 will help ensure that such levels of involvement are longterm, and not an aberration.

S. 2 sponsored by Senator Wendell Ford of Kentucky, and is co-sponsored by our own Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The Liberal Party of New York State endorses President Clinton's proposal to initiate a broad-based energy tax as laid out in his economic plan. This proposal would tax the heat output, or British thermal units (BTU), of petroleum, natural gas and other fuels.

The primary benefit of a broad-based energy tax is that it raises fuel prices, thereby decreasing overall energy consumption and increasing demand for fuel-efficient technology in automobiles, appliances, furnaces and the like. Major fuel-producing regions and heavy fuel-consuming regions will oppose such a strategy; conservative Democrats in Congress from such regions are spearheading the attack on this plan.

By framing the energy tax as a deficit-reduction tool, however, the president has allowed his proposal to be boxed into a corner; opponents have simply to substitute a different, cost-equivalent revenue source to define the need for an energy tax. Indeed, this approach is being taken by U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-La), who has stated that, "the purpose is not to have an energy tax. The purpose is to cut the deficit." He suggests that a national sales tax would better cut the deficit than the energy tax.

The President and his supporters on Capitol Hill must rescue the energy tax by repackaging it as an energy conservation tool, and drawing the focus of the debate on this tax away from deficit reduction and towards America's future energy needs. Reducing the budget deficit must remain our government's top priority; however, expediency on the deficit issue cannot be allowed to derail the energy conservation aspect of this important proposal.