As I think I've already made clear, I've little problem with the spending (more accurately “cutting”) side of the Governor's agenda.
We don't have the money, and last year's elections make clear there is no mandate (and probably the opposite) for any tax increases. Though the economy is a great part of our revenue shortfalls, there are also structural problems with the way our state does its business.
The crisis will be a great opportunity to address a few of them.
Further, the status quo defended by the unions is often a reactionary force in public policy. How can we improve our schools when protecting bad teachers is given higher priority than rewarding good ones? How, in any rationale sense is the elevation of seniority over merit a progessive idea?
But let's not fool ourselves.
Out of of necessity, some of the Governor's cuts will just be pure pain, erasing or shrinking social goods. Even here, I'm mostly willing to bite the bullet. I reserve the right to protest some really egregious and short-sighted cuts, but I reserve that right only for the most compelling cases, for if one protested every cut of worthy spending, there likely would still be a great yawning gap in our budget .
I also reserve the right to see the level of cuts proposed by the Governor lowered somewhat. The economy appears to be improving, and it is probably also safe to assume that some portion of the cuts the Governor will propose are there to be bargained away.
However, everything should be subject to the chopping block.
Everything including the Governor’s new initiatives.
While real zero-based budgeting is probably implausible, every proposed budget item should be judged in the context of every other one and be made to justify itself.
Where I'm off the Governor’s bus is on taxes.
Eliminate the millionaire’s tax?
In a budget where virtually everyone in the state is being called upon to sacrifice something, and some are being asked to sacrifice virtually everything, why is it being proposed that some are to be granted a windfall? Especially when those who comprise that “some” are those who need a windfall the least.
Opponents of the millionaires tax argue that to extend a tax which is expiring amounts to a tax increase.
Funny that when the Bush tax cuts were expiring, the same types argued that not extending a tax cut which was expiring also amounted to a tax increase.
Actually, the Bushies had a better argument. Restoring the status quo ante is a change; therefore, keeping things as they are is not an increase; it is keeping things as they are.
And things as they are is a yawning budget gap. In such times, how can anyone justify decreases in revenue?
“No new taxes” is one thing; but we should assume all current revenue unless and until someone proposes an alternative to replace it.
I also question the idea of capping property taxes and requiring super-majorities to exceed the caps. This form of revenue hari-kari has helped to make California the fiscal disaster it is today.
I say this fully understanding that, outside of NYC, property taxes are unspeakably high. I say that fully understanding that property taxes are such an object of fury in the suburbs, that in 2009, they caused the removal of two seemingly unbeatable Democratic County Execs (Tom Suozzi and Andy Spano). I say this understanding that property taxes are such an object of fury in the suburbs that in 2010 they resulted in the defeat for an open State Senate seat of a popular Republican County Exec who’d been his party’s last nominee for LG (Scott Vanderhoff) by a 28 year old Town Clerk (David Carlucci), despite the former‘s support by the local Hasidic bloc vote.
But the very instances cited prove the lack of necessity for a cap. Voters in areas can easily express their grievances and get action through the normal process called elections, where simple majorities (rather than super ones) are quite sufficient. If the local pols really feels that the crises of the day require such an increase, they are perfectly able under the current system to take such steps and then make their case to the voters.
Good fuckin’ luck with that.
If the Governor really wants to address the burdens of voters in the counties and localities, then let him take on unfunded mandates. If he really does that, property taxes might very well take care of themselves. On the other hand, if he caps property taxes without addressing unfunded mandates, he will be burning the Counties' candles at both ends.
To combat and ridicule this excessive and obsessive anti-tax mentality, some liberals have pressed the silly idea that a hike in CUNY tuition also constitutes a "tax increase." But CUNY tutition is not a tax, it is a (well justified) subsidized bargain. Making it a somewhat less subsidized bargain may be bad public policy, or it may be necessary (it is probably both), but to call a tuition hike a "tax increase" is to remove all meaning from the term.
Finally, there is the matter of The Committee to Save New York. I’ve no objection to the Governor encouraging “independent” support for his initiatives. Certainly, the unions and the Working Families party (or do I repeat myself?) will be funding their own targeted and highly misleading ad campaigns and other forms of persuasion and extortion.
However, this Governor has made a very big deal about bringing “transparency” to NYS government, and yet here is this shadowy cabal, seemingly institutionally tied to the Governor, raising money from who knows whom in the interest of who knows what.
Certainly, the Governor is obligated to publicly demand a full and public accounting of who “Save New York’s” money is coming from.
It might even give him the moral high ground in fighting the shadowy cabals on the other side.