Author: Larry Littlefield

With the release of details about who is responsible for which member items, there is likely to be a great deal of discussion of the member items per se. But the nature of what they fund is not their true significance.

While the amounts of money involved are not small, neither are they large in the context of overall state and local government spending in New York. And while most of the services funded with these grants are not useless, few are essential, or incapable of being funded locally if thought to be worth the money. Some parts of the state may be treated unfairly in the distribution of these grants, but the effect of this is not likely to be siginificant either in terms of the taxes they have to pay or the services most of them receive. The real importance of member items (and, at the federal level, earmarks) is that this sideshow is virually the sole focus of most of our elected representatives. And, it is the sole focus of elections for state legislature and Congress.

For a few decades, in large part as a result of state fiscal policies, the City of New York has spent far more than average on the health care industry (not all on health care) and far less than average on the public school system (and even less than that on education). With the possibility of at least somewhat more fair school funding from Albany, and the release of the report of the Commission on Health Care Facilities in the 21st Century, there is an opportunity to alter that pattern. As other forms of transportation developed, much of the nation’s rail capacity became redundant, and eventually had to be abandoned to save the rest of the rail system financially. Since rights-of-way are uniquely valuable and hard to replicate, many places preserved them as trails. Similarly, in a densely populated city space is scarce and expensive, and one of the city’s educational problems is the lack of it. The hospitals and wings to be closed have been exempted from local property taxes for decades, an exemption the value of which likely exceeded their current value many times over. They should be purchased by or given to the city, gutted, and turned into high schools (if large enough) or other schools. If purchased, the money received should only be used for a purpose consistent with the purpose of the tax breaks had been received, not bonuses for departing executives. At least the schools would have decent labs and, if a high school were located in the former wing of a still-working hospital, perhaps some of the students would be inspired to health care careers. For despite the “jobs lost” in the short run due to the proposed closings, the long-term situation in health care is a labor shortage.

So the Court of Appeals has ruled that in 2004 New York City schools should have spent, at a minimum, an additional $1.93 billion. Is that a lot, or a little? Would the total be an excessive waste of money, or nowhere close to the need? If the state paid for it all, would those elsewhere in the state have been cheated out of their rightful share of aid, or have continued to shortchange the city’s children? And would city residents have reason to be on-their-knees grateful, or outraged? To me, the way whatever settlement is described is as important as what that settlement is, because it will set the stage for what is demanded, and what is rationalized, for years to come. New York State’s winners expect a high level of service; they not only expect to win, but also expect to be told they have been generous, or cheated, so they can continue to sneer at and resent the losers. You’d think the truth would be the easiest thing to provide, since giving one person the truth doesn’t’ take money from someone else. It actually appears to be the most difficult. As it happens, while the Zarb Commission appears to have had Fiscal 2004 data years ago, that happens to be the latest available to me, both from the New York State Department of Education Fiscal Policy Unit and the U.S. Census Bureau. And below, using that information, is the meaning of the CFE $1.93 billion.

My interaction with politicos has been very limited over the years, probably to our mutual benefit. I can count the times I have been the same room with an elected official on two hands, and the times I have actually spoken with one on one hand. But about four and a half years ago, I found myself in the back of a room next to Alan Hevesi, who was then running for New York State Comptroller, and I asked him for something. Handing over a sample, I asked if he, as Comptroller, would compile and publish the kind of comparative state and local revenue, expenditure, employment and payroll data that I have been producing privately over the years (see here and here). I had previously tried to convince some of his future underlings to do the work, but had gotten nowhere, which is no surprise given my own history as a government underling and inability to accomplish anything. But here I was taking to the future top guy. The reason I wanted the Office of the State Comptroller to compile and publish the information isn’t that I didn’t feel like doing it myself. For reasons I’ll explain after the jump, that office is in a position to provide more detailed and timely data than I am. Well, despite some positive noises at the time, I never did get my data.

You might have read this article in the Times which reports on how cities around the country are desperately trying to attract the young, particularly the educated young. The reason: with the nation's aging demographics, we are entering an era of skilled labor shortage, and whoever gets the educated young gets jobs, income, and economic activity.

I have also heard this issue raised in Upstate New York, but here the concern about losing the young isn't about jobs and business, it is about "the tax base." In New York, you see, we have the richest senior benefits anywhere, but prefer to exempt seniors from taxes, so someone has to be available to pay relatively more and get relatively less.

While the CFE decision provided one last chance for NYC conservatives to show they aren’t hypocrites (one they apparently will not take), it also provides one last chance for NYC Democrats to show they care as much about the quality of life of NYC residents as they do about the perpetuation of their own power and perks, and those of their organized supporters. Such Democrats might want to tax everyone more and spend more on everyone. But faced with opposition from elsewhere, they have agreed to tax New York City more and spend more elsewhere, nowhere more so than in education. At least, in their view, overall education spending is higher than it would otherwise be – number one in the nation as a share of personal income, despite low spending in the city. In general, those that matter are unaffected by the negative consequences, making those consequences seem remote and unimportant. That is the deal we have, the deal the Court has held to be constitutionally wrong but also has held that it cannot or will not change.

Well folks, you got you wanted in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision. Not only is the minimum only $2 billion more (in 2004 dollars) for NYC schools, but also the state is free to cut school aid to the city, and increase it to the rest of the state, as in 1995-96, and the courts will do nothing about it other than tut tut 13 years later. With the decision in and the election over, there is one last chance for you (and you know who you are) to show you aren't hypocrites.

Use the Zarb Commission estimates of the lower cost of living in Upstate New York, and the additional needs of low income students, to esimate what school districts in the rest of the state should be spending. And then demand that spending in the rest of the state be cut, and that NYC taxpayers no longer have to pay excess state taxes for wasteful spending elsewhere.

When news broke that the incoming Spitzer administration has set up a website for the submission of resumes and ideas, I briefly considered submitting the former. Very briefly. A moment’s reflection made it clear that, even if state wanted to hire me, a return to public service would be bad for my family, my career, my mental health, and even my ability to make a contribution to my community. That is what a 20 year history in government, generally as a policy analyst/city planner, tells me. Based on more positive experiences outside public service, however, I would like to offer my assistance to the incoming Spitzer administration in another way. Any information I have compiled and analyzed, any information I will compile and analyze, and any suggestions I have or will come up with in my spare time are yours, gratis. Absolutely free. That is a suggestion I made to the “ideas” inbox. If someone reading this wants my resume, just fish my e-mail address out of there and ask me for it. If anyone else is interested in a warning about the nature of a public sector career, read on.