How does this sound for an economic development slogan:  “Upstate New York, we’re just like everyplace else, except we’re older, we’re colder, we have lots of toxic contamination left over from the industrial era, we have high taxes not for services but to pay for the debts and pensions of the past, and we are highly unionized and expect higher pay and more restrictive work rules than other parts of the country.”  Well, that’s the truth isn’t it?  It isn’t the whole truth, not by a long shot.  But if Upstate New York continues position itself in the economy based on being “just like everyplace else,” it is the only truth that matters.

How does this sound for an economic development slogan:  “Upstate New York, we’re just like everyplace else, except we’re older, we’re colder, we have lots of toxic contamination left over from the industrial era, we have high taxes not for services but to pay for the debts and pensions of the past, and we are highly unionized and expect higher pay and more restrictive work rules than other parts of the country.”  Well, that’s the truth isn’t it?  It isn’t the whole truth, not by a long shot.  But if Upstate New York continues position itself in the economy based on being “just like everyplace else,” it is the only truth that matters.

How does this sound for an economic development slogan:  “Upstate New York, we’re just like everyplace else, except we’re older, we’re colder, we have lots of toxic contamination left over from the industrial era, we have high taxes not for services but to pay for the debts and pensions of the past, and we are highly unionized and expect higher pay and more restrictive work rules than other parts of the country.”  Well, that’s the truth isn’t it?  It isn’t the whole truth, not by a long shot.  But if Upstate New York continues position itself in the economy based on being “just like everyplace else,” it is the only truth that matters.

What would the change in fiscal structures and priorities I have outlined thus far mean for the economy of the one part of the state whose economy people talk about:  Upstate New York?   It would mean the ability to have a much lower cost structure, provided Upstate was willing to live with lower public expenditures, by localizing decisions about revenues and expenditures on the margin.  Upstate could choose to go on spending more if it wanted, but without draining Downstate to pay for it.

Consider the school aid formula I suggested.  It would allow Upstate New York – everyone in every part of it – to have a national average level of public school expenditures per student with little or no local tax burden.  Zip.  Nothing.  And, since incomes and spending are higher Downstate (whether that buys a higher quality of life is an open question), a substantial share of the state income and sales taxes used to fund that education Upstate would be collected outside the region, in Downstate New York.  Meaning an average level of spending would cost Upstate a below-average level of state and local taxes.  Even if spending were increased to 25% more than the national average, state taxes would still cover 80% the total, keeping local property taxes low.

What would the change in fiscal structures and priorities I have outlined thus far mean for the economy of the one part of the state whose economy people talk about:  Upstate New York?   It would mean the ability to have a much lower cost structure, provided Upstate was willing to live with lower public expenditures, by localizing decisions about revenues and expenditures on the margin.  Upstate could choose to go on spending more if it wanted, but without draining Downstate to pay for it.

Consider the school aid formula I suggested.  It would allow Upstate New York – everyone in every part of it – to have a national average level of public school expenditures per student with little or no local tax burden.  Zip.  Nothing.  And, since incomes and spending are higher Downstate (whether that buys a higher quality of life is an open question), a substantial share of the state income and sales taxes used to fund that education Upstate would be collected outside the region, in Downstate New York.  Meaning an average level of spending would cost Upstate a below-average level of state and local taxes.  Even if spending were increased to 25% more than the national average, state taxes would still cover 80% the total, keeping local property taxes low.

What would the change in fiscal structures and priorities I have outlined thus far mean for the economy of the one part of the state whose economy people talk about:  Upstate New York?   It would mean the ability to have a much lower cost structure, provided Upstate was willing to live with lower public expenditures, by localizing decisions about revenues and expenditures on the margin.  Upstate could choose to go on spending more if it wanted, but without draining Downstate to pay for it.

Consider the school aid formula I suggested.  It would allow Upstate New York – everyone in every part of it – to have a national average level of public school expenditures per student with little or no local tax burden.  Zip.  Nothing.  And, since incomes and spending are higher Downstate (whether that buys a higher quality of life is an open question), a substantial share of the state income and sales taxes used to fund that education Upstate would be collected outside the region, in Downstate New York.  Meaning an average level of spending would cost Upstate a below-average level of state and local taxes.  Even if spending were increased to 25% more than the national average, state taxes would still cover 80% the total, keeping local property taxes low.

The September Current Employment Survey data from the New York State Department of Labor is out, and with the kids back in school and the schools staffed up we can now look back on the Pataki era in public employment in full.  And here is something you won’t read in the New York Post or the New York Sun, that won’t be analyzed by the Manhattan Institute, and that won’t be brought up by Republican candidate for Governor John Faso.  Nor will it be mentioned by the New York Times, analyzed by the Fiscal Policy Institute, or pointed to by Democratic candidate for Governor Eliot Spitzer.  From September 1994 to September 2006, local government employment in the portion of New York State outside New York City rose by 93,600.  This in the face of a much-discussed stagnation in population and private employment there.  This includes a below-average gain of 2,300 from September 2005 to September 2006.