Tag: Albany

During the Pataki administration, New York City’s pleas from the business community for overall lower taxes, and from poverty advocates for more spending on the poor, have largely been ignored.  Not so the whines of suburban New York about its high cost of living – high property taxes, high housing costs, and the lack of alternatives to multiple automobile ownership, all of which are pricing out the young.  When our politicians talk about bringing down the high cost of living, however, their “solutions” have generally involved subsidizing the high costs with taxes collected elsewhere, rather than reducing those costs.  Reducing taxes in the suburbs is difficult (but not impossible) because suburban living is expensive by design, and in some ways by choice.  And unless and until suburbanites become willing to change their choices and bring the cost of living down, the high cost of suburban living will remain a phony issue.

During the Pataki administration, New York City’s pleas from the business community for overall lower taxes, and from poverty advocates for more spending on the poor, have largely been ignored.  Not so the whines of suburban New York about its high cost of living – high property taxes, high housing costs, and the lack of alternatives to multiple automobile ownership, all of which are pricing out the young.  When our politicians talk about bringing down the high cost of living, however, their “solutions” have generally involved subsidizing the high costs with taxes collected elsewhere, rather than reducing those costs.  Reducing taxes in the suburbs is difficult (but not impossible) because suburban living is expensive by design, and in some ways by choice.  And unless and until suburbanites become willing to change their choices and bring the cost of living down, the high cost of suburban living will remain a phony issue.

The Manhattan Institute, the Public Policy Institute, and the New York Post continually moan about the extent to which New York State’s economy and population grow more slowly than the national average.  The reason, they assert, is because New York’s state and local taxes are high, and the solution is to cut taxes on people like themselves until they are near or below the national average.  Since New York has more pension obligations and debts than the national average, and the federal government covers a lower share of Medicaid and social services costs here, this would require spending on public services and benefits that were much lower than the national average.  In other words, all public services in the state, or at least those outside certain affluent suburbs, would have to be funded like New York City’s schools.

The Manhattan Institute, the Public Policy Institute, and the New York Post continually moan about the extent to which New York State’s economy and population grow more slowly than the national average.  The reason, they assert, is because New York’s state and local taxes are high, and the solution is to cut taxes on people like themselves until they are near or below the national average.  Since New York has more pension obligations and debts than the national average, and the federal government covers a lower share of Medicaid and social services costs here, this would require spending on public services and benefits that were much lower than the national average.  In other words, all public services in the state, or at least those outside certain affluent suburbs, would have to be funded like New York City’s schools.

The Manhattan Institute, the Public Policy Institute, and the New York Post continually moan about the extent to which New York State’s economy and population grow more slowly than the national average.  The reason, they assert, is because New York’s state and local taxes are high, and the solution is to cut taxes on people like themselves until they are near or below the national average.  Since New York has more pension obligations and debts than the national average, and the federal government covers a lower share of Medicaid and social services costs here, this would require spending on public services and benefits that were much lower than the national average.  In other words, all public services in the state, or at least those outside certain affluent suburbs, would have to be funded like New York City’s schools.

The Manhattan Institute, the Public Policy Institute, and the New York Post continually moan about the extent to which New York State’s economy and population grow more slowly than the national average.  The reason, they assert, is because New York’s state and local taxes are high, and the solution is to cut taxes on people like themselves until they are near or below the national average.  Since New York has more pension obligations and debts than the national average, and the federal government covers a lower share of Medicaid and social services costs here, this would require spending on public services and benefits that were much lower than the national average.  In other words, all public services in the state, or at least those outside certain affluent suburbs, would have to be funded like New York City’s schools.

Happy Labor Day.  I began the day looking through the news, and seeing the usual round of Labor Day stories about the New York economy.  There is no doubt New York State’s economy is not the strongest in the country.  There is no doubt there are people in this state with economic problems.  And there is no doubt that bad state and local government policies play a role in creating those problems. 

And yet, hearing what is said in the media, by interest groups, and by elected and would-be elected officials, I find that the state’s problems are generally vastly exaggerated and misdiagnosed.  Some of the purported problems are inherent conditions which cannot be remedied; others are the flip side of good things New Yorkers would be loath to give up.  Some of the exaggerated problems are little more than a disingenuous excuse for more public money for interests that aren’t necessarily the most in need – a plea for the continuation, or even expansion, of policies that were bad to begin with.  Meanwhile the state’s actual economic problems, as I see them, are generally not on the state government agenda, mainly because there isn’t an organized group giving campaign contributions that is interested in them.  I’ll discuss the real problems, and my suggested solutions, in later essays (probably next week).  First, however, I’ll go over what I see as phony or exaggerated problems:  slow job and population growth in New York City, poverty and income inequality in New York City, the high cost of living in the Downstate Suburbs, and job losses and decline in Upstate New York.

Happy Labor Day.  I began the day looking through the news, and seeing the usual round of Labor Day stories about the New York economy.  There is no doubt New York State’s economy is not the strongest in the country.  There is no doubt there are people in this state with economic problems.  And there is no doubt that bad state and local government policies play a role in creating those problems. 

And yet, hearing what is said in the media, by interest groups, and by elected and would-be elected officials, I find that the state’s problems are generally vastly exaggerated and misdiagnosed.  Some of the purported problems are inherent conditions which cannot be remedied; others are the flip side of good things New Yorkers would be loath to give up.  Some of the exaggerated problems are little more than a disingenuous excuse for more public money for interests that aren’t necessarily the most in need – a plea for the continuation, or even expansion, of policies that were bad to begin with.  Meanwhile the state’s actual economic problems, as I see them, are generally not on the state government agenda, mainly because there isn’t an organized group giving campaign contributions that is interested in them.  I’ll discuss the real problems, and my suggested solutions, in later essays (probably next week).  First, however, I’ll go over what I see as phony or exaggerated problems:  slow job and population growth in New York City, poverty and income inequality in New York City, the high cost of living in the Downstate Suburbs, and job losses and decline in Upstate New York.

Happy Labor Day.  I began the day looking through the news, and seeing the usual round of Labor Day stories about the New York economy.  There is no doubt New York State’s economy is not the strongest in the country.  There is no doubt there are people in this state with economic problems.  And there is no doubt that bad state and local government policies play a role in creating those problems. 

And yet, hearing what is said in the media, by interest groups, and by elected and would-be elected officials, I find that the state’s problems are generally vastly exaggerated and misdiagnosed.  Some of the purported problems are inherent conditions which cannot be remedied; others are the flip side of good things New Yorkers would be loath to give up.  Some of the exaggerated problems are little more than a disingenuous excuse for more public money for interests that aren’t necessarily the most in need – a plea for the continuation, or even expansion, of policies that were bad to begin with.  Meanwhile the state’s actual economic problems, as I see them, are generally not on the state government agenda, mainly because there isn’t an organized group giving campaign contributions that is interested in them.  I’ll discuss the real problems, and my suggested solutions, in later essays (probably next week).  First, however, I’ll go over what I see as phony or exaggerated problems:  slow job and population growth in New York City, poverty and income inequality in New York City, the high cost of living in the Downstate Suburbs, and job losses and decline in Upstate New York.

Happy Labor Day.  I began the day looking through the news, and seeing the usual round of Labor Day stories about the New York economy.  There is no doubt New York State’s economy is not the strongest in the country.  There is no doubt there are people in this state with economic problems.  And there is no doubt that bad state and local government policies play a role in creating those problems. 

And yet, hearing what is said in the media, by interest groups, and by elected and would-be elected officials, I find that the state’s problems are generally vastly exaggerated and misdiagnosed.  Some of the purported problems are inherent conditions which cannot be remedied; others are the flip side of good things New Yorkers would be loath to give up.  Some of the exaggerated problems are little more than a disingenuous excuse for more public money for interests that aren’t necessarily the most in need – a plea for the continuation, or even expansion, of policies that were bad to begin with.  Meanwhile the state’s actual economic problems, as I see them, are generally not on the state government agenda, mainly because there isn’t an organized group giving campaign contributions that is interested in them.  I’ll discuss the real problems, and my suggested solutions, in later essays (probably next week).  First, however, I’ll go over what I see as phony or exaggerated problems:  slow job and population growth in New York City, poverty and income inequality in New York City, the high cost of living in the Downstate Suburbs, and job losses and decline in Upstate New York.