Governor Eliot Spitzer's State of the State address last Wednesday (January 9th) was long on goals and short on ways to accomplish them. He did say that there would be no new taxes. He acknowledged that the general economic situation was not good but made no reference to the budget deficit of $4 billion that the state faces this year.
How he plans to pay for achieving the goals he set out will have to wait until he presents his budget on January 22. Whether it will "adapt to fiscal realities" exhibit the "hard choices" and indicate a willingness to "live within our mean" will have to wait for then.
One thing is sure however, new programs in the areas of education, heath care, housing, public safety will be costly and unless the Governor is willing to recommend and the legislature will adopt cuts in other programs; the burden of such new programs will be passed on to the people of New York State in one form or another.
For instance, his proposal for a family leave bill is a mandate to business that will increase their payroll costs. Governor Spitzer believes it to be unfair to ask hard working people to choose between economic security and caring for a family member. There is no conflict here; one is a means to the end. You seek economic gain so that you might provide for your needs and those of your family. While we are sympathetic to anyone who finds themselves in a quandary as to which to focus on at any one particular moment, saddling business with the cost, a cost passed on to the taxpayers when they are wearing their consumer hat is but another example of "something for nothing" mentality.
The same can be said of the Governor's commitment to children's health coverage. While the desire that every child be insured is noble, allowing a family making $80,000 a year to avoid the necessity of providing for their own children's health care while they spend their money on numerous electronic gadgets and expensive vehicles merely because someone has convinced them that these are necessity for the modern American family is not encouraging them to make the hard choices that others have made.
Government funding of programs, like mandates on business and individuals have an economic impact on the citizenry. Shifting the cost from one economic sector to the other does ultimately effect all sectors, which may be reflected in less economic activity, fewer jobs and additional economic uncertainty for those ostensibly being helped.
Governor Spitzer says that he, together with the legislature will look into ways to cap property taxes. This popular proposal, seen and sold as a way to address rising school taxes, merely shifts the tax burden away from the property tax to other taxes and fees. While some people may be better off depending upon how it is structured, others will be worse off. Meanwhile the school budgets continue to increase as school districts find themselves operating more and more with both federal and state government mandates. Governor Spitzer has promised to create a commission to, among other things, study the effect of these "unfunded mandates" Appointing a commission, Governor, is not the equivalent of making hard choices.
The most outlandish proposal presented by the Governor is one to sell, or privatize the New York State Lottery in order to raise money for a $4 billion dollar endowment fund which would provide a revenue source of $200 million a year to aid the State and City University Systems and provide a quality education for every New Yorker. The assumption here is that whoever purchases this stake in the Lottery would be able to continue to contribute the same revenues to the state that the lottery currently brings in, plus provide them as well as the state with a return on the $4 billion dollar investment.
If there is an additional $200 to$400 million that can be squeezed out of this ignoble revenue source, maybe the state should hold on to it, and merely hire as employees those people who could manage it better.
We would hope that instead of selling a stake in the Lottery, the state would make the hard decision necessary to curtail waste in government so that it might do away with this pernicious revenue source that while a harmless endeavor for many, preys upon the vulnerability of so many in far worse ways than the predatory mortgage lenders that the Governor mentioned. The advertising enticing people to gamble their way to economic security is far worse than the tobacco companies use of cartoon figures to appeal to the impressible minds of youth.
While there are certainly exceptions, economic security for most comes from hard work, not chance. Not only does government policy help instill the concept that "something for nothing" is possible and that education, hard work and study is no more likely than chance; it also plants the seed that anything one has acquired by hard work can be taken from them for the "common good."
William P. McMillen, former chair New York LIbertarian Party, 2 time candidate for US Senate, and 1982 candidate for New York State Comptroller
Well said Bill, although I do like the idea of a property tax cap. You're most likely right that another tax will be raised somewhere else to replace lost revenue. The idea of actually spending less is inconceivable.