Message from Liz . . .
Even in the best of economic times, it's never "easy" to balance the State's budget. This year it was particularly difficult because our State government had less money and more debt, while the need for public services has only increased. This is not a problem unique to New York; 44 States are facing combined budget deficits of over $112 billion this year, as the nation struggles to climb its way out of the recession.
I knew that painful cuts had to be made to vital programs, but I believed that the only fair scenario was one in which the sacrifices were shared by all. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues don't feel the same way. Sadly, this budget disproportionately hurt poor families, the disabled, and women and children, who statistically rely on government more than others, while the richest individuals and companies enjoyed an increase in tax breaks. Revenue that could have been used to save countless services was simply ignored and roughly $29 billion in tax expenditures was left on the table, untouched. These expenditures are designed to accomplish certain public goals, but I argue that we should carefully review each and every one to ensure that they are, in fact, achieving these goals, because I am certain that many do not. Many of you have heard the debate over the high earners tax, or the "millionaires' tax," a surcharge on the wealthiest New Yorkers that could generate billions for the State of New York in just two years. While I adamantly argued, along with my Democratic colleagues, that this surcharge should not expire, the Governor and Senate Republicans insisted that we exempt those in the most affluent tiers of society from contributing their fair share, allowing the rich to get richer while the poor disproportionately shoulder the burden of cuts. How is that in the best interest of the public? Last month a study by the Economic Policy Institute found the richest five percent of Americans control 63.5 percent of the wealth in the United States. To quote the Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, "growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets--our people--in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality--such as those associated with monopoly, power and preferential tax treatment for special interests--undermine the efficiency of the economy." But, as I've often said, this was never about just one tax proposal. It's disturbing how many other tax credits are worked into our budget. For example, did you know that a rehabilitation credit for historic barns cost the State $93.2 million in revenue? Or that a sales tax exemption on precious metals cost the State $99 million? Sure, there may be some legitimate arguments as to why such expenditures are needed, but I find it hard to believe these breaks provide the public a greater service than that of, say, schools or hospitals, two groups that took monumental cuts. Surely we could have saved critical revenue sharing for localities (NYC lost over $300 million) if we had closed just a few inequitable tax loopholes. Also frustrating was the fact that the renewal and strengthening of rent regulation laws was not included in the budget, as I, and many others, had hoped and fought for. While the Governor has fiercely stated that he will not introduce any new taxes, the irony is that an expiration of the rent regulation laws would actually be an overwhelming tax on middle class New Yorkers. If we don't protect the millions of units of affordable housing in and around New York City then we will effectively be taxing people out of their homes. But the fight is not over and Governor Cuomo has publicly stated that he wants to both renew and strengthen rent regulation laws. I plan to hold him to his word. Fortunately, there was some silver lining to the otherwise bleak budget. I am happy we were able to successfully restore money to Senior Centers, allowing them to keep their doors open. Another bit of good news, which is of particular importance to Manhattan where we face serious overcrowding in schools, is that the final budget did not include the Governor's original proposal to cut 50% of school building aid. This proposal would have cost NYC between $400 and $600 million in school construction reimbursement next year and, Mayor Bloomberg claimed, would result in the City reneging on the already-approved school capital development plans. Luckily, we legislators from NYC were able to remove this language from the budget. There is also some solace in the fact that very difficult fights were resolved in an orderly and timely manner, but I would argue that deference to punctuality should not be overly praised when so many groups and communities have lost so much. We should have taken the time to evaluate the good, the bad and the ugly of our current tax code, to ensure ever dollar was spent wisely; instead, the Republicans rushed through the process and ignored some important steps of due diligence, just so we could run to the press and claim we passed an early budget. I do recognize the need for cuts, and voted for those budget bills that I felt implemented cuts in a responsible manner. But when it came down to it, I could not vote yes on those portions of the budget that granted reprieve to individuals and corporations that have the most, while balancing the budget on the backs of those who have the least. I therefore voted against parts of this budget because it did not demand sacrifices from all, only some, and it was not the best we could have done. On a Separate note, it is important to take notice of people that are inspiring. Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to chat with 10 year old Lauren Shields, a heart transplant recipient who came to the Capitol supporting legislation that would require drivers license applicants to answer whether or not they want to become an organ donor--either "yes" or "not at this time." New York's rate of organ donation is quite poor, with just 11.1 percent of ID holders registered as donors. Colorado, Iowa and Montana have rates above 60 percent. Lauren became ill just after her seventh birthday, suffering a virus that led to degenerative heart failure. Two weeks after being put on cardiac and respiratory life support, she received a donor heart in March 2009. She was quite eloquent about the need to ensure more organs are available for donation. Who knew it was so easy to save lives and become a hero? For more information log on to the New York Organ Donor Network: http://www.donatelifeny.org/.