Some common sense from the pages of today's New York Times and the Times Union, and the Daily News' Michael Goodwin reveals his need for a fact checker.
In the TU columnist Fred Lebrun weighs in on the budget gap. Lebrun writes:
"I've called some of the more active fiscal minds around town who deal with state finance. The consensus is the governor has to come up with a profound revenue source that isn't Wall Street, not just advocate for cuts in expenditures.
The only logical way for the governor to get his makeup revenues in a hurry, as well as deal with the looming out-years deficit … is to bring back a temporary tax surcharge on our wealthiest.
From 2003 to 2005, a .85 percent increase for those making $500,000 or more raised the highest tax bracket to 7.7 percent. New York's current highest tax rate is back down to 6.85 percent. We're pretty nice to our millionaires.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver wants to bring back a fractional surcharge for those earning $1 million or more. New Jersey has done something similar, raising its highest tax bracket to 8.9 percent.
Will this work? Conservatively, a tax surcharge on our wealthiest will bring in $2.1 billion to $2.4 billion a year. That washes away a lot of red ink. Critics insist such a surcharge will only chase away our millionaires, who will flee New York in droves for friendlier turf. Well, it didn't happen from 2003 to 2005. We gained rather than lost millionaires, in substantial numbers.
Certainly there is always a risk, but I am reasonably certain of one thing: Those millionaires won't be setting up shop in New Jersey any time soon."
Thankfully members of the legislature agree. The quote of the day goes to Assembly member Richard Brodsky in today's New York Times putting the deficit in a historical context. Brodsky on the Assembly's response to the Governor's plan: "What I think you'll see the Legislature do is force a debate about fairness and shared sacrifice."
And about that shared sacrifice, over at the Daily News budget cuts must have forced them to lay off their fact checkers. Goodwin writes in his hosanna to budget cutting:
"But a sluggish economy isn't the biggest reason New York is where it is. The state actually outspent the boom years, with the budget nearly doubling since 1995, sustained only by exorbitant tax hikes and unsustainable levels of debt."
Goodwin's right that spending is up - but he fails to point out why. It's high because we - all of us -- decided that we wanted to have smaller schools and lower class size. We instituted universal Pre-K, so New Yorkers everywhere would be able to give their children the head start they need. And we expanded healthcare coverage for thousands of New York's children. That's why spending is up. And that's what we're going to have to put on the chopping block if the Governor plans to balance this budget through cuts alone. Food for thought for Daily News readers.
But Michael, exorbitant tax hikes? Did we miss something? Large multiyear tax cuts enacted in Governor Cuomo's last year in office and Governor Pataki's first six years - tax cuts largely targeted at the wealthiest New Yorkers - will cost the state more than $16 billion this year alone. New York State has cut the tax rate on the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers by more than 50%. Our top marginal tax rate is now lower than in California, New Jersey and ten other states. If we had merely kept in place the high income tax surcharge from 2003 we'd be well on our way to solving the state's budget problems. You can't give away the store without ending up in a hole in hard times.
I know Goodwin is fond of a challenge (see his duel over bagels with Albany D.A. David Soares). So here's one of our own - debate me on taxes. Venue of your choice. I'll bring the bagels.
Posts
