Siena Poll: New Yorkers prefer circuit breaker almost 2-1, Newsday Doesn't Get It

Today’s Siena NY poll confirms what should be obvious, New Yorkers prefer a tax cut in the form of a circuit breaker over a cap in the amount property taxes can increase:

"Voters continue to support the circuit breaker over the cap if only one action is taken 58-33 percent (up from 52-36 percent last month)."

Although they prefer spending cuts to raising their own taxes to balance the budget, New Yorkers weren’t asked if they support the millionaire’s tax, which previous polls showed was backed 4 – 1.

E.J. McMahon from the Empire Center is shocked (!) that defenders of public education appear to be working together to fight a school funding cap.

Newsday’s editorial board doesn’t love the WFP’s ad campaign against the school-funding cap:

“A television ad from the Working Families Party and the Alliance for Quality Education calls the cap a "gimmick" and a "scheme" that "won't cut property taxes." At the same time, NYSUT's Web site says that $460 million in local revenue for education would have been lost over the past four years had the cap been in place. So, which is it?”

We're sorry to ruin Newsday's Gotcha moment, but here's the explanation: a school-spending cap doesn't lower property taxes, only the rate they can increase. That much is clear. Faced with rising costs like fuel and healthcare, many communities around the state have voted to tax themselves at rates above the would-be cap to ensure their children's education when state aid for schools has faltered. With a cap in place, cities and towns could be trapped - unable to raise their own taxes, stuck with rising costs, but left out to dry by Albany. That's how the cap threatens our schools.

A little more explanation from Andrew Reschovsky, from the Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who writes in Saturday’s Times Union:

"A tax cap will tie the hands of local school officials the next time state aid is reduced. They will have no choice but to reduce education spending. And now, with New York state facing a budget deficit of more than $6 billion, Paterson has indicated that he may be forced to recommend cuts in state education spending.

"While tight budgets might at first produce some efficiencies, evidence from other states that have lived under property tax caps suggests that the long-term consequence of restraining school spending in a world of rising costs is a marked decline in student performance. The research suggests passage of revenue limits can lead to larger class sizes, a lessened ability to hire the best qualified teachers and lower test scores."

Elsewhere, legislative leaders move toward a deal on spending cuts (see also here and here).

High on the list of good ideas for prudent spending cuts, the Times reminds us, is reform of the state’s Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs), which give away millions in tax breaks to companies that fail to produce the new jobs they’ve promised.

Last word to Reschovsky:

"The final irony is that the property tax caps will provide very little tax relief to those New York homeowners facing the heaviest burdens.… If the goal of the New York Legislature is to provide property tax relief to those homeowners whose property taxes exceed their ability to pay, a much better policy would be a so-called circuit breaker or homestead exemption that that targets property tax relief to those individuals most in need."