Search
WFP being disingenuous
The Working Families Party, along with several other similarly worthwhile organizations, is up in arms about the governor's tax cap plan. In a press release emailed earlier, they state in part:
The Working Families Party (WFP) and the Alliance for Quality Education (AQE) launched a major TV ad campaign today against Gov. David Paterson’s “tax cap” plan.
The ad – titled “Wrong Answer” – quotes the New York Times’ description of Paterson’s tax cap “gimmick.” The so-called “tax cap” is the wrong answer to the serious problem of property taxes. Similar caps have devastated public education in states like California, Massachusetts and Illinois. The ad urges New Yorkers to call Gov. Paterson and tell him that “hurting schools is the wrong answer.”
The 30-second ad can be viewed here and on a new web site: www.RealTaxSolutions.org.
It will air starting today on a mix of broadcast and cable stations in Albany, Buffalo, Long Island, New York City, Rochester and Syracuse, and run through August 19th, the day the State Assembly returns for a special session. The cost of the ad buy is approximately $1.5 million.
Instead of a tax cap, the groups are arguing for a circuit breaker, an alternative proposal that caps property taxes depending on income and, presumably, won't cause painful cuts to their own constituencies.
On the conference call to introduce the campaign, I asked Dan Cantor some pointed questions. He had acknowledged earlier in the call that the budget would make painful choices inevitable. So, which cuts where was he willing to countenance? The answer: we need to raise taxes on high-end earners and seek cost efficiencies in state government, such as on procurement. Yes, correct, that's not an answer.
I countered that with the simple observation that it's an election year, which makes the prospect of tax hikes unlikely, and that efficiencies in state government, if attainable, won't cover the costs we're talking about here. Unfortunately, nobody had an answer to that.
I'm normally a big fan of the WFP, but this is disingenuous tripe. If you oppose cuts that hurt your own constituency, that's a fair case - but then, it's incumbent on you to say who else should do the bleeding. What makes that even more egregious is the massive ad buy - Cantor estimates that his ads will be seen by viewers in targeted districts up to seven times a day - with its tearing at the heartstrings over the suffering children (or more to the point, the suffering teachers unions). The simple fact is that the governor's plan imposes austerities, but preserves a growth rate for education spending above the rate of inflation. Another simple fact: there is a budget crisis. This is real.
In short, WFP is spending one and a half million dollars to do what special interests in New York have always done, leading us directly to our lamentable state today: demand that someone else bear whatever pain needs to be borne, anybody but the teachers unions, that is. And to make sure they get what they want, the tag line on their campaign, with no sense of irony (or shame) whatsoever, reads simply "Tell David Paterson hurting our schools is the wrong answer".
Maybe they're right, and Paterson's plan is the wrong answer. However, WFP and allies don't have an answer, period.
WFP has an answer
The WFP has an answer, as you note yourself: repeal income tax giveaways for the rich and give working families a real tax cut through a "circuit breaker" - targeted relief for those who need it most.
The budget gap is real, but before we ask the most vulnerable New Yorkers to bear the entire burden of budget cuts, shouldn't we ask the most fortunate New Yorkers (people who have seen their tax burden cut in half over the last 25 years) to pay their fair share?
Of course, I should point out, The Gov's "tax cap" doesn't cut the budget either.
Paterson Being Disingenuous
is more like it. The Governor’s plan is actually a green light for local school districts to increase tax levy by 4%, blow past that with a simple 55% of the vote, and “bank” an additional 1.5% for the following year if they stayed under the cap. That’s an automatic increase no matter how you slice and dice it. So it’s a lot of hoopla about nothing. Why defend that silly lump of coal, for the same guy who expands his own budget while telling everyone else to cut?a>
That's not the height of disingenuous tripe?
Expanding his own
budget while telling everyone else to cut. I'll try that link one more time
Tripe?
The main problem real progressives have with the governor's proposed budget cuts is that they start, and thus far seemingly end, with spending cuts. Spending cuts typically effect the most vulnerable and powerless groups within society. You can use all sorts of anti-union demagoguery to defend the cuts, (which, by the way, have been the tried and true practice of the right for the past 30 years) yet, it does not make these services less vital. Real people are going to hurt by these cuts, not just the mythical image of the fat, lazy, spoiled union workers living up the good life while the rest of the state crumbles.
Tax increases to the wealthy should be our first priority here. The last 30 years have seen the tax burden of the wealthy decrease substantially. The last 32 years has seen the personal tax rate paid by the top tax bracket in New York State cut in half. A moderate and fair tax on the wealthy should be the first order of business. To suggest that a tax on the wealthy is impossible in an election year, while implying spending cuts are a political must, is rather asinine. Spending cuts are generally considered politically dangerous in an election year as well. Both tax increases and spending cuts will produce losers. The difference is that with spending cuts, the losers are not those who fill campaign coffers but rather those that lack power, influence, and representation.
The only exception to this is when the spending cuts affect unions and organized labor. During these times, however, these groups are deemed "special interests" and are depicted as hurting our political process and economic well-being. Of course, the fact that these organizations, despite all their imperfections, represent middle-class workers, and are fighting to maintain social programs that benefits the state's poorest individuals, is completely irrelevant.
There are good ideas for price controls contained within Paterson's proposals, and many of these should and probably will be implemented. However, the first order of business must be a tax increase. It is simply unfair and regressive to ask the poor and middle class to sacrifice first, while maintaining that we must only ask for what amounts to a much smaller sacrifice from the rich after we have already tried to squeeze every last penny from gutting our social services.
Okay.
So now that we've clearly established that this post is rightwing anti-union demagoguery, please inform where you'd apply the paring knife to the budget, and how you'd get your more equitable tax structure through the legislature.
Alright
First of all, we don't face a budget crisis in this fiscal year. Minor adjustments at most will be needed this year. So if the political environment in an election year is not one conducive to balancing the budget, then we can and should wait until next year to do so. Secondly, as I stated above, there are good ideas floated around in Paterson's proposed budget cuts to increase state saving without necessarily removing the programs many New Yorkers rely upon. If a tax increase on the wealthy and smart spending curtailing doesn't close the budget gap (and there are those that feel it will, as the present crisis has been overblown), then we can address some expansive spending cuts. Labor will still be stubborn about such cuts, but you'll find them much more willing to negotiate if the cuts are substantially smaller, and they've seen a commitment to force New York's highest income earners to contribute to the shared sacrifice.
Again...
...that's pretty much gauzy verbiage without the benefit of saying much. What are these smart cuts you envision, what are they worth, and how do you create the environment to raise revenue without burdening an incoming Democratic Senate majority with the tax-and-spend label?
Right now, frankly, a smart cut seems to be one where the affected constituencies don't have a well-organized lobby and are unable to inflict political pain. I submit that that's not the way to create structural reforms.
Taking the long view
It helps to take a step back and consider how we got here. Of course, the declining economy and poor returns on Wall Street have caused state revenue to plummet.
But the other part of the story is the massive tax giveaways that the wealthiest New Yorkers have enjoyed over the last several decades, cuts that left New York vulnerable to exactly the kind of economic downturn we’re seeing now.
Consider this: over the last 25 years, the richest New Yorkers have seen their state taxes literally cut in half. Because sales and property taxes hit working people hardest, our state’s tax system is now literally upside down – the more you make, the less you pay in taxes as a percentage of you income. (It’s shocking but true – the richest 1% of New Yorkers pay 6.5% of their income in state taxes, the middle class pays about 11.6% of theirs).
The highest tax bracket in New York now begins at $42,000, meaning a salesman or a nurse pays taxes at the same rate as someone who makes $1 million every year.
I think it’s also important to remember that spending has increased in New York because we rightly chose to invest our future:
-We chose to enact universal Pre-K for all New Yorkers, so every family could give their children a head start.
-We chose to finally end school funding inequities and instead are investing in smaller class sizes and better teacher training.
-We chose to give millions of New York’s children access to healthcare coverage and help seniors with the costs of prescription drugs.
And those were the right choices. Now, with the budget crisis looming, we have to make another choice: when times are tough, who should sacrifice, and how much?
Prudent budget cuts need to happen, but we need to step back and ask the wealthiest among us – those who have seen their incomes balloon and their tax burdens shrink – to sacrifice as well.