This week, New York state passed a painful austerity budget, slashing billions of dollars in programs from hospitals, schools and other programs without raising taxes.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has made the argument that the Empire state is already taxed to the point of exhaustion, and that we have to make cuts rather than increase revenue.

But he's wrong.  There is a massive source of new revenue out there that is going untapped, one that New Yorkers desperately need.

I'm talking about the Federal treasury.  And no, I'm not suggesting that Gov. Cuomo advocate for a hike in the Federal income tax.

But he should demand an end to the massive and shameful redistribution of taxpayer wealth.

The system now in place results in heavy taxation in states such as New York, New Jersey and California, with a wildly disproportionate amount of that money flowing into other low-tax states, such as Alaska and Wyoming.

According to the most recent parsable data that I could find — for 2004 — the average New Yorker paid $7,940 in Federal taxes.

But in that year the Federal government only spent roughly $6,200 per person in programs here, everything from Medicaid reimbursements to road and highway building to education funding.

What happened to the additional $1,700 per capita?  It went elsewhere, paying for programs and infrastructure in other states.

Some states have it even worse than New York.  New Jersey receives back only 61 cents for every dollar that their workers pay in Federal taxes.

Connecticut — the most highly taxed state in the nation — receives back only 69 cents on the dollar.

There was a time when this redistribution of wealth made sense.  America was a frontier nation.

Wealthy eastern states were helping to build the infrastructure — everything from the Tennessee Valley Authority to Hoover Dam to interstate highways — in parts of the country that were underdeveloped and struggling

But that era is long since over.  Many of the states that are now being stripped of Federal tax dollars, including New York, Illinois, California and New Jersey, are in crisis.

We desperately need every tax dollar as we rebuild our economies, our cities, our schools and our infrastructure.

There's another, urgent reason to stop this unfair redistribution of wealth:  It would allow our cheated states to lower state income taxes to more equitable levels.

Because states such as Alaska, Mississippi, and New Mexico receive a lavish bounty in Federal spending (roughly $2 for every $1 that they pay in Federal taxes) they don't have to raise state taxes to pay for their programs.

Why should they, when we're picking up the tab?  Alaska — one of the biggest recipients of Federal cream — doesn't even have a state income tax.

Which means that a state like New York is forced to compete for jobs and businesses with low-tax, high-benefit states — and we are forced to subsidize them in the process.

As Western New York crumbles, and once-proud cities like Buffalo continue to decline, this has to end.  We can no longer afford to build roads and high speed data lines and dams in other states, while our own crumble.

Governor Cuomo has proved with this state budget that he can win big fights.

It's time for him to  rally New York state's Congressional delegation — Republican and Democratic — and demand that New York state receive at least 90 cents on the dollar for our contribution to the Federal treasury.

The other ten percent should continue to go to non-state-specific spending, such as national defense, and border security.  That seems only fair, and responsible.

But it simply doesn't wash for one out of every five Federal dollars taxed in New York to be siphoned away.

The stakes here are high, maybe even "transformational," to borrow one of the governor's favorite words.

According to my back-of-the-napkin-very-rough calculation, bringing our return-on-investment up to 90% would mean an additional $27 billion in Federal spending each year for the Empire state.

To put that in context, it's nearly three times the amount of the state budget cuts that Albany just approved.

Sure, other states would feel the pinch if we bring more of our Federal dollars home.

But if they really want all those programs, all those new roads and bridges, teachers and hospitals, they can boost their own state income taxes and pick up the bill themselves.

Yesterday, former Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava spoke to local government leaders in the Adirondacks about Governor Andrew Cuomo's campaign to reduce the number of towns, villages and school districts across New York.

"My perspective from the Local Government Unit in the Department of State is not to tell towns and villages what you need to do," Scozzafava said.

"It's to enter into a dialogue about how we at all different levels of government can be more effective and more efficient."

As head of the Local Government Unit at the Department of State, Scozzafava is a leading voice on this issue.

But contrasted with Governor Cuomo's take-no-prisoners approach to downsizing Albany, Scozzafava's tone was downright conversational.

"It does make sense for every town and village to begin to have a discussion about how we can do things perhaps a little more efficiently regionally."

There are currently more than 2,200 towns, villages, cities and school districts in New York.  That's far more separate local governments than you'll find in most states with comparable populations.

Some critics have questioned whether this gentle, collaborative approach — which has been tried repeatedly over the years — will shrink that number any time soon.

Earlier this month, the Glens Falls Post Star called for the Cuomo administration to develop a much more aggressive plan for erasing overlapping or redundant levels of government.

Letting a village administer and vote on its own demise is like asking the kids to decide whether their parents should get divorced.

They’re going to stick with what’s familiar, what’s safe and what’s known. With rare exceptions, village residents are always going to support keeping the village intact, no matter how inefficient, expensive or outdated the might be.

If the state is serious about reducing the number of redundant governments and improving efficiency at the local level, it’s going to have to come up with a far more objective method than letting the affected community directly vote on it.

One might argue that Cuomo has simply adopted the old conservative strategy of forcing government efficiencies by "starving the beast."

He's slashing aid for local governments and school districts, while also proposing a cap on local property tax increases.  We've already seen that approach force some local leaders into closer cost-saving partnerships.

This from the Adirondack Daily Enterprise:

[Tupper Lake school superintendent Seth McGowan] said the Tri-Lakes superintendents are looking at ramping up partnerships that would save money on things like business and administrative operations.

He wouldn't get into specifics, but he did say there are some consolidating measures the three are looking at for the coming budget year and others for further out in the future.

"This is not a new idea," McGowan said. "We're only going to be doing more of it in the next year or two."

So what do you think?  Is Governor Cuomo moving fast enough to shrink the thousands of local taxing entities?  Should the state even be taking on this fight?

As always, your comments welcome.