Sunday Opinion: Reacting to the Governors
Governor Andrew Cuomo’s state of the state address drew mostly rave reviews on the New York side of Lake Champlain this week — with some spices of skepticism thrown in — this week.
Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin also drew strong reviews for his state of the state message.
First from the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, which called Cuomo’s address “rousing and rational,” but also wrestled issue by issue with his agenda. One example is mandate reform.
Agree: The state must focus on mandate relief for local governments.
But: Gov. Cuomo insisted the property tax levy cap has worked. That’s kind of true, but things aren’t that different yet and we haven’t seen how it will play out for schools. It has put pressure on local governments to solve their own problems, which is good, but now that urgency shifts to the state to make its mandates fair.
It will probably be necessary to shift some of these expenses – Medicaid, pensions and schools – from property taxes to state income taxes. That could be a budget buster in Albany, but income taxes are more fair than property taxes since they corrspond with one’s ability to pay.
The Glens Falls Post Star also praised Governor Cuomo for offering leadership on issues ranging from property taxes to gay marriage.
Gov. Cuomo has made an impressive start, showing a seriousness of purpose and an ability to get things done. But one year does not a legacy make. If the governor is going to change New York’s reputation as a home for patronage and waste, and get the state’s economy rolling, he’s going to have keep pushing just as hard in 2012, and well beyond.And then the Vermont picture from the Burlington Free Press, which chided Shumlin for going light on specifics.
The State of the State speech was largely a celebration of the Vermont spirit, sorely tested by a tough year marked by two natural disasters — the prolonged and widespread flood in the spring and Tropical Storm Irene in late August.
The tone of the address was wholly appropriate given the storm response showed Vermonters at their best. The governor is right to try to harness post-Irene Vermont’s can-do momentum to tackle issues that existed long before Irene added to the already difficult challenges.
But good vibes are no substitute for careful scrutiny of the administration’s policies.
So what do you think? Strong leadership in Vermont and New York — or are there still agenda items that you think need more focus?
In business, the saying is “you know what your product is worth.”
It is certainly true that in business you must charge enough to cover your costs or you will go out of business.
I guess for many when it comes to government, government isn’t worth what it costs in terms of taxes because they always call for lower taxes.
True, unlike business where you can chose what to buy or not buy, you are not offered the choice of what gets funded and what doesn’t get funded when it comes to the government. You can’t say I’ll pay taxes to fund the military but I don’t want to pay anything for health, education or roads. It just doesn’t work that way.
So what I’m saying is that it makes more sense to complain about what is funded rather than complain about the taxes. Fewer services would lower the cost of government but to just lower taxes without cutting services is just plain stupid. What does get cut might not be what you would like to see cut. Focus and then pay the piper.
We will not solve the debt crises by simply lowering taxes. In fact, they just might need to be raised – for everyone.
Correction: You have the sentence “And then the Vermont picture from the Burlington Free Press, which chided Shumlin for going light on specifics” as part of a paragraph quoting the Glen Falls Post Star, when you clearly mean it to start a new paragraph introducing the BFreeP quote.
Speaking of raising taxes, here is something to chew on.
What if the state stopped playing games with unfunded and underfunded mandates by paying for all unfunded and underfunded mandates by raising the income tax (graduated of course) to pay for everything it mandates?
Sure, our income taxes would go up but the property taxes would go down. That would benefit most tax payers in NYS.
Sounds good to me, Pete.