Editorials
Major newspapers whose editorial boards
endorsed the Runaway Spending Amendment:
(None)
Major newspapers whose editorial
boards criticized the amendment:
Wall Street Journal
- "They're promoting an amendment to the New York constitution
on next month's ballot that would remove important budgetary powers
from the Governor and give them to the legislature. This is like
waving packages of white powder in Needle Park." MORE
New York Times
- “Legislators need to rethink their budget reform proposal.The
[. . .] constitutional amendment [. . .] would make matters worse,
not better.” MORE
New York Post
- “The most brazen broad-daylight swindle New York has seen
since the days before Rudy Giuliani tossed the three-card monte
dealers from Times Square. . .” MORE
New York Sun
- “This is good news for those who like their taxes high
and their budgets late. Others will ask, as we have, why lawmakers
from both parties are pressing for something that would appear
to guarantee both.” MORE
New York Daily News
- “The Legislature has put on the November ballot a constitutional
amendment calling budget reform. Sound good? It’s not. It
is simply a naked power grab by pols who want to seize the governor’s
lawful prerogatives for themselves. This proposal must be voted
down” MORE
Newsday
- "That way lies chaos. . ." MORE
The Journal News
- "A proposed constitutional amendment on Tuesday's ballot
has more to do with shifting power over the state budget than
introducing meaningful reform to a process that needs it."
MORE
Long Island Business News
- "Under the guise of budget reform, legislators want to
amend the state Constitution in a ballot referendum next month
to effectively take away the governor's power over the state budget
and leave it in their greedy hands." MORE
Albany Times Union
- “Make no mistake: This proposed reform is, pure and simple,
a power grab by the Legislature. And it should not be allowed
to succeed.” MORE
Middletown Times Herald-Record
- "Proposal One, at the top of the ballot, is a sham budget
reform proposal being foisted on the voters of the state by the
leaders of the state Legislature with the inexplicable help of
nonprofit organizations that call themselves good-government groups."
MORE
Metroland
- "New York’s budget process sure needs reforming,
and the Legislature sure needs more power in that process, but
this isn’t the way to go" MORE
The Buffalo News
- “Clearly, New York’s budget process needs fixing.
But the package that now poses as budget reformed is deeply flawed.”
MORE
Syracuse Post-Standard
- "Anyone who thinks this "reform" will encourage
on-time budgets is living in La-La Land." MORE
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
- “This idea sets the stage for even more protracted warfare
between the Legislature and governor, for late budget, vetoes
and overrides and just the sort of conflict that this page, and
thousands of New Yorkers, say they’re tired of.” MORE
Schenectady Daily Gazette
- "[T]he proposed constitutional amendment is a stinker that
would essentially take the governor out of the picture whenever
his budget proposal didn’t pass on time" MORE
Binghamton Press and Sun Bulletin
- "Vote no. Absolutely, positively, no." MORE
Rochester Business Journal
- "Calling Proposal One reform is like calling what Hurricane
Katrina did to New Orleans urban renewal." MORE
Glens Falls Post Star
- "A fancy new shell game is no substitute for effective
leadership and fiscal discipline. Voters should reject Proposal
One, and demand more accountability from lawmakers for the budget
system that's already in place." MORE
Oneonta Daily Star
- "It proposes changes in the budget process that likely
would make the tax-and-spend scenario in Albany only worse."
MORE
Utica Observer-Dispatch
- “Come November, New York voters can make their voices
heard and reject this bogus reform. Voters should send a clear
message to Albany that we want real reform, not more political
games.” MORE
Elmira Star-Gazette
- "Watch out for Proposition No. 1 in New York on Tuesday.
It sounds innocuous, but it's not." MORE
Canandaigua Daily Messenger
- “Genuine reform requires the establishment of a much more
open process, with committee hearings and opportunities for legislators
to propose and pass amendments where needed. But the quick-fix
constitutional amendment does not address those issues at all.”
MORE
Watertown Daily Times
- “The Legislature’s attempt [. . .] to regain more
control over the governor in the [budget] process is counterproductive.
It would come under the heading: ‘If it works, let’s
change it.’” MORE
Jamestown Post-Journal
- "[Y]es, New York needs budget reform but, no, this proposed
constitutional amendment, is not it." MORE
Plattsburgh Press Republican
- “You want the kids guarding the candy store? That’s
what you’ll have if you take the governor out of the budget
process.” MORE
Poughkeepsie Journal
- “The changes the New York Legislature expects to foist
on voters in November would enhance the dysfunction that passes
as government."” MORE
Troy Record
- "[I]t is our belief that taxpayers would be better off
voting no on [. . .] the proposition that would give the Legislature
greater control of the budget." MORE
Longer editorial excerpts continue here.
Wall Street Journal
- (Prop One's Money, 11/5/05) When powerful special interests
start throwing money at obscure statewide ballot propositions,
voters are wise to take notice. Tomorrow, New Yorkers will find
something called Proposal One on the ballot, and they might be
interested to know who's backing it and why.
A primary supporter of the measure -- which would alter the
state constitution to give the legislature the upper hand in
annual budget negotiations with the governor -- are public-sector
unions. Dennis Rivera's Local 1199, the state healthcare-workers
union, has kicked in $500,000. The New York State United Teachers
has donated $25,000, as has CSEA, the largest state and local
employees union.
Labor's interest is obvious. As E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan
Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy told us,
"Prop One makes it easier for legislators to put Medicaid
and education spending increases on autopilot, and they love
that idea."
Less obvious is the interest of media giant Cablevision, which
in the past week has spent $750,000 to promote Prop One. One
explanation is that Cablevision cares less about the merits
of the proposal than about returning a political favor. Earlier
this year Prop One's architects and lead lobbyists, Republican
Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Democratic Assembly Speaker
Sheldon Silver, helped quash plans to build a stadium on Manhattan's
West Side that would have competed for events with Madison Square
Garden, which is owned by Cablevision. The Dolan family that
controls Cablevision ought to be embarrassed, assuming that's
possible.
Opponents include all serious budget analysts, as well Governor
George Pataki and his predecessors. Notably unhelpful has been
Democratic candidate for governor, Eliot Spitzer, who'll say
he's opposed if asked but hasn't shown any leadership. This
will haunt Mr. Spitzer if he wins, because Prop One is a power
grab by the legislature that would limit the governor's ability
to veto spending bills.
- (The State of Spending, 10/6/05) As exhibits in spendthrift
government go, New York state is right at the top. But believe
it or not, the legislators who already impose some of the highest
tax rates in the nation want to give themselves even more spending
clout.
They're promoting an amendment to the New York constitution on
next month's ballot that would remove important budgetary powers
from the Governor and give them to the legislature. This is like
waving packages of white powder in Needle Park. If voters approve
the referendum, lawmakers would, among other things, be empowered
to draft their own budget if they haven't acted on the Governor's
by the start of the new fiscal year.
. . . .
Simply by refusing to adopt a budget on time--and the amendment
eliminates the current penalty for that, which is no paychecks
until an overdue budget is passed--the legislature will allow
itself to take control of the process.
According to a recent analysis by Robert Ward of the Public Policy
Institute, "history suggests that giving the legislature
more influence over the budget will lead to higher spending and
taxes--thus making it even harder for New York to compete for
the jobs we need."
. . . .
. . . Republican Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Democratic
Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver are both pushing the power grab.
The liberal New York Daily News describes them, with some restraint,
as "the two leaders who have run the legislature as their
personal fiefdom for the past decade, securing it the title of
worst in the country." California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
might argue that Sacramento holds that dubious distinction, and
that his state has the budget deficits to prove it, but point
taken.
Albany needs stronger protections against runaway spending. Proposal
One would have the opposite effect. A Quinnipiac University poll
released yesterday shows voters supporting the amendment by a
48%-33% margin. However, 20% are still undecided, and we hope
that over the next five weeks Governor George Pataki will use
his bully pulpit to help them make up their minds. TOP
New York Times
- (No on Budget "Reform", 11/6/05) A constitutional
amendment, Question 1 on most ballots, seeks to change an admittedly
flawed budget process. It would make things worse.
Most New Yorkers know from hard experience not to be fooled
by propositions that sound a lot better than they really are.
That "free" haircut costs plenty in balms and potions.
Likewise, this amendment, advertised as "budget reform"
by legislative leaders, can only make a dysfunctional budget
system even more costly and less efficient.
New York's lawmakers have habitually failed to pass a clear
and timely budget. This was the first year in two decades that
the Legislature and the governor managed to complete the budget
on time - proof that New York's lawmakers can make a deadline
if they really try. They do not need this amendment to muddy
the works.
In a nutshell, the proposal would shift power from the governor's
office to the Legislature. That would be a very costly mistake.
Before 1927, New York's budget was run mostly by the Legislature,
and it was a sticky-fingered mess. Every lawmaker could put
in for a favorite project, and the governor was forced to bat
them away like flies, line by line by line. Gov. Al Smith persuaded
voters to agree to a "modern" state budget, proposed
by the governor and approved or rejected by the Legislature.
Today's budget amendment would not roll things back to the
pre-Al Smith days, but it would take a big leap in that direction.
A future governor would have until May 1 every year to win approval
for a budget. If that failed, a contingency budget based on
the previous year's spending would automatically go into effect.
The legislators - all 212 of them - could then come up with
their own budget.
To maintain some semblance of fiscal sanity, the governor,
as in the old days, would be obliged to veto every baseball
field or center for the elderly or benefit for members of a
powerful union - and opponents would be sure to remind voters
of those vetoes in the next campaign. No wonder the legislators
and special interests are pushing this proposal. No wonder Gov.
George Pataki, several of his predecessors and most of his likely
successors are calling it a "catastrophe in the making."
What may be confusing to some voters is that many good government
groups have supported the budget proposal, mainly because they
like some of the other ideas that would accompany this amendment,
such as the creation of an independent budget office. We like
that idea, too, but the lawmakers could create such an office
without a constitutional change that would give special interests
even more clout than they already have.
It is established wisdom that Albany's budgeting process is
broken. The state fails to use generally accepted accounting
principles. The governor can weave new law into his budget unfairly.
The comptroller or an independent budget office should be certifying
state revenues. But this proposal does not solve these problems.
It simply creates new ones. Vote No on the constitutional amendment
to change the state budget.
- (What now, Albany? 4/30/05) The best way for legislators
to win gold stars would be to do the reforms they have been promising
for years -- changes that are trotted out for every good government
forum, for every campaign, then are never actually done. One reason
often given is that there isn't enough time. Well, since legislators
have time to go to Paris and Barbados or loll around in Albany
coffee shops, as Patrick D. Healy reported recently in The Times,
they have time to tackle real reforms that are tough but necessary.
Budget reform -- Legislators need to rethink their budget reform
proposal. The present constitutional amendment now before the
State Senate would make matters worse, not better. The governor
does have too much power over the budget now, but this amendment
would shift too much power to the Legislature -- not a healthy
way to go. Rather than tampering with the Constitution this year,
the Legislature should go back to the drawing board. This one
needs to be right, not simply O.K. TOP
New York Post
- (Hijacking in progress, 9/19/05) Assembly Speaker Sheldon
Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno aren't satisfied with
the boodle they and their henchmen already squeeze from New York's
terminally overburdened taxpayers.
They want more.
And they mean to have more.
The road to riches runs through the state Constitution, which
Silver and Bruno propose to amend in such a way as to vest effective
control of New York's multi-billion-dollar budget process in themselves
— all but squeezing the governor out of the equation.
. . . .
The change is Proposal 1 on the November ballot, and it's being
sold as a means to remedy Albany's embarrassing inability to pass
on-time budgets.
The reality is something altogether different.
. . . .
[R]ather than clean up their act, lawmakers are pushing simply
to legalize the chaos — and, while they're at it, to handcuff
the governor, lest he try to interfere with their raids on taxpayers'
wallets.
This is no mere hyperbole: The amendment would shift virtually
all budget powers to the Legislature.
. . . .
With Albany already spending like no one cares, this is no time
to go back to the old way, giving the Legislature a blank check.
Proposal 1 must be rejected. TOP
New York Sun
- (Propositioning Voters, 10/18/05) Less than a month
hence voters in New York will have the chance to send a message
to Albany that they can't be taken for granted on the budget -
by voting no on Propositon 1. We first wrote about this idea on
November 10 of last year in an editorial called A Parody of Reform.
The measure is a power-grab by the legislature to take away the
governor's budget authority. As the vote nears, let it be marked,
once and for all, that the problem with the state budget is not
the process but the budgeters.
Proposal 1 purports to solve a problem that isn't really a problem
- the legislature's perennial inability to pass budgets on time.
For all but one of the past 21 years, lawmakers have failed to
wrap up the budget before the start of the new fiscal year. Yet
the timing of the budget causes significantly less mischief than
the contents. In 2003, the legislature concluded the process by
overriding the governor's veto more than a month after the start
of the fiscal year, certainly not the longest the state has gone
without a final budget.
New Yorkers were hurt more by the record tax increases approved
in that budget than by its late timing. This year, even as their
leaders argued that New York needs a constitutional amendment
to fix this "problem," legislators handed in the budget
on schedule. Yet we're still looking for any evidence that getting
the budget in before April 1 eased the tax burden on New Yorkers
or brought spending under control.
Albany's real failing is its inability to craft good budgets,
not lawmakers' refusal to enact prompt budgets. Proposal 1 would
only make this problem worse. Current law hasn't led to fiscal
responsibility, but it at least provides a traffic cop, in the
governor, who sets the parameters for budget discussions. Under
Proposal 1, no one would set any parameters. The director of the
Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy,
Edmund J. McMahon, notes that right now the governor's executive
budget proposal and its accompanying reports are the most transparent
spending documents in Albany each year, while the legislature's
eventual budget bill is generally the most inscrutable.
(Setting up Spitzer, 4/25/05) This is good news
for those who like their taxes high and their budgets late. Others
will ask, as we have, why lawmakers from both parties are pressing
for something that would appear to guarantee both.
. . . .
. . . legislative leaders insisted to The New York Sun last week
that the amendment, including language on a transfer of power,
go forward. It should be obvious that its approval would not only
give legislators no incentive to pass a budget on time, but that
it would also gut the powers of the governor. As E.J. McMahon,
a leading critic of the amendment, tells our Brian McGuire in
a related column on the facing page, "If this happens, the
governor's office will be hardly worth having."
All of which raises a question about those who have given the
proposal second passage. If the Assembly really wants the state
attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, to be governor, why would they
push for an amendment that would undercut the single most important
power a governor wields? The question almost answers itself. Assemblyman
Sheldon Silver, the most powerful elected Democrat in the state,
is trying to have it both ways. TOP
New York Daily
News
- (Vote no on Proposal 1, 11/07/05) SEVENTH IN
SERIES Posturing as reformers, Silver and Bruno seek
only to enhance their power over taxpayer dollars, drastically
reducing the authority of the governor's office. Cablevision,
perhaps the most irresponsible of New York's corporate citizens,
is repaying Silver and Bruno for killing plans for a stadium on
Manhattan's West Side this year and preserving the company's Madison
Square Garden franchise. Local 1199 chief Dennis Rivera has put
a half-million dollars into a Proposal 1 advertising campaign
because he knows where his bread is buttered - and that's in the
Legislature.
The Constitution gives the governor primary responsibility
over the budget, authorizing him to draft a spending plan and
limiting the Legislature's ability to make wholesale changes.
This balance - strong governor, restrained Legislature - was
set in 1927 after taxpayers revolted against the politicos'
lavish spending.
Silver and Bruno say the Legislature needs more muscle to deliver
budgets on time - not late, as happened for 20 years straight.
But they are spouting self-interested pap. This year, a few
months after the Court of Appeals clarified the governor's powers,
Gov. Pataki, Bruno and Silver enacted a timely budget, proving
they didn't need budget reform, they needed only behavior reform.
. . . .
Reason 2: It's all about muscle. The Legislature
passed a timely budget this year without special new powers.
Reason 1: Taxes would soar. Given power, lawmakers
would spend like drunken sailors.
- (Vote no on Proposal 1, 11/04/05) SIXTH IN
SERIES
In vesting the governor with the lion's share of budgeting
power, the state Constitution gives the chief executive responsibility
for proposing programs that serve the interests of all New Yorkers.
And this is exactly as it should be.
As a statewide elected official, the governor is accountable for
pushing through big-picture items like welfare reform or overhauling
the hospital system. Formulating such sweeping initiatives is
far beyond the parochial capacities of the Legislature's 212 members.
Which is one more excellent reason to vote against Proposal 1
on the ballot Tuesday.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Joe
Bruno and lobbyists galore are backing Proposal 1 as the all-purpose
antidote to Albany's dysfunctional budgeting. It is not. It
is a power grab by the Legislature that would sharply reduce
the governor's authority - with many ill effects. We have been
counting down the top 10 reasons to vote no, and today we add
reason 3:
. . . .
Reason 3: Forget fresh ideas. The governor
would lose his leverage to fight for major reforms.
Proposal 1 would set New York adrift without a captain. Virtually
every politician outside the Legislature - and every expert
concerned about the financial welfare of New York - agrees that
putting lawmakers in charge is a recipe for guaranteeing the
status quo.
- (Vote no on Proposal 1, 10/30/05) FIFTH IN
SERIES Turn on the TV, and sooner or later you're sure
to see commercials urging you to vote next month for a state constitutional
amendment called Proposal 1. The ads describe the measure as a
cure for Albany gridlock and late state budgets. The spots are
presented by a group called Budget Reform Now! - a nice-sounding
name.
Don't be fooled. Budget Reform Now! is not a good-government citizens'
group. It was incorporated by a major lobbying firm. It's run
by political operatives from both parties, and it is financed
by some of the biggest-spending interest groups at the Capitol,
including unions for health-care workers, teachers and state employees.
Why? Because Proposal 1 is not about getting state budgets
on time. It's all about diminishing the power of the governor
and increasing the power of the Legislature, where influence-peddlers
have the run of the place. That's why the lobbyists are spending
money to support Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate
Majority Leader Joe Bruno in a naked power play.
. . . .
Reason 5: More bureaucracy. An army of unneeded
budget analysts would join the payroll.
Reason 4: It would create a lobbyist's paradise.
Influence peddlers would pick taxpayers' pockets.
The constitution now gives the governor the power to draft
the budget and lets the Legislature make additions and subtractions.
The balance of power is based on the very sound assumption that,
as a statewide elected official, the governor will be accountable
to all New Yorkers, while legislators will have more parochial
interests.
And, in fact, that's exactly how Albany works. The governor
presents a broad and very detailed spending plan, and 212 lawmakers
focus on finding money for pet projects, bringing home the bacon
and raising campaign cash. Lobbyists wine and dine the pols,
take them golfing and are only too happy to supply donations
and volunteers. And then they get their way. Hogtie the governor,
as Proposal 1 would do, and lawmakers will give away even more
of the store, which is why their pals are paying for the TV
ads. Vote no on Prop 1.
-
(Vote no on Proposal 1, 10/24/05) FOURTH IN
SERIES Hidden in the state constitutional amendment
that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader
Joe Bruno want New Yorkers to approve on Election Day is some
very sneaky legal writing. Say yes to the amendment and you'll
repeal the state law that bars lawmakers from collecting their
salaries when they fail to pass a budget on time.
Funny, we don't remember Silver and Bruno trumpeting that provision
as they've pitched so-called Proposal 1 as the cure for all
that ails Albany. It's no wonder they've kept their mouths shut,
because that bit of trickery is cause enough to vote no - not
that there aren't many other reasons to kill a measure that's
aimed solely at enhancing the Legislature's power at the expense
of the governor's.
Reason 6: Pure arrogance. The Legislature is grabbing
for power without assuming accountability. While guaranteeing
lawmakers uninterrupted paychecks, the amendment proposed by
Bruno and Silver would empower the Legislature to pass budgets
that aren't balanced - and without completely detailing their
spending plans.
Reason 5: More bureaucracy. An army of unneeded
budget analysts would join the payroll. New York has a controller's
office, a Budget Division and four teams of green eyeshades
in the Legislature. Yet Bruno and Silver want to spend millions
more on an "independent budget office" that would
answer to - you guessed it - Bruno and Silver. Some independence.
- (Vote no on Proposal 1, 10/16/05) THIRD IN SERIES
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority
Leader Joe Bruno say they can guarantee that Albany will deliver
state budgets on time - if the voters give the Legislature primary
authority over the purse strings and reduce the governor to a
political midget.
How cynically power-hungry Silver and Bruno are. The constitutional
amendment they've put on the Election Day ballot, called Proposal
1, would let them lord it over the governor but would actually
encourage late budgets - which is one more reason to behead this
turkey. . . .
. . . .
Reason 8: Endless late budgets. The amendment
would actually reward the Assembly and Senate for stalling. As
happens now, the governor would submit a spending proposal to
the Legislature, but once the budget deadline passed, lawmakers
would gain the power to throw out the governor's plan and write
their own from scratch. They would have every reason to twiddle
their thumbs until the clock runs out and then get to work - late,
of course.
Reason 7: It's a
recipe for chaos. After the deadline, a "contingency budget"
would automatically - and mindlessly - freeze spending where
it was the previous year, regardless of changing needs and resources.
Medicaid and other rapidly growing programs would run short
of cash, thus pressuring lawmakers and the governor to negotiate
a final budget. In effect, Silver and Bruno want to hold the
public hostage to their own incompetence. It's an irresponsible
way to run a $100 billion organization.
-
(Vote no on Proposal 1, 10/10/05) SECOND IN SERIES
State lawmakers are asking voters to approve a
constitutional amendment on Election Day that would give them
a stranglehold over New York's budget and push the governor
to the sidelines. It's a terrible idea. And making matters worse,
Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon
Silver did a terrible job drafting the gobbledygook you'll find
in the voting booth.
There are so many reasons to say no to Proposal 1, we're counting
down the top 10. In Reason No. 10, we pointed out that Bruno
and Silver have hoarded power while mismanaging the Legislature
for years.
Reason No. 9: Prop 1 is a full-employment act
for lawyers, who will use its gaps and inconsistencies to tie
state government up in knots of litigation.
For example, the amendment would have a contingency budget kick
in when lawmakers miss the annual deadline to approve a spending
plan. But who figures out the details of this stopgap budget,
and when? Does it need approval from the governor, the Legislature
or both? Who implements the across-the-board cuts that are supposed
to happen when tax revenues come up short? No one can say for
sure.
These are not academic questions. The Assembly and Senate have
been late with the budget 20 of the last 21 years. With Bruno
and Silver in charge, they're bound to blow it again. Proposal
1 will give them an incentive to stall, since they can throw
out the governor's draft and write their own as soon as the
deadline passes. And if Bruno and Silver can't agree with Gov.
Pataki on a real budget, no way will they be on the same page
on a contingency budget full of painful cuts.
So New Yorkers will do what New Yorkers do when they disagree:
Sue the pants off each other. The governor will sue the Legislature.
The Legislature will sue the governor. Every special interest
with gored oxen, and they'll be plentiful, will sue the governor
and the Legislature. It will take years, if not generations,
for the courts to sort it out. And government will sink to new
depths of gridlock.
. . . .
Don't let this hunk of Swiss cheese see the light of day. Vote
no on Prop 1.
-
(Vote no on Proposition 1, October 3, 2005) FIRST
IN SERIES New Yorkers will find a proposed state
constitutional amendment on the ballot when they go to the polls
in November. Supporters are selling the amendment as a way to
break Albany's gridlock, put a stop to late budgets and restore
sweetness and light to the Capitol. Don't believe it for a minute.
This amendment would only make matters worse.
In fact, there are more than 100 billion reasons to vote against
the change - one for every dollar taxpayers spend to float New
York government. In the coming weeks, we'll be highlighting
the
top 10 reasons to vote no on what's known as Proposal No. 1.
Reason No. 10: Consider the source.
The proposal is the brainchild of Senate Majority Leader Joe
Bruno and Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver, the two leaders who
have run the Legislature as their personal fiefdom for the past
decade, securing it the title of worst in the country.
The distinction is deserved because Bruno and Silver have consistently
operated behind closed doors, quashed public debate and manipulated
their rank-and-file members like marionettes. Trusting them
to fix what's wrong with Albany would be like hiring Michael
Jackson to baby-sit.
The amendment would only enhance the Legislature's prodigious
power. Silver and Bruno's plan for ending budget stalemates
boils down to cutting the governor out of the process - ending
a tradition of strong gubernatorial control over finances that
dates back to Al Smith and FDR.
Under the new scheme, the Assembly and Senate leaders would
never again have to dicker with the state's CEO over divvying
up the billions. Instead, they could just stall until the start
of the new fiscal year, allow a temporary contingency budget
to kick in and then write their own spending plan from scratch.
The infamous "three men in a room" would then shrink
to two, and Bruno and Silver could go into full back-scratching
mode with taxpayer dollars.
(Albany pols peddle bogus reform, 5/9/05) The Legislature
has put on the November ballot a constitutional amendment calling
budget reform. Sound good? It’s not. It is simply a naked
power grab by pols who want to seize the governor’s lawful
prerogatives for themselves. This proposal must be voted down.
There are many desirable constitutional changes--term limits,
voter initiative and referendum, nonpartisan redistricting and
merit selection of judges-- that should go before the public.
But they won't because Albany's greedy lawmakers are interested
only in bolstering their own power, or usurping someone else's.
. . . .
This supposed reform proposal doesn't require legislators to
pass a balanced budget or even produce a coherent multiyear
financial plan-- steps that might encourage them to act responsibly.
. . . .
This year, they passed a budget on time--proving beyond a doubt
that Albany doesn't need budget reform it needs behavior reform.
(Albany's power grab must stop, 4/25/05) The amendment
is advertised as guaranteeing an on-time budget every year.
But the advertising is false. The measure would put in place
a "contingency" budget - based on the previous year's
spending - if legislators didn't agree on a formal financial
plan before the start of the fiscal year.
This boils down to taking the pressure off lawmakers to do their
jobs in a timely fashion.
And it gets worse. Once a contingency went into effect, the
Assembly and Senate would be free to ignore the governor's budget
proposals and craft their own spending bills from scratch -
something they're not allowed to do under the present constitutional
rules.
As fiscal watchdogs point out, this gives the Legislature a
powerful incentive to stall while sharply diminishing the power
of any governor, the only official with statewide authority
and the responsibility to restrain spending. TOP
Newsday
- ('No' on state budget item, 11/04/05) While the proposal
on the Nov. 8 ballot contains some laudatory reforms, on balance
it would shift the budget-making power in this state too much
toward the legislature and away from the governor. Vote no on
Proposal One.
Legislative leaders, in their usual cynical manner, have wrapped
the proposal in a sheath of reforms, including moving the state
budget deadline back one month to May and creating an independent
budget office. Some of that could be done by simple legislation,
some of it by a much simpler constitutional amendment. But don't
be fooled, this package is is not good-government legislation.
Any time that the current governor, George Pataki, and the man
he defeated 11 years ago, Mario Cuomo, agree on a matter, you
should know they have something important to say. Indeed, they
are joined in opposing Proposal One by another former governor,
Hugh Carey, and a prospective one, Eliot Spitzer.
While it may not be the "runaway spending amendment"
some foes call it, the package could tie the hands of a governor
trying to rein in lawmakers and reshape policy; the state will
have a new governor after 2006. And because the legislature's
new powers wouldn't kick in until a budget deadline had been missed,
there's a possibility of delay. What good-government reformers
hoped would guarantee an on-time budget could easily encourage
late budgets and more back-room deals. That's the last thing the
nation's most dysfunctional capitol needs after so many years
of late budgets.
- (Albany, no time for applause; Reform is still a long way
off 5/2/05) The "contingency budget" approach,
which makes the previous year's budget the default budget, is
too likely to create further inaction.
. . . .[T]he pendulum must not swing too far in the legislature's
favor. That way lies chaos. TOP
The Journal News
- (State Proposal No. 1, 11/04/05) But the positives are overcome
by what we have come to agree is the chief fault of this Legislature-created
proposal: swinging the balance of budget power, now enjoyed by
governors, too far into the legislative domain.
There is no doubt that Gov. George Pataki's upper hand in budget-making
has become a heavy one, but a more measured correction is called
for, not this one.
The Legislature turned to budget reform in earnest in the spring,
after being stung by a ruling from the state's highest court
that validated the governor's power in budget-making. In proposing
appropriations, Pataki has attached language to spending bills
that rewrites law — regarding the distribution of school
aid, for example. The Legislature challenged the practice in
court, and lost. A split decision by the Court of Appeals said
that the governor was within his constitutional rights, and
that the legislators were powerless to do anything about it.
We believed the court erred in not recognizing that Pataki had
gone too far, to the point of usurping legislative authority.
The proper response would be to change the Constitution, separating
the "numbers" and "language" in budget bills,
reserving to the Legislature the power to make law-changing
judgments. In fact, such an amendment has progressed in the
Legislature. But that's not what is before voters on Tuesday.
The most debated piece of Proposal No. 1 enacts a contingency
budget, basically the previous year's spending plan, if a fiscal
year begins without a new budget in place. It's an old concept,
originally meant to break the 20-year string of late budgets.
Neither governor nor legislators, the thinking went, would want
to be stuck with last year's numbers, so they would negotiate
in earnest to hit the deadline with a new budget. Amendment
supporters continue to argue that it would ensure on-time budgets.
We disagree. Under the proposal on the ballot, the legislators
would be able to scrap both the governor's budget proposal and
the contingency budget and come up with their own spending plan.
As critics have noted, the chance to assume such power is an
incentive to miss a budget deadline, not meet one.
Further, the Legislature made its own argument against the
need for extraordinary measures to bring about an on-time budget
by meeting the deadline this year.
It was healthy public pressure, not a constitutional amendment,
that did the trick. There's no reason it can't happen again.
Voters will not be giving up on budget reform if they reject
Proposal No. 1. They will simply be asking for a more balanced
proposal.TOP
Long Island Business News
- (Power Grabbers, 10/14/05) The New York State Legislature
was shamed into passing a budget on time this year after it ranked
as the worst legislature in the country.
You'd think Senate and Assembly members would be eager to show
constituents that it wasn't just a one-time effort - that, just
maybe, they had learned their lesson. But true to form, they're
returning to the same old.
. . . .
Under the proposal, a contingency budget would be put in place
based on the prior year's spending if legislators didn't agree
on a formal budget before the start of the fiscal year. No need
to get it the budget approved in timely fashion, then.
Worse, the Senate and Assembly would be allowed to ignore the
governor's guidelines and draft their own spending bills from
scratch. They're not allowed to do that under the current rules.
If passed, the state would not only be left without a single
state official accountable for ensuring the budget's fiscal
soundness, it would provide blank checks for legislators all-too-willing
to hand out pork galore. TOP
Albany Times Union
- (A big 'no' on Proposal 1, 11/6/05) It's not
a budget reform at all; it's a power grab that would make things
worse.
Proposal No. 1, which will appear on Tuesday's ballot, is being
touted by supporters as a reform of the state budget process.
It is nothing of the sort. It is, instead, an attempt by the Legislature
to gain more budget powers at the expense of the governor. Voters
should resoundingly reject it.
. . . .
It's true that some otherwise sensible groups support this
proposal, including Common Cause, NYPIRG and the League of Women
Voters. They see it as a way to bring transparency, certainty
and accountability to the process. But the only accountability
would be the line-item veto, and that could be overridden. Nor
is there any certainty that what caused budget standoffs in
the past -- holding the budget hostage over Medicaid abortions,
for example -- would not occur again. And while some off-budget
funds, such as the huge health care allocation, would become
part of the process, such transparency does not require a constitutional
amendment. All it would take is legislative action.
Proposal 1 wouldn't address the causes of the budget standoffs
during the Pataki years, either. They began in 1998 when Mr.
Pataki vetoed spending items sought by Assembly Speaker Sheldon
Silver, after a budget agreement had been reached, while leaving
intact most of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno's spending
lines. That all but eliminated the chance of an override. Mr.
Silver understandably felt betrayed. In the years that followed,
he rightly insisted on a no-veto pledge from the governor before
signing on to any budget agreement. That was a formula for standoff.
The same scenario could continue under Proposal 1, no matter
who is governor or which legislative leader finds himself the
odd man out. If one leader feels betrayed and demands a no-veto
pledge, it would lead to protracted delays.
Moreover, a contingency budget would act as an incentive for
legislative leaders to miss the state budget deadline. Then
they would have the opportunity to craft a new budget that could
include spending far in excess of the governor's budget -- just
as opponents have warned.
Supporters of Proposal 1 dismiss these criticisms by arguing
that other states give their legislatures budget-making powers
and seem to function well. But they ignore how beholden New
York's Legislature is to special interests -- notoriously beholden.
If Proposal 1 should pass, lobbyists would drool at the prospect
of getting the lawmakers to include a client's pork barrel item
in the contingency budget. Already special interests have put
up more than $1 million to get Proposal 1 approved.
The good government groups argue that while Proposal 1 may
not be the best solution, it could not possibly make things
worse. Wrong again. Proposal 1 would make things worse. Much
worse.
- (A sham reform, 5/3/2005) On the surface, the proposal
seems harmless enough. It would specify that if and when the governor
and Legislature fail to meet the budget deadline -- to be set
May 1 -- a contingency budget would automatically be put in place.
Spending would be limited to the levels authorized under the previous
year's budget.
Supporters of the reform argue that the prospect of a contingency
budget would act as incentive for the Legislature and governor
to agree on a new spending plan by May 1. But the opposite is
true. There would be less pressure to meet the deadline for a
new budget. In fact, the contingency budget would give the Legislature
an incentive to drag out the process because the government would
continue to function no matter how long it took to reach an accord.
That's bad enough. What's worse -- far worse -- is how the proposed
amendment would change the playing field. The contingency budget
would, in effect, cancel out the governor's proposed budget for
the new year. Instead, the Legislature would be free to craft
a budget of its own.TOP
Middletown Times Herald-Record
- (Proposal One: Vote no, please, 11/06/05) Proposal
One, at the top of the ballot, is a sham budget reform proposal
being foisted on the voters of the state by the leaders of the
state Legislature with the inexplicable help of nonprofit organizations
that call themselves good-government groups.
Good God, people, whatever happened to casting a critical, even
skeptical, eye on legislative proposals that could change the
power structure in Albany?
Proposal One calls for a contingency budget based on the previous
year’s spending to kick in if the governor’s budget
is not approved by the legal deadline. But it also allows legislators
to then add spending in several critical areas. Yes, that means
all legislators have to do to spend and tax as they please without
the governor’s interference is to ignore his budget and
wait for their chance. It even removes the current prohibition
on legislators receiving their salaries after the deadline unless
a budget has been approved.
In essence, the proposed amendment to the state Constitution rewards
legislators for doing nothing on the budget. More than anything,
the support this brazen power grab by legislators has received
from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and NYPIRG seems
to rest on a record-shattering leap of faith.
. . . these groups say,“Unless legislators and the governor
are uniquely irresponsible in New York, we do not believe that
passage of this amendment will lead to fiscal catastrophe.”
Have you folks not been paying attention the past 20 years of
late budgets? Have you not noted the failure of the Republican
state Senate and the Democratic state Assembly to agree on much
of anything in the budget until their leaders’ personal
political wishes were granted? Yes, the state has a three-legged
budget process, but the governor is one vital leg. Even granting
the stubbornness of some of the state’s chief executives,
they have been more attuned to the state’s financial condition
than have legislators.TOP
Metroland
- (Ballot Proposal One, Constitutional Amendment for Budget
Reform: No) New York’s budget process sure needs reforming,
and the Legislature sure needs more power in that process, but
this isn’t the way to go—it’s a convoluted answer
full of potential unintended consequences. In short, having the
Legislature suddenly get more power only when a contingency budget
kicks in after the deadline passes is not an incentive for on-time
budgets. Having a contingency budget based on last year’s
disbursements, not appropriations (and even appropriations would
be iffy), does not ensure anyone will have enough money the following
year. No one is assigned responsibility to finalize the contingency
budget on a schedule, and the major problems of too much governor
power are untouched. The proposed amendment A4630, which could
come to the voters in 2007, would do a much better job at fixing
the budget process, with fewer bad side effects. The voters should
hold out for that one. TOP
The Buffalo News
- (Heed warnings on 'budget reform', 11/3/05) We don't
often express our opinion more than once on Election Day issues,
but this one bears repeating: Proposal One on Tuesday's ballot
is a power grab disguised as budget reform. Voters should say
no.
. . . .
That's the sense of a bipartisan Who's Who of leaders, including
the political odd couple of Gov. George E. Pataki - who will leave
office unaffected before this change could take place - and the
man he defeated 11 years go, Mario M. Cuomo. Both see this "reform"
for the charade it is. So does former Gov. Hugh L. Carey. Would-be
governors also deride the change. They include Attorney General
Eliot L. Spitzer, former Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld and
former Assembly Minority Leader John J. Faso, all of whom want
to succeed Pataki.
. . . .
Budget reform is needed. True, a budget was approved on time this
year, but it's the first since 1984. This is not true reform.
Instead legislators have cynically tried to make their constituents
unwitting accomplices in a naked power grab. Say no.
- (Budget amendment fakery, 10/9/05) Addicts learn fast
that if they convince people they've gone cold turkey, especially
with family and friends living in denial, they can continue to
snort or drink with relaxed scrutiny.
That is essentially what the spending addicts in the Democratic
State Assembly and the Republican Senate are telling New York's
voters. "Believe us, we want an on-time state budget. We
want it so much, we'd like you to change the state constitution
to require it." Don't believe it.
Vote no on the budget constitutional amendment - Proposal One
- on your ballot Nov. 8. Why? Because the reality is the opposite.
This is a license for pouring legislative budget shots, with taxpayers'
money. The act seems simple: If there's no budget by May 1 of
a given year (there wasn't an on-time budget 20 of the last 21
years) a "contingency" budget would take effect. This
enables legislators to claim they passed an on-time budget. But
it would be last year's budget expenditures, plus whatever the
Legislature adds for the ensuing year until a governor's budget
finally passes.
Critics note that since 1996, legislators added $12.1 billion
to the governor's budget proposals. Legislators spend. Governors,
though no strangers to political favors, tend to budget better
because their names are on the document. That's why Gov. George
E. Pataki calls the amendment "deeply flawed." Attorney
General Eliot L. Spitzer, the leading Democrat for governor, says
governors exercise "greater fiscal prudency."
NYPIRG, the League of Women Voters and Common Cause favor
the amendment because they see a flawed budget process now in
Albany - symbolized by the shorthand and shorthanded "three
men in a room" - and say it needs fixing. No question about
that. But all this change does is throw one of the men out of
the room. It doesn't let everyone else in.
This amendment would virtually assure late budgets because the
Legislature could avoid voting on one before May 1, aware a preferred
budget would kick in May 2. Legislators already did that when
there was a disincentive to be late - public opinion. This change
institutionalizes lateness. It's a blatant power grab that's unhealthy
for state taxpayers.
. . . .
We agree New York is dying in part because its budget process
is so abused, but this amendment is not the defibrillator it seems
or that the state needs. We fear that legislators, if they win
this faux fix, will declare victory and move on, saying no more
change is needed. Call their bluff. Vote down this amendment and
let's move on to meaningful reform.
(Non-reform reform, 5/6/05) Clearly, New York's budget
process needs fixing. But the package that now poses as budget
reform is deeply flawed. The most fatal of those flaws is a clause
mandating a contingency budget if the Legislature can't adopt
the governor's proposed budget on time -- which, under this plan,
would be May 1 instead of April 1. Lawmakers argue they would
be pushed into action by the threat of such a contingency plan.
Hardly. The contingency budget would actually be the previous
year's spending levels with boosts in some targeted areas, such
as education. Worse, it would allow the Legislature to supplement
the contingency budget with more spending -- in effect, giving
the Legislature the governor's power to write a spending plan.
What this "reform" does is guarantee late budgets
and unrestrained spending by a Legislature that will be unable
to resist requests from every special interest in the state
to stuff the contingency budget with more spending.
Reaffirming the governor's power to shape the state budget,
in fact, was the thrust of a December Court of Appeals ruling,
which still sticks in the craws of state lawmakers. That ruling
limited the Legislature's power to make changes in the governor's
budget. This "reform" is all about reversing that
balance of power.
. . . .
Voters will have a chance in November to undo the damage that
the Legislature would do to the budget process. They should
take full advantage of the opportunity. TOP
Syracuse Post-Standard
- (Bogus 'Reform,' 11/3/05) New Yorkers were so fed up
with the extravagant and spendthrift ways of the state Legislature
that they changed the state Constitution to weaken legislators'
budget-making powers. That was 78 years ago.
Now legislators want that power back. A proposal on the November
ballot would ask voters to approve another constitutional amendment
under the guise of budget reform.
New Yorkers should vote no. Rather than improve what everyone
agrees is a grossly dysfunctional budget process, the change
would make things much worse. Instead of eliminating chronically
late budgets, it would virtually guarantee them. And legislators
beholden to special interests and political bosses would have
a direct pipeline to your wallet, while the governor would have
less power to check lawmakers' spending sprees.
. . . .
Anyone who thinks this "reform" will encourage on-time
budgets is living in La-La Land. The only consequence for the
Legislature missing the fiscal-year deadline is greater power
to tax and spend. That's hardly an incentive to be on time.
Voters must not be suckered into thinking the proposed amendment
would bring about positive reform. They should vote no on Proposal
One. TOP
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
- (Budget reform ballot proposal isn't what it professes to
be, 11/03/05) For the past two years, this page has been consistently
at the forefront in demanding that Albany reform its dysfunctional
ways. We know reform when we see it.
Proposition 1 on Tuesday's ballot isn't it.
The Democrat and Chronicle recommends a "No" vote
on the proposal, which is being billed by its supporters as
budget reform meant to end New York's sorry history of late
budgets.
While it's true that the proposal contains provisions that
open the budget process to greater public scrutiny and ensure
more accountability, it also would shift unprecedented budget-making
authority to the Legislature.
Frankly, that's frightening given the Legislature's proven
inability to control spending.
. . . .
Passage of the amendment would enhance the ability of special
interests to persuade lawmakers to spend even more. Never mind
that the state, overall, is only now starting to emerge from
the fiscal mess linked to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
While New York could have a $2 billion surplus next year, it's
still essentially walking on a fiscal banana peel.
That's why people like Gov. Pataki, Democratic gubernatorial
candidate Eliot Spitzer and former governors Mario Cuomo and
Hugh Carey are all opposing Prop. 1.
They wisely realize that, with a declining tax base, flat wages
and a sluggish economy upstate, opening the door to greater
unchecked spending is foolish.
Vote "No" on Prop. 1.
- (A power grab, 5/2/05) The Albany gang has it mixed
up. The idea in crafting an on-time budget every year is not to
grab as much power as you can and watch the other guy bob in your
wake. The idea is to work together to come up with a balanced
spending plan that doesn't keep digging into the taxpayers' pockets.
. . . .
The budget-reform package [. . .] provides for a contingency budget
based on last year's spending if lawmakers haven't acted on the
governor's plan by May 1. Thereafter, lawmakers may amend the
contingency as they see fit. The governor's plan is no longer
in play, unless legislators want it to be. The governor would
still have veto power.
Sure, the state needs a contingency plan if the deadline is
missed. But triggering that ought not mean the governor's plan
gets an automatic boot. That just encourages political games:
lawmakers ignoring the governor's budget, a marginalized governor
wielding a veto pen.
The answer is cooperation between the branches.
This year's successful process proved that. The proposed "reform"
ensures the opposite.TOP
Schenectady Daily Gazette
- (Two ballot proposals, two reasons for voters to say no,
11/3/05) New Yorkers will have two ballot proposals to consider
when they vote next Tuesday, and neither of them warrants passage.
The first, known as Proposal One, is a legislative power grab
masquerading as a fix for the state’s dysfunctional budget
process. It would do one (slightly) positive thing: pushing the
deadline for passage of the state budget back to May 1. This would
allow for a more accurate revenue forecast after Income Tax Day.
Beyond that, the proposed constitutional amendment is a stinker
that would essentially take the governor out of the picture whenever
his budget proposal didn’t pass on time: A contingency budget
would kick in, based on the previous year’s spending levels
but with exceptions allowed in several key areas — like
education and health care. And in those areas, lawmakers would
be free to up the ante as they saw fit. This would make them easy
targets for special-interest lobbyists, with a much higher bottom
line the likely result.
The Legislature proved this year that it can pass a budget on
time. The current process often fails, but mostly because of the
attitudes of the players involved. Those will only change when
voters convey how fed up they are.TOP
Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin
- (Reject Legislature's power (& money) grab, 11/04/05)
Proposition One is a real doozy. Under the guise of "budget
reform," it's a constitutional amendment that would essentially
remove the governor from the budget process and give the Legislature
the keys to the candy store. It's an old-fashioned power grab
in disguise.
The Business Council of New York isn't right about everything,
but it correctly pegs this measure as "The Runaway Spending
Amendment." It hasn't been the governors of New York who
have been late with their budgets for 20 consecutive years. It
hasn't been the governors who spent money as if there was a limitless
supply. And now the Legislature wants all the brakes removed.
Some proponents, understandably weary of the state's fiscal follies,
are calling for change just for the sake of change, in the faint
hope that some good might transpire. But a change that can only
makes matters worse is unwise. That's what this change would do
-- make matters infinitely worse.
We're no fans of the status quo in Albany, but this proposition
is not a solution. It's a prescription for budgetary chaos and
fiscal disaster.
New York voters cannot afford to skip this proposition. Vote no.
Absolutely, positively, no. TOP
Rochester Business Journal
- (From bad to worse, 11/02/05) The fact that many New Yorkers
support an overhaul of the budget process is perhaps understandable,
given the state’s woeful track record—20 late budgets
over the past 21 years. But as a close look at the proposal reveals,
approval very likely will make the situation only worse.
Among its provisions, Proposal One would impose a contingency
budget any time lawmakers fail to act on the governor’s
budget bills before the start of a new fiscal year. The contingency
budget generally would hold overall spending to the prior year’s
level, but higher expenditures for school aid, debt service
payments and other costs—including most or all of state
Medicaid spending—would be allowed.
And the Legislature would be allowed to amend the contingency
budget-an extra incentive for lawmakers to kill the governor’s
budget simply by refusing to act before the deadline.
E. J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute notes another gift-wrapped
item for lawmakers: By taking “final action” on
the governor’s budget—that is, doing nothing—legislators
would escape the law mandating the withholding of their pay
until adoption of a new budget.
The bottom line of Proposal One, Mr. McMahon has concluded,
would be “less fiscal discipline, higher spending and
higher taxes—all without improving the efficiency, transparency
or accountability of the state’s much-criticized budget
process.”
New York needs to fix its budget mess, but increasing lawmakers’
ability to obstruct and delay-and then push through higher spending-is
not how to get it done. TOP
Glens Falls Post Star
- (Vote 'no' on proposal one, 11/2/05) Don't try to sort
this one out in the voting booth.
Just vote 'no' and move on.
The convoluted 250-word thesis that comprises state Proposal
One on next Tuesday's election ballot dubiously purports to
make changes in the state budgeting process that will save taxpayers
money and ensure on-time budgets.
But all these proposed changes to the state constitution really
would do is create another layer of waste and weaken the state's
checks-and-balance system relating to the budget. There's no
evidence that passage of this proposition will give state taxpayers
anything but a more complex version of the same dysfunctional
budget process.
The key element of the ballot proposal is the creation of a
contingency budget, which would be put in place to continue
state spending at existing levels if the full state budget isn't
passed on time. Spending increases would be restricted except
where mandated by law. On the surface, such an approach would
seem to be a good thing for taxpayers. But where the plan falls
apart is in the multiple layers of supplementary spending that
could be introduced by the Legislature. The ability of lawmakers
to alter and amend the budget would provide even more opportunities
for them to increase wasteful spending, as well as increase
the likelihood that final budgets won't be completed on time.
. . . .
The real problem with the state budget isn't with the process,
but with the people who oversee it.
A system of an executive budget with legislative input is fair,
reasonable and commonplace. Public hearings and joint legislative
conferences to resolve differences and involve the citizens
are already in place, as are incentives for lawmakers to complete
the budget on time.
The problem is that our state representatives routinely ignore
and manipulate the system to suit their own ends. Power is concentrated
in the hands of a few political leaders, who use that power
to further their own personal and political agendas.
. . . .
A fancy new shell game is no substitute for effective leadership
and fiscal discipline. Voters should reject Proposal One, and
demand more accountability from lawmakers for the budget system
that's already in place. TOP
Oneonta Daily Star
- (Vote `no’ on statewide propositions, 10/31/05) Proposition
One, or the budget reform amendment, should be defeated because
it does not address spending reform. It proposes changes in the
budget process that likely would make the tax-and-spend scenario
in Albany only worse.
Numerous business groups, think tanks, fiscal-policy experts,
good-government groups and former state budget officials have
joined forces to take this position. They have formed the group
Stop the Amendment in their opposition to Proposition One.
. . . .
The trouble is that the amendment takes most of the budget power
away from the governor and creates an alleged independent budget
office. We all know that office would end up in bed with legislative
leaders.
In addition, the proposal creates a "contingency budget"
that kicks in when there is no budget agreement by May 1, the
beginning of the fiscal year. The fear is that we’ll have
legislative leaders controlling spending by forcing in a contingency
plan, over which they’ll be pulling the strings.
. . . .
Vote against Proposition One on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 8.
TOP
Utica Observer-Dispatch
- ('Reform' just an excuse to delay budget, 11/2/05) Proposal
1 essentially is an attempt to create a law that aims to guarantee
lawmakers will get their work done on time. That's ridiculous.
How ridiculous? Lawmakers managed to hit the budget deadline this
year for the first time in 21 years. It's a good thing businesses
don't work like this. Why is it that legislators talk about running
government as a business and then come up with silly rules that
guarantee that it won't ever operate like one?
The proposed amendment to the state Constitution would alter the
way the state budget process works.
Among other things, it would move the budget deadline back one
month, from April 1 to May 1. If that deadline is missed, it would
provide for a "contingency" plan — the previous
year's budget.
That's hardly an incentive for legislators to approve the budget
on time. In fact, it's incentive for them not to. Government would
continue to run under the contingency plan, and the Legislature
could essentially throw the governor's budget out and craft its
own, which would likely result in more spending. Even though the
governor would still have veto power, this isn't the way it should
work.
Given this plan, it's a wonder if we'd ever have an on-time budget.
On top of that, legislators would continue to be paid because
the amendment repeals the rule that prohibits them from drawing
their salary until there is a budget.
- (Demand real budget reform, 5/7/05) A proposed amendment
to the state Constitution is being billed as "budget reform,"
but it's really just a power grab by the Legislature.
. . . .
With a contingency budget to keep the state running and the power
to pass spending bills once the budget is overdue, where's the
incentive for the Legislature to agree to an on time budget?
. . . .
The heart of this proposal is unsound. Voters should reject it.
New Yorkers have made it clear they want real reform. We deserve
better from our representatives. TOP
Elmira Star-Gazette
- (Budget reform has one serious, fatal flaw, 11/02/05) Watch
out for Proposition No. 1 in New York on Tuesday. It sounds innocuous,
but it's not. We recommend a "no" vote, not because
the whole proposition is dangerous to taxpayers. Just one part
of it.
. . . the sticking point is a provision that would resort to a
contingency budget - a backup budget - if the Legislature fails
to meet what would be a May 1 deadline to approve an annual spending
plan. The catch is the contingency budget would be controlled
by the Legislature not the governor, who currently controls state
spending.
That invites uncooperative lawmakers to miss the deadline and
take over the budget process. Despite the governor retaining veto
power, this change could reverse nearly 80 years of gubernatorial
control, which would shift budget accountability from one governor
to 162 legislators. That is what kills this proposal.
If this proposition had left the governor power over the contingency
budget, it would be a good change to the constitution.
As proposed, it is an ill-advised revision. Vote it down.TOP
Canandaigua Daily Messenger
- (Don't buy 'easy fix' for state budget woes, 5/08/05) The
plan from the very beginning has been an overly hyped diversion
from the most serious impediments to a rational annual budget.
. . . .
[T]he Legislature could increase spending with very little input
from the governor.
That's scary. Over the years, governors of both parties have,
with some exceptions, been more fiscally cautious than the state's
legislators have been. Legislators get themselves reelected every
year by bringing pork home to their small districts, while the
governors take the blame for the state's big-spending ways.
. . . .
Last year's outbreak of public rage against New York's corrupt
Legislature wasn't entirely in vain--at least, it got legislators
talking about reform.
But voters have to keep up the pressure. Let's show legislators
that we won't buy surface solutions. Vote against the constitutional
amendment in November. And then, next year, show legislators that
only those who support real reform can keep their jobs.
TOP
Watertown Daily
Times
- (State Budget: Court affirmed governor's role; let it stand,
5/4/05) The governor, as chief executive and the state's
top elective official, represents all New Yorkers/ The court correctly
affirmed the governor's precedence in the state budget process.
Albany should continue to work through the existing framework.
To pass a thoughtful, on-time budgets, state leaders need to work
as a team and have the will to get the job done for the people.
They did it this year and can do it again. TOP
Jamestown Post-Journal
- (Vote no on proposal one, 11/2/05) The goal is laudable:
to reform New York state's budget process.
A proposal for a constitutional amendment that attempts to
do just that is on Tuesday's ballot.
However, we join Republican Gov. George Pataki, Democrat Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer and the state Business Council, among
others, in saying emphatically that the amendment to the state
Constitution will make the state budget process worse and the
proposal should be soundly defeated by voters on Tuesday.
David Little of the state School Boards Association acknowledged
in September that the proposed amendment is far from perfect
but he said his group supports it as step toward making other
reforms. Voters should insist on Tuesday that ''far from perfect''
is just not good enough by saying no to the proposal and sending
the state Legislature back to the drawing board.
. . . .
''Virtually everyone who follows the fiscal-policy debate in
New York state opposes the amendment,'' says our own Daniel
B. Walsh, president and CEO of The Business Council. ''On the
fiscal right and left, virtually all editorial pages, fiscal-policy
wonks, think tanks, business groups, and current, former and
potential governors reject this fiscal folly.''
We join Dan Walsh in saying that, yes, New York needs budget
reform but, no, this proposed constitutional amendment, is not
it.
We urge you to vote no on Proposal One on Election Day.
TOP
Plattsburgh Press
Republican
- (Budget reform? Not this way, 4/30/05) Responsibility
for for the new budget would fall to the two houses of the legislature,
leaving the governor out of the process.
The reason that is such a disastrous provision is that it would
encourage the legislature never to negotiate in good faith, because,
by not doing so, it would automatically be handed the power over
the budget.
. . . .
Budget reform? If this ill-conceived budget reform amendment passes
in November, then we'll need some real reform. TOP
Poughkeepsie Journal
- (Reject budget reform item, 10/23/05) [T]he bad outweighs
the good in this referendum. Giving the Legislature more control
over the budget could be extremely detrimental to state taxpayers.
That's because, traditionally, the Legislature wants to spend
more than the governor proposes in his annual budget. And this
so-called "reform measure" would actually give the Assembly
and Senate incentives to miss their fiscal deadline and then include
more spending in their versions of the budget.
Another level of oversight is not needed
Creating an independent budget office is also a wasteful endeavor.
The state has enough bureaucracy; it doesn't need another expensive
administrative office. As the state's chief fiscal officer,
the state comptroller is certainly qualified to render a decision
on any budget revenue and/or expenditure disputes between the
Legislature and governor.
It's worth noting that the Legislature put forth this referendum
after Gov. George Pataki won an important court ruling that
affirmed the executive's power over the budget. It seems more
than a coincidence that after this ruling, lawmakers actually
passed a budget on time this year, something they hadn't achieved
in two decades.
New Yorkers already are heavily taxed and the state is mired
in debt, so it's understandable that voters still want reforms
and, therefore, might be inclined to support this referendum.
But more budget delays, perhaps even more lawsuits, are likely
if the reform passes.
The state made some headway on the budget process this year.
It should build on that rather than heading in an entirely different
direction that would give the Legislature entirely too much
control over the budget.
- (Flawed reform isn't tolerable, 5/02/05) This constitutional
change would discourage, rather than encourage, fiscal responsibility
and an on-time budget.
This amendment to the constitution would, if the state failed
to pass an on-time budget, authorize a "contingency budget"
to fall in place. It may sound like a good idea, but it would
actually be worse than keeping things status quo. Pretty scary.
This contingency budget would nullify the governor's budget that
legislators failed to approve and will leave the legislators open
to craft their own plan. Their long tradition of largess will
surely deliver sticker shock to taxpayers left to pick up the
tab.
. . . .
Eliminating the executive branch's power is not reform. It's a
power play.
. . . .
If legislators are determined to change the state's constitution
for the worse, New York's voters should see through their game
and halt the deception. TOP
Troy Record
- (Propositions worthy but not of yes vote, 11/7/05) [I]t
is our belief that taxpayers would be better off voting no on
[. . .] the proposition that would give the Legislature greater
control of the budget.
. . . .
It pains us to come down on the negative side, and these decisions
did not come without much spirited debate on both measures.
To be fair, proposal one that aims to reform the state's flawed
budget process does have its good points. It would move the start
of the state's fiscal year from April 1 to May 1, giving our leaders
more time to reach a budget agreement, and it would fund education
in two-year cycles, which would help our school districts do better
fiscal planning.
However, the measure would give legislators more control over
the budget, which could have severe fiscal ramifications on taxpayer
dollars since many in this group can't resist bringing a lot of
bacon home to their districts. TOP
|
Does this
sound like Budget Reform to you? |
 It
does not require that the Legislature pass an on-time
budget.
It gets rid of the
requirement that lawmakers lose their paychecks
when the budget is late.
And if the Legislature
fails to pass an on-time budget, the Assembly and
the Senate take control of the budget-writing process.
The Legislature has
already added $12 billion to the budget in just
10 years. More budget power for the Legislature
means more spending, which means more taxes. Is
that what New York needs? |
This November,
vote"NO"
on Proposal One - The Runaway Spending Amendment |
|
|
