2005 New York State ballot initiatives

While much talk in New York political circles is of the 2006 statewide races for governor and US Senate, voters in next month's elections will get to vote on two statewide ballot initiatives: one is an amendment to the state constitution to change Albany's budgeting process to give more power to the state legislature at the expense of the governor. The League of Women Voters, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) and Common Cause NY all think the constitutional amendment is a good idea because it introduces more transparency to the budget process. The The Business Council of New York State opposes the initiative saying that state spending and taxes would be even more out of control if more budget power is given to 150+ legislators whose primary focus is getting pork to their narrow electoral constituency.

The Business Council raises some legitimate concerns but the constitutional amendment would require more openness and greater transparency in the process. That in and of itself could do wonders for the dysfuctional budget-making in Albany. With more transparency, the Business Council would have more data and information with which to pursue its lower taxes/less spending campaign. It's precisely the secrecy and backdoor deal making that causes this runaway spending in the first place.

I certainly understand the very reasonable objections to this amendment, but I will be voting YES on the budget reform package.

The other initiative is a transportation bond act. The bond act would borrow $2.9 billion to upgrade the state's transportation infrastructure such as subways, roads and bridges. The Business Council inexplicably supports the bond act. This is surprising since their rationale for supporting the bond act is strikingly similar to their warnings AGAINST support the budget reform act. For consistency's sake, one would've expected Council to denounce the bond act (by definition greater spending) as a massive pork barrel project that would only lead to higher taxes.

The Business Council's support of the bond act came only a few weeks after state comptroller Alan Hevesi warned that the state's debt was already too high. How high? Hevesi estimates that by 2010, the state will be paying nearly $6 billion a year in INTEREST PAYMENTS on the state's debt... and that's not including the transportation bond act.

(At least this potential debt is being voted on by citizens. According to the comptroller, more than 90 percent of the state's $48 billion debt was acquired by opaque, unaccountable public authorities)

Maybe if the state weren't wasting billions a year on interest payments to bankers on ancient debt, it would more easily be able to afford on its own maintenance of social programs, support for higher education and the arts and, yes, transportation infrastructure improvements. Maybe this year is a good time to make infrastructure improvements a pay-as-you-go proposition.

Please vote NO on the transportation bond act. Sanity must be introduced at some point.


Update: North Country Public Radio reports that both supporters and opponents of the budget reform change fear that the amendment's complexity might discourage many citizens from voting on it at all.