Monday February 24^th kicks off the last week of the Legislature’s public hearings into Governor Hochul’s proposed budget. One of the biggest issues under the microscope this week: the financing of higher education.

The title of the hearing should be “promises made, promises broken.”

For decades, New York offered the neediest public college students assistance that covered full tuition through the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) at the State University of New York and the City University of New York. While the relationship between the two – SUNY tuition and the maximum TAP award – was unwritten, the promise was there for decades. However, that promise was broken in 2011.

Starting with the Cuomo Administration, the maximum TAP award was frozen as the state continually raised public college tuition. In the former governor’s first year, New York adopted a new approach that would annually raise public college tuition rates but keep the maximum TAP award “frozen.” The plan called on the public colleges to use their own resources to cover the difference between the maximum TAP award and the cost of public college tuition.

That “gap” swelled over time and became known as the “TAP gap.”

The policy of keeping the maximum TAP award frozen while increasing public college tuition destabilized some SUNY colleges. Over time, the “TAP gap” eroded public colleges’ finances as they were regularly being asked to cover rising tuition costs for their poorest students. For example, institutions like Buffalo State University were already cutting programs, freezing hiring, and offering voluntary separations to reduce costs. The devastating one-two punch of higher public college tuition and frozen TAP further strained institutional budgets, reducing tuition assistance revenue and deepening financial challenges.

Independent colleges were hit too. Students attending those institutions also are eligible for TAP. Since TAP awards were frozen, those campuses also had to figure out ways to cover the financial assistance that would normally have come from the state’s TAP.

Adding to that financial hit, New York State was cutting back its direct support of colleges in the independent sector as well.

Aid to certain non-public colleges and universities, popularly known as Bundy Aid, is a program that provides direct unrestricted financial support to independent postsecondary institutions located in New York State. The program was established in 1968 through a Select Committee charged with “how the State can help preserve the strength and vitality of our private and independent institutions of higher education and at the same time, keep them free.” The Committee’s report recommended that “the moderate but real level of need calls for direct assistance from New York to private colleges and universities.” Distribution of the assistance is based on a formula derived from the number of degrees an institution has granted.

Once a vital component of independent colleges’ finances, the program has been decimated by cuts over the past four decades. The peak state support occurred during the 1989-90 fiscal year, when nearly $114 million was appropriated. During the current fiscal year, that amount has been reduced to nearly $22 million. If New York had merely kept pace with inflation, the amount of Bundy Aid should be around $260 million – not $22 million.

Not surprisingly, many colleges – usually small ones – have seen their finances stretched to the limit – and beyond. New York has seen six colleges (a total of ten degree-granting institutions) shut their doors in only the last two years, throwing their students into educational uncertainty and potentially, entire communities into economic insecurity. One recent example was the closure of the College of St. Rose in Albany, N.Y.

Originally designed to uphold the strength and vitality of independent institutions of higher education, Bundy Aid once stood as a testament to the state’s promise to keep that sector alive. The devastating cuts over the past three decades have left too many teetering on the financial brink – another “promise” broken.

But you’re wondering, why should we care?

The answer is that colleges not only educate the adult leaders of the future, but they are also dynamic “economic engines.” These economic engines create jobs that stimulate and anchor local economies. They offer a stimulus to local economies that are virtually guaranteed to succeed. For example, SUNY’s economic impact in New York State is $28.6 billion. For every $1 invested in SUNY, New York State’s economy benefits the equivalent of $8.17 and is responsible for nearly 2% of the gross state product.

The benefits are generated by independent colleges too. In fiscal year 2022-23 independent colleges and universities in New York State contributed an estimated $97 billion to the state’s economy and supported more than 407,000 jobs.

Whether the state’s political leadership agrees that New York’s economic future hinges on a robust system of higher education – and therefore they decide to make good on their so far broken promises – only time will tell.

New York’s growing trash crisis has been well-documented. The state’s capacity to take this problem on is dwindling. According to a 2023 report by the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”), “New York’s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.”

The number one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is garbage-burning incinerators; and last is getting recycled. There is no evidence that the problem is getting better. In fact, the state’s residential recycling rate has been dropping over the past decade. By the way, these disposal methods can contribute to the climate crisis: Solid waste accounts for 12% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, most of which comes from decomposing waste in landfills.

If the state’s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what will happen? Trucking the waste somewhere else is likely to be the option, but that is expensive and uncertain: Who knows for how long someone else will be willing to take New York’s trash? Already, New York City exports nearly all of its trash. Unless something changes, the rest of the state will have to follow that very expensive route.

But sending the trash “somewhere” has huge problems.

For example, plastic waste increasingly ends up in developing countries – communities without regulations to handle the waste appropriately. According to reporting in the New York Times, in Kenya cattle have been found to possess plastic in their stomach linings, while 69 percent of discarded plastic enters a water system. In Indonesia, plastic waste is so mishandled that 365 tons of it enter the sea every hour. As a result, mismanaged trash in the developing world is linked to the death of hundreds of thousands every year.

Yet the plastic pollution problem may get much worse.

Last week, the soft drink giant Coca-Cola, warned that the Trump Administration’s proposed 25% tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum entering the U.S., which could push up the prices of canned food and drink, will result in it shifting some of its beverage containers away from aluminum and toward plastic.

Increasing tariffs on aluminum may well result in making New York’s trash problem worse, not better, since plastic is nowhere as easy to recycle as aluminum. The recycling rate of PET bottles and jars was 29.1% in 2018, compared with the recycling rate of aluminum beer and soft drink cans at 50.4% in the same year, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency. Given New York’s anemic, and slipping, recycling rate, more plastic waste means more trash that must be disposed of.

What should be done? Here are three measures that Albany must act upon this legislative session:

First, increase spending on recycling. Governor Hochul is proposing to freeze spending for the state’s Environmental Protection Fund. That Fund provides – among other things – funding for “encouraging recycling; providing safe disposal of household hazardous waste; ensuring safe closure of landfills; and developing markets for waste materials.” The executive budget keeps funding flat at $400 million. A wide array of groups have urged an increase in that to $500 million.

Second, force packaging manufacturers to be more accountable for their wastes. The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act will dramatically reduce plastic packaging, phase out some of the most toxic chemicals used in packaging, and improve recyclability of packaging.

Third, modernize the state’s Bottle Deposit Law, also known as the “Bottle Bill.” That’s the law that requires a nickel deposit on certain carbonated beverages and bottled water. When you return the container, you get your nickel back. The DEC describes the Bottle Bill as a “tremendous success.” But many beverage containers are not covered under the law and the deposit has been a nickel for four decades, if adjusted for inflation that nickel would be worth 15 cents today. Expanding the law to all beverages – like iced teas and sports drinks – and increasing the deposit to a dime, would go a long way in making the program work even better.

Modernizing the Bottle Bill would not only help with the trash crisis, but according to a recent report, it would boost state revenues by as much as $100 million – money that could be used to help with the trash crisis.

Lastly, redeeming more aluminum cans would also help companies, like Coca-Cola, expand the supply of easily recyclable containers to help respond to the Trump Tariffs. A win, win proposition.

The measures would reduce packaging waste and promote the concept of a “circular economy” – one in which wastes are reduced to a minimum. Boosting funding of the state’s EPF would also help reverse the state’s decline in recycling.

As lawmakers return to the Capitol next week to start to hammer out next year’s budget, they must tackle the solid waste disposal crisis head on. The packaging reduction, bottle deposit law, and EPF are three good places to start.

State lawmakers continue to review Governor Hochul’s $252 billion proposed budget. This week’s big hearing focuses on health care – by far the largest chunk of state spending. According to the governor, New York is expected to spend over $100 billion of the $252 billion proposed budget on health care.

That’s a lot of money and it dwarfs all other spending. With that much of the state budget focused on health care, a good question to ask is how well does the system work?

Of course, defining how well a system works depends on how you look at it. New York State has one of the highest rates of health coverage in the nation, with about 95 percent of the public covered.

But when it comes to the quality of hospital care, New York lags.

Why does this matter? First off, no one wants to go to the hospital and get hurt. In November 1999 the Institute of Medicine report, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, was released. It documented a veritable epidemic of tens of thousands of preventable deaths in United States hospitals. Then in 2013, a widely-covered study published in the Journal of Patient Safety reported that nearly 400,000 U.S. hospital patient deaths each year were preventable.

Those numbers are staggering.  And experts now consider deaths due to medical mistakes as the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer.

Second, poor quality care is a waste of money. According to experts, higher quality care is less expensive care. Thus, developing recommendations to improve the quality of care will not only lessen unnecessary patient injuries and deaths, but will also make the system more efficient in its use of public dollars.

A key way to improve patient safety is making the quality of health care delivery transparent.

Perhaps the most comprehensive safety guide is the hospital ranking issued by The Leapfrog Group (http://www.leapfroggroup.org/).  Leapfrog was created over 20 years ago by large businesses that were frustrated by the lack of quality health data.  The businesses usually negotiated coverage for their employees yet lacked the data to comparison shop. The Group issues its ranking twice a year.

In its most recent report, Leapfrog Group found that New York State ranked 34^th nationwide in terms of quality, with only one fifth of hospitals receiving an “A” grade. In addition, according to Leapfrog, New York’s hospitals ranked seventh nationwide in terms of having the highest percentage of poor-quality grades – and has the most hospitals in that category overall.

Why do New York hospitals perform comparatively so much worse? In July 2019 the director of Leapfrog Group, explained what she knew about New York’s hospital safety:

“The system as a whole didn’t seem to have emphasized safety. We’ve seen other states work together and look at what’s working well at other states and implement it. It just doesn’t seem to be happening in New York. It has to be front of mind every single day in a hospital.”

New York State is the single biggest non-federal “purchaser” of health care through its Medicaid program and Essential Plan (projected to be approximately $124 billion combined) alone and its funding of the state employee health insurance programs, Empire Plan and NYSHIP. Yet, as seen in the Leapfrog Safety Grades, the state simply does little to ensure that the quality and value of the health care services paid for with taxpayer money meets the highest standards.

New York has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to leverage its buying power in ways that reward safety, quality and efficiency, and penalize those who fail to meet standards of high-value, high-quality health care. It is time for New York policymakers to ensure that the state is doing all it can to embrace “prudent purchaser” programs that drive patient safety.

These analyses raise serious questions for New York’s lawmakers considering the health budget. Questions should be asked of the Health Department, such as why did New York State hospitals rank so poorly? What has the Health Department done to respond to the national rankings that have consistently found poor quality in state hospitals?

Failing to get answers to those questions not only costs taxpayers money but puts too many New Yorkers’ health at risk.

The big Albany news last week was the unveiling of Governor Hochul’s 2025-2026 Executive Budget. This raises the curtain on the budget process and while hammering out a final budget is rarely easy, the prospects for the governor’s plans are boosted by forecasted surpluses of $3.5 billion in the current fiscal year and another $1.8 billion for the fiscal year starting on April 1.

The themes of her budget address, tracking her State of the State presentation a week earlier, was unmistakable: making New York more “affordable” and combatting crime. “This year’s budget will put money back in New Yorkers’ pockets and make our streets and subways safer.” Her budget address worked around those themes and offered little else that could crowd out her message.

The governor proposed that the bulk of the state’s budget surpluses be used to fund “affordability” measures: $3 billion for refund checks to 8.6 million New Yorkers and $1 billion in middle-class tax cuts for New Yorkers who file jointly and earn up to $323,000 annually.

That surplus is the result of higher-than-expected tax revenues. The governor also laid the groundwork for tougher days ahead — particularly if the new administration in Washington follows through on its plans to cut spending in ways that impact New York. While the spending plans of the new Trump Administration are not yet clear, the governor’s budget does anticipate that New York will receive $90.8 billion in federal funding in the coming fiscal year. Her budget projects state reserve funds of more than $20 billion.

The governor’s $252 billion budget proposal covers a lot of ground, calling for more money for existing programs, as well as offering new policy initiatives. The governor wants increases in education spending by boosting state aid for schools by $1.7 billion. She proposes hikes in the state share of Medicaid spending, which now totals about $100 billion – the largest portion of the state budget.

The governor also proposes to extend the current “millionaires tax,” which was due to expire in 2027. Her plan extends it through 2032.

The governor would use some of the surpluses to fund new measures to offset child care costs, including plans to spend over $800 million to expand the Child Tax Credit over two years. That tax credit would give eligible parents $1,000 for children under 4-years-old and $500 for those aged 4-16. She also proposed $340 million to provide free school breakfast and free school lunch for every student in New York.

However, on the darker side, the state Comptroller warned of “out-year budget gaps of $23.2 billion for the next three fiscal years,” which casts a shadow over the governor’s proposal.

One of the biggest problems facing the state is the eroding finances of the downstate mass transit system, run by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Late last year, the MTA released its capital budget plan for the next five years.

The plan calls for $68.4 billion in spending over the 2025-2029 period. Where will the money come from? Billions will be generated by Manhattan tolls from the congestion pricing. The MTA will generate billions more through debt financing and toll revenue-backed bonds. After that, the MTA was counting on federal grants and from New York State and New York City in direct funding, for a total of $35 billion.

That leaves the MTA trying to fill a $33-billion capital budget hole. In one of the most unusual plans offered in a state budget, the governor “assumes” revenue would materialize, presumably subject to final budget negotiations. The executive budget “assumes” billions in revenue from the state, billions from the City of New York, billions from the MTA and billions more from the federal government. If any of those assumptions fail to become reality, there will be a big hole in the MTA’s capital plan.

In a move that has already generated criticism from environmentalists, her plan does not include implementation of the “cap-and-invest” program that was supposed to be up-and-running this year. “Cap and invest” would establish a tightening cap on greenhouse gas emissions and invest the proceeds from polluter-paid fees. The plan charges a fee to large-scale greenhouse gas emitters and distributors of heating and transportation fuels, requiring they purchase pollution allowances for their activities. Proceeds would support clean energy investments in addition to funding annual rebates to all New Yorkers to offset potential consumer additional costs. The governor is kicking the can on this issue – presumably due to concerns it will increase energy costs for consumers.

Failing to act, of course, will lead to bigger problems with a worsening climate catastrophe. According to state experts, that would be a huge mistake in light of “the cost of inaction in New York State exceeding the cost of action by more than $115 billion.”

More will be learned as the governor’s plans are scrutinized through the legislative hearing process, starting this week. Under New York’s Constitution, the governor has the whip hand in the process and wins a lot more than she loses in Albany’s budget fights. Too often, Albany forgets exactly whose money it is that they’re fighting over. In order for the governor and state lawmakers to get it right, we have to stay engaged. Stay tuned.

This week Governor Hochul will deliver her State of the State address. Like her predecessor Andrew Cuomo, who first broke with tradition, her speech will not be delivered in the state Capitol, but in a performing arts venue contained within the Empire State Plaza, a complex of government buildings and small businesses. And her message will be delivered the first full week of the 2025 legislative session, not on its first day.

The governor’s State of the State is a requirement of the job. The state Constitution demands that “The governor shall communicate by message to the legislature at every session the condition of the state and recommend such matters to it as he or she shall judge expedient.”

In modern times the State of the State speech is delivered with much of the pomp found in the State of the Union address given by the President. The State of the State is delivered before a joint session of the state Senate and the state Assembly and is covered by media outlets across the state. The speech is typically delivered at the beginning of the legislative session and offers the governor’s vision and her plans to make the state better. The speech often runs for an hour or so and is accompanied by a detailed policy book that outlines the governor’s initiatives.

This year’s State of the State will likely touch on a full range of issues. Potential topics include how to fund the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the downstate mass transit systems; reforming how the state funds K-12 education; and how to do so in the shadow of a new – and more fiscally hostile – Administration in Washington develops its own budget.

That said, State of the State addresses are more poetry than prose. The details of the governor’s plans will come into focus when she releases her budget, not so much in her address. Instead, the governor uses both the State of the State and the days just prior to it to hammer home a theme and build public support for her agenda. This year is “affordability.”

The governor has already unveiled proposals that underpin her “affordability” message. Of course, there are things a state government can do to make life more affordable for its residents. Generally, however, the biggest cost drivers are largely outside the control of state government and more the result of national or global policies or events.

Take for example, the issue of insurance. Insurance is largely regulated at the state level, but costs from one part of the nation can impact companies’ bottom lines and thus impact rates in another.

The costs from the rapidly worsening climate are a good example. We have all been transfixed by the wildfires devastating swaths of Los Angeles. These massive, out-of-control blazes are now burning their way into suburban areas with no sign of letting up.

In California, the mounting losses from communities being burned to the ground and the resulting financial losses to insurers have resulted in the market drying up for homeowners looking for coverage. The insurance market has gotten so bad that California’s insurance companies have dropped hundreds of thousands of policyholders across the state in recent years citing the increasing risk and severity of wind-driven wildfires attributed to climate change.

It is now being reported that those losses will impact New York’s insurance premiums. The reason is the result of the arcane way the insurance industry operates. Insurance companies buy insurance to help cover the costs of unexpected large claims. That coverage – called reinsurance – has been getting more and more expensive as climate disasters have increased across the nation. As disasters mount, the cost of reinsurance goes up too. Thus, driving up premiums in states that are not directly impacted by a specific disaster.

Of course, every state gets plenty of disasters. One does not have to look far for ones that have hit New York. The first half of November was among the 20 driest such periods on record. That dryness increased the likelihood of wildfires occurring – and they did. New York City had brush fires of its own in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Wildfires have not been the only bizarre environmental events experienced by New Yorkers. The National Weather Service documented that 32 tornadoes touched down in New York this year. That’s the most since tornadoes were first recorded in the state in 1950.

Yet, the fossil fuel industries are advancing their opposition to New York’s moves toward “green” energy. Big Oil and their allies have embarked on their own “affordability” campaign to undermine the state’s science-based climate goals, assailing them as “ignorant,” “radical,” and “unaffordable.” This campaign is just the latest in the decades-long efforts to block climate protection policies.

Climate catastrophes will make the insurance business more costly – costs they’ll look to pass on to policyholders. As a result, New Yorkers have to hunker down, demand that the state move away from burning fossil fuels – which are driving the climate disasters – and prepare for higher costs that have little to do with Governor Hochul’s plans. Remember, when it comes to climate, insurance “unaffordability” is not the result of expensive state government, it is the result of the malignant advocacy of Big Oil and its stooges.

New York should strive to be more affordable, but it shouldn’t do so in a way that sacrifices the costs of generations to come.