The centerpiece of Governor Cuomo’s State of the State address was the call for voters to approve an environmental bond act.  Dubbed the “Restore Mother Nature Bond Act,” the governor’s plan proposes that the state borrow $3 billion to address serious environmental problems tied to global warming.

Under New York’s Constitution, the state can only undertake direct borrowing if the question is put to the voters for approval.  Thus, the governor’s proposal would have to be first approved by lawmakers this legislative session and then placed on the ballot for voter approval this November.

The governor’s plan, details of which are expected to be released in this week’s budget address, would address environmental problems such as restoring wetlands, fighting algal blooms, repairing dams, restoring footpaths in the state parks, increasing the use of electric vehicles and expanding recycling programs. These are areas that are sorely in need of additional funding.  If the Bond Act is done right, the $3 billion in funding can go a long way toward improving New York’s environment.

There are two big questions that New Yorkers should expect to have answered before any Bond Act should be approved.

Question #1:  How will the money be spent?

Bond Act proposals rarely are detailed in how they will spend the money.  Usually accompanying a Bond Act plan is an agreement – in law or a legislative understanding with the governor – that offers a list of programs that would qualify for funding.  But sometimes, the projects turn out to be the result of deal making and have little to do with the purported goal of the Bond Act. 

In order to ensure that Bond Act spending goes towards the most critical environmental needs, plans for spending should be approved in a transparent manner and should rely on objective, independent, scientific criteria based on the climate crisis needs of the state, not simply because it is a pet project of some powerful elected official or special interest.

When it comes to New York managing big pots of money, we have seen bad outcomes in the past.  When the state received billions of dollars resulting from litigation with tobacco companies, some local governments spent the money on purchasing golf carts – not efforts to curb smoking.  That should not be allowed to happen with the Bond Act.

Question #2: Who will pay?

A Bond Act is a way for the state to borrow a large amount of money to meet pressing needs.  The borrowed money should be used for projects that are expected to last at least the lifetime of the borrowing – usually 30 years.  Thus, spending makes sense for state projects that would protect water supplies.  However, it shouldn’t be used in ways that enrich real estate developers, for example, at the expense of the natural environment.

No matter what, the Bond Act will have to be paid back.

Right now, the assumption is that all New Yorkers will pay the Bond Act back.  But why should they?  After all, the looming climate catastrophe that created the need to borrow in the first place is the result of the corruption of American politics by oil, coal and gas interests.

Big oil companies have known since the 1970s of the problems associated with the burning of fossil fuels.  They knew it would heat up the planet and cause dire change in the environment.  They accurately predicted the timetable in which those changes would occur.

But instead of being responsible, they used their considerable clout to lie about the evidence to the public, undermine the science, hire consultants and lobbyists to derail pro-health and environment reforms, and shower campaign contributions on those candidates who would do their bidding. 

And they were so successful that the world is on the precipice of global environmental catastrophe.  It was their deliberate campaign to corrupt our democracy.  Why should we get stuck with the tab?

The governor and state lawmakers must adhere to the principle that the polluter is responsible for the mess they created.  Governor Mario Cuomo stuck to that principle with the Environmental Bond Act of 1986, which relied heavily on polluters to pay for the hazardous waste cleanups that were the target of that effort.  That formulation was so successful that the 1986 Bond Act was overwhelmingly approved by voters.  New Yorkers should hope the same is true in 2020:  that it will be the oil, gas and coal interests that are on the hook to pay for the mess that they made.

How those two questions are answered should guide voters on how to vote this November.

In many ways, Governor Cuomo’s 2020 State of the State address last week was like many that have preceded it.  In modern times, the state of the State address mimics the pomp of the national State of the Union address: lots of rhetorical flourishes, calls for actions on important issues, with little in the way of real details. 

When governors first get elected, their State of the State addresses are forward looking and reformist.  Particularly if they are replacing a predecessor from a different political party or one tarred with scandal, new governors tend to offer what they characterize as a “bold, new” approach to the issues facing the state while also bashing the previous officeholder.

As governors remain in office the State of the State becomes more and more about the Administration’s successes and less and less about specific reforms.  The long-serving governor has become the status quo and reforms imply his/her own policy failures.

Governor Cuomo’s 2020 address spent much of its time on successes, much of which he can rightfully claim, ideas for the various regions of the state and some ideas to grapple with problems. 

He contrasted the successes of New York with the gridlock, partisan sniping, and – frankly – the “circus” of noise that emanates from the national government.  His nearly 80-minute address spent most of the time on his achievements and how New York under his leadership contrasts with Washington.  It wasn’t until the first hour of speech was over that he raised the looming projected $6 billion deficit facing the state.

While admitting that the problem existed, the governor spent little time discussing how it would be addressed.  State of the State addresses are generally “good news” presentations; the “bad news” is found in the budget, usually a couple of weeks later.  This year looks to be no different.

The governor spent considerable time on a growing public safety threat from domestic terrorists, particularly those involved in hate crimes.

Many of the governor’s new ideas touched on important issues.  Here are a few of the issues mentioned in his speech and included in his 317-page briefing book:

1. The governor is proposing a $3 billion environmental bond act.  Calling his proposal the Restore Mother Nature Bond Act, the plan — which would need the approval of voters this November – would fund natural restoration and resiliency programs across the state.  The governor proposes to use the money to restore habitats for fish and wildlife, fight invasive species, protect against flooding, boost fish production at fisheries and double the state’s artificial reef in the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound.
2. He called for support to allow for the legal sale of marijuana without a prescription in New York.  If approved the Administration believes that it would raise $300 million when fully implemented.
3. He proposed that lawmakers approve a plan to require that all elected officials making over $100,000 publicly disclose their tax returns.
4. He called for various tax cuts for small businesses and middle-income individuals.  How these are paid for with a multi-billion-dollar deficit remains to be seen.
5. Lastly, he vowed to fight for greater equity in state funding for K-12 schools.  How that will be funded in the context of a budget deficit is unknown.

The governor also called for action to “prevent the blocking, throttling and paid prioritization of online content — practices that undermine a free and open internet.”  He called for an expansion of the state’s college financial aid program, known as the Excelsior Scholarship, to families with incomes up to $150,000.  He called for tools to better regulate robocalls and “predatory” debt collectors.  He called for greater voting protections.

A big issue left out of the governor’s speech and briefing book was how to overhaul New York’s much-maligned ethics oversight entity.

But the big issue for 2020 remains:  How will the state balance its fiscal books and eliminate a significant shortfall?  This being an election year, how that question gets answered may well best tell New Yorkers the state of their state.

The 2020 legislative session gets underway this week with the governor’s “State of the State” address.  The big issue casting a shadow over the session will be the state’s looming budget deficit.  The budget shortfall has been projected to exceed $6 billion and how it gets addressed will drive the policies for the budget and, most likely, the remainder of the session.

Reining in health care in the state’s $175 billion spending budget will be a top issue for the session.  The governor has already pledged to reduce the state’s reimbursement for most Medicaid payments to health-care providers by 1 percent, which should save hundreds of millions of dollars.

But that move alone will not solve the problem and how to make health-care delivery more efficient will likely be a top action item at the Capitol.  A recent report showed that New York’s hospitals perform poorly when it comes to delivering top notch health care; experts note that good health care is less expensive, since patients who are cared for properly are less likely to need additional costly medical attention.

Other health care topics like reducing the use of electronic cigarettes (and tobacco products too), limiting the cost of prescription drugs, and determining whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana will likely get thrown into the mix.  Legalizing pot sales could result in increased tax revenues for the state, as could a hike in taxes on vaping and tobacco products.  But there likely are start-up costs for pot legalization, meaning state coffers might not benefit in the next fiscal year.

Other revenue increases will matter too, since the governor and lawmakers will not close the deficit with cuts alone – particularly in an election year.  There will be a plan to raise the personal income tax rates, which is supported by the Assembly Speaker, but has been coolly received by the governor and the Senate Majority Leader. 

Closing wasteful corporate tax loopholes, particularly for the oil, gas and coal industries, could emerge as other revenue sources.  Those big polluters are responsible for the growing climate crisis and should pay for dealing with it.  They are also among the state’s biggest polluters of water supplies and plans to ensure that drinking water is protected will be a top issue, too.

Beyond the budget debate other issues that were not addressed last year could emerge again.

On the last day of the 2019 session, a plan to automatically register to vote eligible New Yorkers who interact with government agencies collapsed on technicalities.  Both houses said they would move on a new plan in early 2020. 

Last November was the first year that New York allowed early voting.  Expect action on ways to improve on that experience for the 2020 elections.

The state’s campaign finance reform commission issued its plan in December.  The new law has been roundly criticized as inadequate, so it’s expected there will be debate on plans to improve it.  The state’s ethics watchdog, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, has been wracked by controversies and calls for its elimination.  There will likely be legislative action in that area too.

The costs of higher education will also be in the spotlight.  The Cuomo Administration has been the architect of annual public college tuition hikes and has essentially frozen financial aid programs – with the notable exception being the Excelsior Scholarship, which benefits a small percentage of college students.  With national Democrats calling for massive changes in the way that higher education is funded, it is likely that state Democrats will want to be in sync with the national agenda.  The state Senate has held hearings to set the stage for that.

Lastly, it is expected that there will be a debate over the specifics of a multi-billion-dollar transportation package to decide spending on various roads and public transportation projects.

Keep in mind that in Albany, it takes three to tango:  The Senate, Assembly and governor all must be on the same page for the budget and legislative proposals to become law.  And this year state government will be acting on a compressed timetable in a pivotal state and federal election year.  For the first time in decades, the Legislature is planning to wrap up its work by early June.  The reason is last year lawmakers moved up the state’s election primary date from mid-September to the end of June (the 23^rd).  As a result, lawmakers are going to want to hit the campaign trail and to do so they want to be freed up from responsibilities in the state capital.

Of course, no one really knows how this will all play out.  But given the stakes, all New Yorkers should pay keen attention to the state Capitol.

As the decade comes to an end, one disturbing trend has been the accelerating loss of local newspapers and other media outlets.  Over the last 15 years, local newspapers across the U.S. have lost more than $35 billion in advertising revenue and shed half of their staff, and at least 2,000 news outlets have closed during that time.

And many of those who have survived barely cling to life.

2019 alone was an extremely tough year for older news sources, like newspapers, magazines, television and radio.  Revenue for television was down nearly 4% this year, and for print it was down nearly 20%.

The human toll has been staggering:  Some have estimated that nearly 8,000 people were laid off or lost their jobs in U.S. media in 2019.

The problem has become so bad that areas without local media outlets are now considered “news deserts.”  What is a “news desert”?  It is a term without a universally agreed-upon definition.  Generally speaking, a news desert is a place with no local news outlets at all.  Some define it a bit more loosely, stating that news deserts are “places where it is difficult to access daily, local news and information” or even “a community overlooked, if not entirely ignored, by the media.”

While the definition is vague, the impact is clear:  Inadequate local media coverage can result in communities that are more willing to rely on ideological messengers and a community where government is less accountable to the public it is supposed to serve.

In our representative democracy, an informed electorate is fundamentally important to ensuring that the system works.  Many Americans have unprecedented access to information, but with lives busier than ever, it’s very hard for citizens to fill the reporting and analysis void provided by local reporting.

If the “watchdogging” that has historically been done by local media evaporates and there isn’t anybody watching the local town or city council meetings and reporting on them, there’s potential for abuse or fraud.  There’s a growing body of compelling research that has found that as local news coverage declines, government corruption and government costs increase.

Moreover, less local coverage can dampen public interest in local elections.   Local news drives civic engagement.  And when it comes time to pick our representatives, voters living in “news deserts” are less likely to know who is running and how they stand on issues.  Thus, they are less likely to participate.  

Of course, the situation is not uniformly bad.  Excellent investigative journalism continues, but for those in the “news deserts” – and for those soon to be in them – the situation is very bad.

So, what should be done?  One idea is to consider whether local media should reorganize itself as charitable non-profit corporations – such as the one you are listening to now.

It isn’t a far-fetched idea.  As taxpayers we currently support commercial media through postal subsidies, through tax breaks and through government ads.  Why not encourage them to become nonprofits?

It would help insulate them from the whims of owners and reduce exposure to taxes.  And, after all, the “mission” of local media is actually public service.

Like everything else, it’s easier said than done.  In order to become a nonprofit, a local media outlet would have to reorganize its governance structure and reclassify how it’s registered with the state.  It would also need to meet the IRS’s strict requirements for tax-exempt nonprofit status.  In order to maintain nonprofit status, an organization must be primarily supported by the public, through mechanisms such as foundation grants or individual donations.  Typically, newspapers rely on selling ads and subscriptions, which would have to change.

There are also strict limitations against nonprofits engaging in political activity.  As a result, these nonprofit news organizations are forbidden from endorsing or opposing candidates for office and there are limitations on how they can support or oppose legislation.  That means the newspapers’ editorial pages wouldn’t be able to endorse candidates, and they would likely face a problem in endorsing ballot measures or legislation.

We’re well into a reordering of how some of our basic institutions have operated for the past century.  The decimation of news gathering and reporting outlets in communities across the nation imperils democracy be reducing local government accountability and the amount of information voters receive about candidates.  That’s something that should concern us all and is worthy of putting near the top of the issues we collectively need to address in the decade to come.

The world’s leaders met in Madrid to discuss new steps to combat the threat posed by global warming.  The Conference was convened by the United Nations two weeks ago and finished its work with far too little progress toward curbing a rapidly heating planet.  The Conference wrapped up with a modest agreement, too weak to have any effect on the warming of the planet – a warming that is heating up at a pace that exceeds even the direst predictions from a few years ago.

And the data is showing that the world may be past the tipping point – the point at which the damage to the environment and the public’s health may be catastrophic.  For example, a report by the United Nations found that by 2030, global emissions — which are currently still rising — would have to be 25 percent lower than last year in order to keep the rise in the global temperature less than 2˚C (3.6˚F) and 55 percent less than last year in order to keep the global warming to less than 1.5°C (2.7˚F).

Why should the world be keeping the heat to those levels?  According to the International Panel on Climate Change (the world’s experts), going from 2.7˚F of global warming to 3.6˚F could mean:

• 1.7 billion more people will experience severe heatwaves at least once every five years.
• Seas will rise – on average – another 4 inches.
• Up to several hundred million more people will become exposed to climate-related risks and poverty.
• The coral reefs that support marine environments around the world could decline as much as 99 percent.
• Global fishery catches could face massive declines.

Going above 2.7˚F of warming puts millions more at risk of potentially life-threatening heatwaves and poverty. It all but wipes out coral reefs that entire ecosystems rely on. Seas will flood even more of the world’s cities.

Yet, not enough is being done to keep the lid on heating.  Instead, the planet is heating up at a rate that may threaten our existence.

As depressing as the projections are, what is most shocking is that we are doing it to ourselves.  Most notably, scientists at huge oil companies like Exxon knew since the 1970s that global warming was an increasing existential threat – unless actions were taken.  But instead of alerting the public and policymakers to the growing danger, the industry focused on undermining the science and using its finances to bamboozle the public and purchase political leaders as its supporters.

And they succeeded.

We live in a country whose political leaders don’t believe the science.  They are far more interested in fattening the profit margins of the oil, gas and coal industries.  And the nation’s lack of leadership is also contributing mightily to the global failures to collectively act.

The fossil fuel’s industry actions may have pushed the earth – and civilization – to the breaking point.  What consequences should they face?

Last week, the effort by the New York State Attorney General to hold oil companies legally accountable for their actions was blocked.  A judge ruled in favor of ExxonMobil Corp. in a case that accused the company of misleading investors about climate-change regulations.

New York state’s attorney general launched an investigation into Exxon in 2015 and then sued the company last year, claiming it used two sets of numbers when calculating the cost of climate change regulations on its operations. This approach, according to the Attorney General, misled investors and made the company’s investment decisions appear more profitable or less costly than they otherwise would have.

The court ruled against the Attorney General, however, stating that New York “failed to prove that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor.”

Whether New York chooses to challenge the ruling is unclear, but it shouldn’t be the last effort to hold the industry accountable.  The Attorney General’s effort deserved public support.  But its legal loss shouldn’t mean that the industry should not be held to account for its efforts to undermine the science and corrupt the nation’s politics.

Like any polluter, they should pay for the mess that they have created.  And policymakers worldwide should use the industry’s resources to pull back from the climate abyss.