Reports out of New York’s Capitol paint a worsening picture of the state’s finances.  It’s been reported that the state is facing an upcoming budget deficit in excess of $6 billion.  Half of the deficit is attributed to costs relating to the state Medicaid program – the health insurance coverage for the poor and disabled.

The Assembly Speaker has raised the idea of closing the deficit by raising revenues instead of cutting public programs.  Although more muted, the response from the governor’s office has been cool to the idea of raising taxes.

If history is any guide, lawmakers will be reluctant to enact cuts to popular programs in an election year.  The biggest parts of the state budget – K-12 education and health care – are fiercely protected by interest groups looking to maintain funding.

The governor’s office has instructed agencies to prepare their budgets with no expectation of increased state support beyond – perhaps – offsetting inflation.  Altogether it looks like the debate over how to close the budget deficit will dominate the 2020 legislative session that begins in early January.

And looking back over the record of past budget fights, the programs most likely to face the biggest funding cuts are those that do not have politically powerful institutional supports.  These are the programs that are designed to benefit smaller groups of individuals, usually without the capacity to make campaign contributions or hire hotwired lobbyists to represent them.

One such program is the state’s efforts to aid needy college students.  The state offers an impressive Tuition Assistance Program, which offsets a billion dollars in tuition costs for students in both the public and independent college sectors.

But for students and their families, college costs go beyond tuition alone: there are textbook costs, housing, transportation, food, etc.  In an effort to offset these costs and to provide other assistance to students in need, the state offers “opportunity programs.”  Opportunity programs are designed for educationally and economically disadvantaged students—in general, students who have come from low-income communities and often rank low on traditional measures of collegiate admissions standards, such SAT scores, high school GPA, and class standing.  

New York State has several opportunity programs in place to help students at both public and independent colleges and universities overcome the financial and academic obstacles of completing their education: Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge (SEEK), Educational Opportunity Program (EOP), Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP), College Discovery (CD), and Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP).  These programs take a comprehensive approach to college access and affordability by building in academic counseling, mentoring, and often providing waivers for related costs such as transit, textbooks, and childcare. 

These programs have had a long track record of success.  For example, the State University of New York’s EOP provides access, academic support, and supplemental financial assistance to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of them the first in their families to attend college.  

According to SUNY, graduation and retention rates of Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) students compare favorably to that of the general student population at comparable schools.  First year retention, where a student re-enrolls for a second year, for SUNY four-year senior college EOP students is 91% percent, whereas first year retention rates for the general student body at SUNY senior colleges is approximately 84%.  The six-year graduation rate for EOP students is 73%, whereas the SUNY-wide senior college rate is 68%.

Helping college students succeed is in the state’s interest.  Investment in education pays off:  For every $1 spent on education, the economy reaps $8 in benefits.  And college-educated workers earn more than their high-school educated peers by an average of $17,500 per year.

So, what’s the problem?  Despite their track record of success, these programs benefit a relatively small number of students and those individuals and their families lack political clout.  Usually, the governor cuts funding for these programs and the Legislature then restores them to the previous year’s levels.  But status-quo restorations often mean that additional needy students cannot obtain benefits and the impact of inflation erodes the funding levels even for those who do obtain help.

With New York facing a budget deficit, state officials will be looking for cuts in programs that do not result in a widespread public uproar.  Let’s hope that this year the governor examines the success of these programs and decides that despite the pressures, he’ll keep the state investing in its future and help those college students who need the most help.

New York looks like it will have some form of a voluntary system for publicly financing state government elections. Unfortunately, far too much of the program is unnecessarily complicated and untested.  In addition, while the commission lowers New York State’s ridiculously high campaign contribution limits, it still allows donations far in excess of those allowed for runs for federal office, including the President.  Lastly, the commission has advanced new schemes to make it harder for minor political parties to operate.

Before getting into the details, let’s recap how we got here.  The commission was originally established as part of the state budget deal that came together in late March.  The law required the commission to finish its work by December 1^st, just eight months later.  At that time, Governor Cuomo promised that the commission’s work would result in a program that was a model for the nation.

However, when it came to setting up the commission, the governor and the state legislative leaders dragged their feet.  The governor and the Legislature finally appointed commissioners in early July, allowing three months to be frittered away.  When the appointments were made, the governor inserted the head of the state Democratic Party into the commission, an unusual move that put the head of one political party involved in developing the campaign rules for all other parties – an obvious conflict of interest.

With only three months to go, the commission held its first meeting.  At that meeting, the head of the Democratic Party pushed hard for the commission to change the rules for how minor political parties operated instead of conducting a focused public debate on creating a system of public financing of campaigns for state elective office.

At a series of public forums, experts, academics and advocates testified that the commission should focus its efforts on adapting the well regarded New York City public financing system for all state races.  The City’s program has existed for over three decades and is widely viewed as a model for the nation. 

But the commission ignored that advice and instead advanced an untested, complicated program that is dramatically different from the road-tested City system.

It seemed like the governor, the legislative leaders, and at least some of the commission, were hell-bent on undermining their own work.

So what did they come up with?

The commission established a system of public financing, but different from what advocates recommended.  The New York City system allows contributions up to $250 to be matched by public funding at a ratio of $8 to $1.  So a $100 donation, for example, turns into a $900 contribution. 

Instead, the commission approved a plan that has a complicated sliding scale matching system.  For contributions up to $50, there will be a $12 to $1 match; for the next $100 a $9 to $1 match; and for the next $100, an $8 to $1 match.  Matches are only allowed for contributions up to $250 from donors living in the district.  Could be a good idea, but untested and extremely complex to administer and enforce.

The commission lowers campaign contribution limits a lot, but they are still high.  For example, under current law, a donor can make a contribution to governor of up to $69,700, a shockingly high number.  Under the commission plan, that number drops to $18,000.  But the national average for gubernatorial candidates is up to $7,000 and no one can contribute more than $6,000 for candidates for President.  New York City limits contributions for Mayor to no more than $2,000 for candidates running in the public financing program.  $18,000 campaign contributions for statewide office are still way too high.

Under the commission’s plan the New York State Board of Elections will administer the program, although with some tweaks.  The State Board of Elections is a political creature – run by the two major political parties – and has been viewed as ineffective. 

And, the commission added one more unnecessary measure by advancing new obstacles for minor political parties to effectively participate in New York elections. 

Instead of building on a successful New York City program, the commission instead offers an untested and incredibly complicated public financing scheme, allows high campaign contribution limits, continues to rely on a politically-driven entity for administration and enforcement, and establishes new obstacles to minor party participation.  It’s clear that the commission failed to do its job.

Under the law, the governor and state lawmakers have until December 22^nd to fix the commission’s work.  They must fix it so that New York State has a program that is truly a model for the nation.

Thanksgiving is the kick off of the holiday shopping season.  It’s a time when many adults look for gifts for children.  And while the holidays are a time for fun and giving, it is important that it gift givers keep safety in mind when shopping for kids.

A recent survey of toys found that some posed health and safety threats to children.  Among the toys surveyed were examples of choking and excessive noise hazards and toys with potentially hazardous concentrations of toxins.  The continued presence of these hazards in toys highlights the need for constant vigilance on the part of government agencies and the public to ensure that children do not end up playing with unsafe toys.

For more than 30 years, the United States Public Interest Research Group’s (USPIRG) Trouble in Toyland has called for stringent toy safety guidelines and has provided examples of toys currently on store shelves that pose potential safety hazards to young children.  

Here are some important things to keep in mind as you gift shop for children.  Beware of small parts choking hazards, if you want to test to see if a toy or a part of a toy is too small, see if it fits inside a toilet paper roll, if so, it’s not appropriate for small children.  Uninflated balloons should be kept away from kids under eight and popped balloons should not be left around.  If an action figure, toy gun or other toy produces loud sounds, it can hurt a child’s hearing.  Test the toy by holding it near your ear and if it’s too loud for you, it’s too loud for your child.  You can remove the batteries, put tape over the speaker, or decrease the volume.

Sculpture kits or puzzles may include powerful magnets that can seriously injure children if ingested.  Also, toys marketed to adults may be a hazard in the hands of children.  For example, fidget spinners may not meet the same safety standards as other toys because they are primarily designed with adults in mind, though they can still be marketed directly or indirectly to children.

Despite recent progress in making toys safer, the report highlighted the need for continued attention to shortcomings in existing standards and vigilance on the part of the shopping public.  To keep children safe from potentially hazardous toys, there is still more to do.

• Examine toys carefully for hazards before purchase – and don’t trust that they are safe just because they are on a store shelf or available online. 
• Report unsafe toys or toy-related injuries to the CPSC at www.saferproducts.gov.
• Subscribe to government announcements of recalled products at www.recalls.gov.

For toys already owned:

• Remove small batteries if there is any question over their security or accessibility and keep them out of reach of children;
• Remove batteries from or tape over the speakers of toys you already own that are too loud; and
• Put small parts, or toys broken into small parts, out of reach.  Regularly check that toys appropriate for your older children are not left within reach of younger children who still put things in their mouths.

While it’s important for parents and other adults to shop smart, there are steps that New York can take to protect children from dangerous products.  One example is a bill that passed both houses of the Legislature and awaits action by the governor. 

The legislation is designed to promote the removal of the most dangerous toxic chemicals—those either known or suspected of causing cancer, reproductive injuries or interfering with children’s development—from everyday children’s products and to steer industry towards safe substitution. 

The bill passed at the end of April with overwhelming bipartisan support, but the governor has not yet acted on the bill.  Advocates hope that with the holiday season looming, the governor will finally approve the legislation.

Until then adults should be on guard when it comes to purchasing toys.  In order to view the full Trouble in Toyland report go to www.nypirg.org.  Parents can find a list of unsafe toys, as well as tips for safe toy shopping this holiday season, at toysafetytips.org.  Have a happy and safe holiday season.

Antibiotics save lives and are critical tools for treating a number of common and more serious infections, like those that can lead to sepsis. However, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at least 30% of the antibiotics in U.S. outpatient settings are prescribed unnecessarily. Any time antibiotics are used, they can lead to antibiotic resistance, a growing and urgent threat to the public’s health.

According to the CDC, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are most prevalent in environments associated with high antibiotic use: healthcare settings, the general community, and in livestock production.  Antibiotic resistance can spread from person to person, from animal to person, via the natural environment or contaminated food and from bacteria to bacteria.  Some bacteria have developed resistance to multiple antibiotics, making them especially difficult to treat, and thus very dangerous and sometimes deadly.  Common infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, blood poisoning, food poisoning, and gonorrhea have already become harder and sometimes impossible to treat due to multidrug-resistant bacteria.

The problem of antibiotics-resistance is not just one found in the United States, it is a worldwide problem.  And worldwide problems demand global responses.

This week the United States, in coordination with nations across the world, are focusing in educating the health care providers, policymakers, and the public on the growing threat posed by antibiotic resistant infections, also known as “superbugs.”

Antibiotic resistance happens when bacteria develop the ability to defeat the drugs designed to kill them.  Each year in the United States, more than 2.8 million infections from bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics occur and more than 35,000 people die as a direct result.  Many more die from complications from antibiotic-resistant infections.

A study commissioned by the U.K. government predicts that if action is not taken now to combat antibiotic resistance,by 2050 the annual death toll will have risen to 10 million globally.  

The situation is getting worse with the emergence of new bacterial strains resistant to several antibiotics at the same time (known as multidrug-resistant bacteria). Such bacteria may eventually become resistant to all existing antibiotics. Without antibiotics, the world could return to the “pre-antibiotic era”, when organ transplants, cancer chemotherapy, intensive care and other medical procedures would no longer be possible.  Bacterial diseases would spread and could no longer be treated, causing death.

There is hope.  Data from European agencies show that interventions can work.  Medical data shows that Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have low rates of “superbugs,” but that there are higher rates in Southern Europe.  Countries with lower resistance rates have generally lower use of antibiotics, while countries with higher antibiotic resistance rates use more antibiotics.

One area of antibiotic misuse is relatively simple to address: use on farms.  Nearly two-thirds of antibiotics that are important for human medicine are currently sold for use in livestock, not people. These drugs are routinely given as poor compensation for inappropriate diets and the stressful, crowded and unsanitary conditions on industrial feedlots. This practice hastens the spread of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and increases the risk of drug-resistant infections in people.

When antibiotics are given to food-producing animals, they kill most of the bacteria in them. The resistant bacteria, however, survive and can contaminate animal products during slaughtering and processing. They can also contaminate fruits and vegetables via contaminated soil or water, especially when animal manure is used as fertilizer. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can contaminate food prepared on germ-filled surfaces and the environment via animal feces. According to the CDC, approximately 1 in 5 antibiotic-resistant infections are caused by germs from food and animals.

However, awareness weeks are only as good as the change they produce.  It is clear from the Scandinavian experiences that policies can significantly reduce the rise of “superbugs”: policies that focus on cleanliness in health care settings, a reliance on antibiotic use in humans only when medically necessary, and a drastic reduction in use on farm animals.  The most obvious way to reduce use among farm animals is for veterinarians to stop the use of antibiotics on healthy farm animals.

This is a worldwide problem, unless the rise of “superbugs” can be stopped, the next generation will be faced with a world without effective antibiotics, one in which illnesses like urinary tract infections will be untreatable, leaving people to suffer and perhaps die, from infections easily treatable today.

New York State’s campaign financing system has been notorious – sky-high contributions that allow the wealthy and powerful to legally donate over $100,000; ineffective enforcement; loopholes galore and inadequate disclosures.  The result?  Scandals.  Most recently the convictions of big donors and top-ranking state officials in an incredible scheme that rigged government contracts for big campaign donors.

The lousy system is not something new – for decades, blue ribbon commissions, federal prosecutors, and experts have roundly criticized New York’s campaign financing practices and its anemic laws.

And for decades Governors and state lawmakers have pledged to fix the system, only to complain that partisan gridlock blocked necessary reforms.

New York City’s experience, on the other hand, was different.  In the 1980s, it too experienced stunning levels of corruption.  But a politically unified city government coupled with public outrage yielded the creation of a system of public financing that shifted the emphasis away from raising money from special interests who write big checks to getting small donations that are amplified by public matching funds.  New York City’s program is now considered a model for the nation.

After the 2018 election, Democrats took firm control of the state government when they won a working majority of seats in the state senate.  Governor Cuomo had regularly advanced legislation to create a voluntary system of public financing modeled on the New York City program.  The new Democratic Senate majority had also pledged to support establishing a New York City-style system.  The Assembly had approved legislation creating a New York City-style system regularly for years since the 1980s.  Reform seemed like a done deal.

But something happened.  Democrats’ great enthusiasm for public financing evaporated during the first half of the legislative session.  Eventually, instead of directly voting to adopt a New York City-style system, the governor and the legislative leaders established a commission empowered to create a public financing system in New York State.  The legislation was approved at the end of March and this new Commission was charged with releasing its plan by December 1^st of this year, giving the group only eight months to get its work completed.

But the games continued.  The leaders made no appointments to the commission until early July, thus cutting the timetable to a mere five months.  The commission had no staff, few resources and couldn’t pull off its first meeting until late August.

Now the timetable was cut to 3 months.

The commission then wasted its time publicly debating whether to curtail the involvement of minor parties in elections.  The commission is now down to a few precious weeks to get its monumental work completed.

You would think that under the circumstances the Commission would focus on a program that has had a three-decade track record of success.  A program that already exists in New York State.  The commission could then focus on how best to scale it up to a statewide program.

But you would be wrong.

Instead, the commission seems to want to develop a system very different from New York City’s.  At its most recent meeting, the commission approved an outline of a program that would diverge from the New York City model by prohibiting public financing matches for out-of-district.  Instead, in-district contributions would be matched up to $250 according to a tier of ratios: the first $50 at 12:1, the next $100 at 9:1, and the next $100 at 8:1.  

This untried, complicated system is being cooked up with less than three weeks to go.  It almost seems like they are doing all they can to develop a program too flawed to succeed. 

This has happened before.  In 2014, the governor rushed through a campaign financing change that covered only the Comptroller’s race. The program was so flawed that the Comptroller did not choose to participate and his opponent couldn’t meet the complicated standards.

Why is the commission operating this way?  Since so much of what they do is done in secret, it’s hard to know.  But it’s safe to say that the governor and the legislative leaders are comfortable with the ways things are going.

New Yorkers, on the other hand, should not be.  New York’s corrupt campaign financing system needs drastic change.  If the unelected commission fails to make it happen, New Yorkers should look to the actions of the governor and the legislature before, during, and after the commission acts.  It is their leadership that should be under scrutiny.