As long-time observers know, Albany has a budget “dance.” The first step is that the governor must introduce her executive budget by mid-January; she has until mid-February to make any changes. In late January, the Legislature gets to “lead,” as it holds hearings to gather additional information on the governor’s budget plans from her agencies and the public.

Once the hearings are done, and they finished last week, each House develops its own budget plans based on the governor’s proposal and the feedback from the hearings. New York law requires that both the Senate and Assembly have public meetings to discuss their budget differences and then negotiations with the governor take place to finalize differences. The final product is due on March 31^st.

In New York the governor is in the driver’s seat when it comes to cobbling together a budget; the Legislature is a junior partner. In recent years, Governor Hochul has used her power to deliberately make budgets late in order to get concessions on other – usually non-budget – policies that she is advancing. The budget negotiations are held in secret.

Last week the governor added a new twist: On Thursday, her Administration unveiled a vague proposal to change New York’s seven-year-old Climate Law. The governor has expressed her desire to modify the law on numerous occasions, but no proposal was contained in her budget, nor her budget amendments, and was announced in informal verbal statements released as the budget hearings were wrapping up. Thus, there was no meaningful way for her proposal to face public scrutiny.

The Administration’s proposal was thrown into the budget “dance” to maximize the secrecy of what she intends. It must be underscored that the governor’s office has not actually proposed anything concrete, other than some statements that were later backed up by a three-page memo arguing that compliance with the Climate Law would cost New Yorkers thousands of dollars in additional energy costs.

Never mind that the governor has been proposing budgets for five years and in this year’s budget there was no plan to make changes. Never mind that her Administration has not released a deeper analysis of the sources for the estimates, methods or calculations in the three-page memo. Never mind that, if the Administration has its way, there will be no public scrutiny of the plan until after its possible inclusion as part of a secret budget negotiation.

So, what does New York’s Climate Law do?

It’s based on the planet’s worsening climate. The world’s climate scientists have agreed that “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming” and that “limiting human-caused global warming requires net zero CO₂ emissions.”

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Law”) was approved seven years ago and was designed to set the state on a path toward “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this Century.  The “net zero” goal is consistent with the standard set by the world’s climate scientists – who have warned that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global heating, all nations need to adhere to the net zero goal.

New York’s Climate Law set interim goals designed to guide policymakers as benchmark steps to meet the targets advised by the world’s climate experts.  Those interim goals commit the state to generate 70 percent of its electricity from renewable power sources and achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 – just four years from now.   

After the Climate Law was passed in 2019, the state convened a panel of “stakeholders” to arrange an extended public process. Once that process was completed, a “blueprint” of how to proceed was released in 2022.  Yet, once the fanfare of signing the bill passed and the rollout of the blueprint was over, too little was done to meet the challenges set in the Climate Law.

New York’s goals are attainable.  For example, Germany, with its cloudy days and cool climate expects to generate nearly 15% of its electricity by solar.  While New York State generates a paltry 5%. In addition, the European Union has announced it expects to meet its 2030 targets of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% compared to 1990 levels and achieving at least 42.5% renewable energy.

What New York does matters. While the state is a small portion of the world’s population, if it were a nation, it would have the eighth biggest economy in the world. What New York does can have huge impacts on the world’s climate approach.

Yet, instead of proposing to galvanize the state’s so-far-lethargic effort to meet the science-based goals of the Climate Law, apparently the governor wants to back off. What should be done?

The Legislature should firmly reject the governor’s move. The governor’s apparent plan is too consequential to get jammed into secret budget negotiations. If the governor wants to propose changes, do it in the light of day outside of the budget. New Yorkers have a right to know.

Republicans have a lot to worry about in the upcoming 2026 election. Historically, the party that controls the White House takes an electoral pasting in the mid-terms. Given the current razor-thin majority that allows the Republicans to control the House, a November vote consistent with the historic record of most mid-term elections could flip it back to Democratic control. 

A House controlled by Democrats would be a big headache for the President on multiple fronts. 

Given the President’s weak and worsening polling numbers, last year he concocted a scheme to boost Republicans’ electoral chances with a call for red states to approve mid-decade changes to Congressional lines to boost Republican chances of victory.

That effort has largely fizzled since Democrats responded with their own redistricting campaigns to boost their chances in blue states. The outcome has been largely seen as a wash.

Last week, the House Republican leadership advanced a new effort to impact the 2026 election. The House approved, with the President’s support, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act which, if it were to become law, would require proof of citizenship for people to register to vote at a state level for federal elections and mandates that voters show a form of photo ID when voting on election day or when requesting a mail-in ballot.

While most Americans think that’s a good idea in the abstract, the actual details and likely impacts of the legislation have not been adequately aired or debated. For example, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center:

“Although at least one of these documents are in theory available to most citizens, not all voters have them readily available.”

• Nearly one in ten eligible voters do not have, or do not have easy access to, documentary proof of citizenship.
• More than half of registered voters do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name.
• And over 10 percent of registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate.

In addition, as the Bipartisan Policy Center further noted, “birth certificates often lack information that matches a person’s current identity. For instance, someone who has changed their name through marriage or court order may need to present a third document (such as a marriage certificate) to join their proof of citizenship…Even if voters were to provide documentary proof of citizenship, verifying the authenticity of those documents is an inherently complex task, one that election officials and motor vehicle departments often do not have the resources or training to perform.”

These concerns are echoed by other nonpartisan groups, from the Brennan Center for Justice, which argued that the House bill would “Block Millions of Americans From Voting,” to the League of Women Voters, which noted “It is already illegal for noncitizens to register and vote in federal or state elections. [The SAVE America Act] simply creates another barrier to voting.”

The “problem” that the SAVE America Act is supposed to “solve” is the false claim that there is widespread voter fraud in the nation. Report after report have shown that it is simply not true that there is a significant problem with fraudulent voting and that it alters the results of elections. In fact, leading experts have argued that the nation’s elections are secure. Requiring voters to jump through verification “hoops” does nothing more than deter citizens from voting during a time when increased voter turnout should be encouraged. 

Given the filibuster rule of the U.S. Senate, it is doubtful that the SAVE America Act will be taken up. But one never knows for sure.

The House’s approval comes close on the heels of the President’s discredited call for the Congress to “nationalize” voting, his plan to issue an executive order on voting identification, and an “unusual” meeting called by the FBI to meet with state elections officials right after its raid to seize 2020 election data stored in the state of Georgia.

Add the redistricting effort to the constant lies and propaganda around the fictitious theft of the Presidential election in 2020 and it’s not hard to see a pattern; one of a possible strategy to undermine the results of the 2026 election.

Americans live in a democracy. Casting a ballot should be secure and as easy as possible. The SAVE America Act does little more than suppress voter participation for the millions of Americans who may not have the documentation required. Here in New York – where voting is a constitutional right – we should expect House members who supported this measure to provide verifiable proof of a substantial problem that justifies their support.

The nation deserves free and fair elections in 2026, not one that has been undermined by our elected officials in Washington.

With great fanfare, last month Governor Hochul unveiled her budget plan. Legislative budget hearings are underway and there is a growing debate over how to finalize the plan. But the governor still has budget cards to play. Under New York’s Constitution, the governor has up to 30 days after her budget submission to make changes. Usually, those changes are technical – like errors in drafting or mistakes in analysis of the fiscal impacts of her plans.

Once her amendments are advanced and lawmakers finish hearings, the budget is supposed to be finalized by the end of March.

Last week, however, there were media reports that the governor is considering making significant policy changes in her budget in the next couple of weeks. Specifically, those reports have focused on concerns that the governor will use her 30-day amendments to weaken New York’s Climate Law.

First, some background. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Law”) was approved in 2019 and was designed to set the state on a path toward “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this Century. The “net zero” goal is consistent with the standard set by the world’s climate scientists – who have warned that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global heating, all nations need to adhere to the net zero goal.

New York’s Climate Law set benchmark goals designed to guide policymakers as interim steps to meet the targets advised by the world’s climate experts. Those interim goals commit the state to generate 70 percent of its electricity from renewable power sources and achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 – just four years from now.

New York’s law is based on the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels endangers the planet and that the world must wean itself off of these power sources by the middle of this Century. Indeed, failure to do so will cost the state more than complying with the Climate Law. The increasingly likely failure to meet the Law’s interim climate goals would be a failure of will, not the targets themselves.  New York’s goals are attainable. For example, Germany, with its cloudy days and cool climate expects to generate nearly 15% of its electricity by solar. While New York State generates a paltry 5%.

In addition, the European Union recently reported that it will have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50% by the year 2030. That goal was set as a midpoint measure to meet the science-based goal of virtually eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. If the EU can do it, we in the United States can, too.

Part of the rationale for scaling back the Climate Law’s goals is not wanting to add to the already high cost of electricity in the state. New York’s residential electricity rates are high relative to the nation’s. But that has been true for years. For example in 2018 – the year before the state climate law was signed – New York’s residential electricity rates were ranked the seventh-highest in the nation. Now they are ranked eighth highest. Still high to be sure, but the impact of the Climate Law’s passage didn’t make a meaningful difference.

Yet, the well funded propaganda campaign advanced by opponents of the Climate Law have had an impact: The Hochul Administration is in retreat on the state’s climate-fighting initiatives. In the past year, for example, the Hochul Administration has delayed implementation of the All Electric Buildings Act, stalled the carbon pricing “cap and invest” program, and failed to keep up with benchmarks of the Climate Law.

Yet, if energy costs are rising everywhere and New York’s relative energy cost ranking is unchanged, how can the problem be the state’s Climate Law? All across the nation energy costs have risen faster than inflation since 2022, with greater increases ahead. The causes include load growth from data centers, increasing electric transmission and distribution infrastructure and maintenance costs, extreme weather, and supply chain disruptions – not New York’s law.

New York needs to invest in clean, safe, predictable, renewable energy as stated in the Climate Law. It is cheaper and less ecologically destructive to build out solar production than gas facilities. New York’s failure to boost solar production is leading to higher energy prices.

Electrifying New York through solar production and battery storage will lead to lower energy prices and is a more appropriate response to the climate crisis, which we have seen is wreaking havoc in communities everywhere.

There is little we can do in the near term about the expenses resulting from upgrading our old electric grid and protecting it from extreme weather and rising heat that are the products of a worsening climate. Bailing out on the Climate Law will do nothing to significantly change New York’s energy costs, but it will make the state complicit in the ongoing climate catastrophe. Try explaining that to our grandkids.

Last week, Governor Hochul unveiled her $260 billion budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year, which starts on April 1.  The governor’s plan contains measures that she had discussed in her State of the State address given a week earlier.  

Her proposed budget achieved, on paper at least, a difficult political “triple play”:  She offered a budget that she said was balanced (despite concerns over a projected deficit and health care cuts from Washington), proposed spending a lot more on childcare, and does so without raising personal income tax rates.  This delicate budgetary balancing act is possible largely due to a much-larger-than-expected Wall Street performance that has swelled the state’s coffers.  According to the governor, the state will get more than $3 billion more than expected this year and more than $5 billion additional in the upcoming fiscal year.

The governor’s budget covers a lot of ground, but her planned increase in spending more or less keeps up with projected inflation.  The governor described it as “not an austerity budget, but it is a disciplined one.” 

Her budget would extend a business tax that was expected to expire – which would have dropped the rate from 7.5% to 6.5% – but her additional revenues relied heavily on the expectation that 2026 would be a good year for Wall Street.  Indeed, Wall Street’s performance over the years has exceeded state budgeteers’ forecasts, a point made by some fiscal watchdogs that the governor could spend even more to provide necessary services.

There is a strong case to be made that Albany’s cuts to essential programs have hurt the state and that more spending is needed.  Take state assistance to private colleges, for example.  New York policymakers have hammered public support for private colleges found in the Unrestricted Aid to Independent Colleges and Universities program (known as “Bundy Aid”).  Bundy Aid directs financial support to independent colleges.  

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 under $20 million.  If New York had merely kept pace with inflation, the amount of Bundy Aid would be around $260 million – not less than $20 million.

The result?  Not surprisingly, many colleges – usually small ones – have seen their finances become damaged or worse.  According to New York education officials, over the last 18 years, New York has lost seventeen independent colleges, universities, and other degree-granting institutions.  Those campuses are, unfortunately, not alone when it comes to financial concerns.  In a recent review of colleges conducted by Forbes, nineteen of New York’s 72 colleges and universities (26%) received poor financial grades (C- or D).

Does the governor do anything in her budget to reverse that trend?  She does not.

When it comes to environment, the governor’s plans are also weak.  The governor’s budget does little to reverse the New York’s anemic efforts to comply with existing state Climate Law.  Yet, the governor did herald the coming of more nuclear power for the state.  Still left unanswered after decades of promises is, where will the nuclear waste go?  Currently, those wastes are being stored, likely forever, at the locations of these power plants.  Building more nuclear plants will just make that storage problem worse.  In addition, nuclear power is an incredibly expensive way to generate power, which flies in the face of the governor’s “affordability” promises.

Moreover, despite another state goal – to recycle the amount of garbage generated by 85% by the year 2050 – the governor proposes nothing significant to achieve that ambitious goal.  This failure comes on the heels of a state-sponsored report that found New York’s existing recycling efforts “lackluster.”

The budget did not ignore environmental needs entirely, but the governor’s plan was essentially to maintain the status quo.  The governor proposed to maintain funding for the Environmental Protection Fund and in one area added spending.  The governor proposed adding $250 million to the state’s water infrastructure fund, with the additional monies earmarked for water infrastructure that supports housing development.

But when it came to the big environmental issues of climate and garbage disposal, little new was offered.  Why did the governor fail to address them in any meaningful way?  Once state lawmakers begin their budget hearings, with one focused on the environment this week, perhaps the public will find out more about the governor’s thinking in these critical areas.

Governor Hochul presented her State of the State address last week. The State of the State is an effort by governors to set the policy priorities of the upcoming legislative session. Usually, the speech focuses on topics that are sure to resonate with the voting public and with this year being one in which the governor faces the voters, it did not disappoint.

The governor highlighted her proposals to tackle the “affordability” crisis facing New York. In her address she focused on two specific areas: the cost of energy and the cost of insurance. Like all other State of the State addresses, her speech tended to be long on rhetoric and short on the details of how she will accomplish those goals.

When it came to auto insurance “reforms,” however, the governor did offer some detailed plans. The governor announced a series of measures that she says will bring down auto insurance rates. Her proposals focused mainly on measures to combat fraud: The governor alleged that “increasingly sophisticated actors stage elaborate accidents, designed to allow for ‘jackpot’ payouts from insurance companies or jury awards.” The governor proposed to crack down through coordination among relevant state and local agencies, as well as increasing criminal penalties. The governor also said that she would offer a plan to “take on medical providers who participate in fraud by signing off on phony medical diagnoses.”

The governor also proposed to “increase the timeframe insurers have to report fraud and reduce barriers to alleging fraud in court, giving insurers more time to investigate claims and avoid paying fraudulent ones.” She said that she would balance this “increased flexibility” with consumer protections, such as allowing policyholders to “collect 2 percent interest on any payment insurers hold back as an incentive to ensure insurers continue to move quickly.”

There is no doubt that New York has had among the highest auto insurance premiums in the nation for many years. The rate charged by insurers is subject to oversight by New York state government and what was most notable about the governor’s proposals was how little was offered to bolster regulation or reform the industry’s practices.

If New York has long had high auto insurance premiums, among the questions that must be asked is why is the governor advancing her measures in 2026? The argument is that auto rates are skyrocketing, in a manner that is different than in years past.

While it is true that premiums have been going up in New York, that is the case nationwide. What is also true is that New York’s recent increases are not among the highest in the nation. That sad award goes to the states of Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Washington.

Louisiana and Florida are often listed among the top states when it comes to auto coverage. Those states “share similar risk characteristics. Both have high vehicle theft rates, frequent extreme weather losses and high rates of insurance fraud. These risk factors are inherently costly to insurance carriers and reinsurance companies, which could explain why both states tend to have high premiums.”

This is one issue that cries out for a detailed examination of the root causes of the problem. Let’s start off with the observations that auto insurance coverage is mandatory in New York – you can’t register or drive your car lawfully without it. As a result, drivers are a captive market and despite the barrage of television and social media ads, insurers make it hard to comparison shop.

For car owners in New York, one obvious problem is that so much of the information collected by the state is not easily obtained by the public. As mentioned above, Louisiana and Florida have seen high auto rates due to some extent as the result of more frequent bad weather. Perhaps the reinsurance industry – the behind-the-scenes insurers who insure retail insurance companies to protect them from unforeseen risks – is jacking up costs for their coverage and that’s driving some of the increase.

Legislation has been offered that would help the public better understand the underlying expenses of the insurance industry. But that effort has been blocked for many years. This legislation started with a basic premise: require an independent government report on the expenses of the auto insurance industry.  A fair review should provide policymakers with a basis for policy changes, if needed. Only when the full data set is publicly available can there be an evidence-based discussion of insurers’ claim experience and costs with respect to auto insurance.

Of course, waiting for legislation – even the governor’s proposals – takes time and may never happen. But the governor can take steps to help New York drivers to comparison shop for the best insurance deals. Drivers should not be paying hundreds of dollars – if not thousands of dollars – more for their insurance coverage when they easily could be comparison shopping on their home computer, laptop or smart phone.

For almost two decades, New York State produced an annual guide to passenger auto insurance premiums in the state. That publication was recently halted. Other states, however, offer this useful information through modern technology. For example, the state of California provides rate quotes through the Internet. Thus, there is no technological barrier to furnishing personalized auto insurance rate quotes to help consumers comparison shop. The obstacles purely are political.

While the governor has offered her recommendations that purport to curb auto premiums, the Legislature now has the authority – and the responsibility – to hold public hearings specifically on her plans – what she left in and what she left out. Meanwhile, the governor should use her executive authority to help drivers to shop smart and possibly save big bucks.