New York lawmakers return to the Capitol this week to begin their push to agree on a state budget, due by April 1.  There are a number of issues on which they must agree: first the amount of money that is available and then how to spend it.

Generally speaking, what the governor proposes in his budget plan is 90 percent of what will become law.  A large portion of the budget is money from the federal government that requires little action by New York State other than the approval to spend it as expected by the feds.

Much of the state spending has the quiet approval of the legislature, but there can be disagreements over how much to spend on programs as well as how the governor proposes to spend allocated funds on programs.

Those disagreements are what can lead to the controversies that often dominate media coverage of the Albany budget process.

One area in which there is expected disagreement is the governor’s proposed higher education budget.  In his budget plan, the governor proposed big cuts to colleges’ “opportunity programs.”

Opportunity programs, which are designed for educationally and economically disadvantaged students, have a steady track record of success in increasing graduation rates among the most at-risk students.  In general, students in opportunity programs 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 increase access to and success in higher education to New Yorkers.

These programs include Search for Education, Elevation, and Knowledge (SEEK), Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP), Educational Opportunity Program (EOP), and others.  The State University of New York’s EOP students may receive support services, such as academic, career, and personal counseling; tutoring and supplemental instruction.  As part of a student’s overall financial aid package, EOP provides financial assistance for non-tuition related expenses (e.g., books, supplies, etc.).

Similarly, the City University of New York’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (known as ASAP) and similar programs build in robust advisement services, and funding for textbook and transit costs, among other costs.  And it works.  Students involved in the nationally recognized ASAP graduate at more than double the rate of non-ASAP students.

Despite the track records of success for these programs, the executive budget proposes cuts, not improvements, to the tune of nearly $24 million in reduced support.  Here is what the governor proposed:

• The executive budget cuts $5 million from State University of New York’s Educational Opportunity Program (EOP).
• The executive budget cuts nearly $5 million from Search for Education, Elevation, and Knowledge (SEEK), which offers help to CUNY students in four-year colleges and universities.
• The executive budget cuts $2.5 million from CUNY’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP).
• The executive budget cuts nearly $6 million in the HEOP, which is similar to EOP, but offers help to students in independent colleges and universities.
• The executive budget cuts $1 million to child care centers at SUNY and $900,000 dollars from child care centers at CUNY.
• The executive budget eliminates funding for the state’s Bundy Aid program – which offers aid to independent colleges and universities that is usually used for student services.

Why would the governor propose cuts to programs with demonstrated successes in helping students to succeed and graduate college?  The argument often heard is that the plan is a way to put some pressure on the legislature to “buy back” those cuts.  In the contorted, horse-trading world of Albany, sometimes the governor proposes cuts that he believes that the legislature will restore.

Of course, when he does that he runs the risk that those programs don’t get restored and, in this case, deserving students may lose out on a college education, which could drastically hurt their career opportunities.

And sometimes cuts do happen.  Last year, for example, the governor proposed cuts to public health programs – funding for efforts to help Alzheimer’s patients, address lead poisoning and other issues – that took a 20 percent cut.

While there may be ways that such budget maneuvers make sense in a tactical way, they unnecessarily put people’s education or health at risk.  Let’s hope that this year’s budget sees not only restoration but expansion of these – and other – important programs that can make a huge difference in the lives of New Yorkers.

And let’s hope that in future budgets these games end.

Almost 50 years after New York banned the sale of lead in paint, each year some 1,800 children are found to be lead poisoned in New York.  This epidemic affects mostly young children of color from low-income communities who live in poorly maintained housing, where windows, doors, walls and ceilings produce invisible lead dust that is ingested by infants and toddlers through hand-to-mouth behavior and inhalation.

Lead creates a host of health, cognitive and behavioral problems, including loss of IQ, attention deficit, impulse control issues, high blood pressure, kidney disease, and, in extreme cases, coma and death.  There is no safe level of lead and it has no beneficial use in the human body.

While children may be exposed to lead through a number of sources—including toys, old water pipes and soil—the primary lead poisoning threat for New York’s children is from paint dust in older, substandard housing.

Unfortunately, New York’s housing puts children at elevated risk of lead poisoning.  New York has both the nation’s greatest number (3.3 million) and the highest percentage (43.1%) of its housing stock built before 1950, the houses most likely to contain lead paint, the leading source of childhood lead poisoning.

Because lead harms children even in tiny concentrations—parts per million levels—seemingly small increases in the concentration of lead in a child’s blood level can have substantial cognitive impacts, with comparatively low blood lead levels correlating with significant IQ loss.

In 1970 when it banned lead in paint, New York was among the vanguard of states—almost a decade before the national residential paint ban.  However, in 2018 New York lags in childhood lead poisoning prevention in several key respects.  As a result, thousands of New York’s children ingest dangerous levels of lead and could suffer permanently from this entirely preventable exposure.

New York must do more.  Here’s five steps that the state can take immediately to dramatically reduce childhood lead poisoning in New York.  The 2019 state budget—being examined and negotiated now through the end of March—is the vehicle to enact these changes.

1. Use existing authority to lower the level at which a child is considered lead poisoned and action is undertaken to identify and eliminate the lead hazard. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lowered its recommended action level five years ago.  It’s past time for New York to follow suit.
2. Reduce the dust level standard that’s used to determine whether a lead hazard exists and whether a clean-up effort has been effective. The current “dust-clearance standard” is based on rules formulate in the 1990s.  While U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has formulated a significantly stronger standard, under the Trump Administration the agency is dragging its feet.  New York doesn’t have to wait for EPA to act and should adopt the stronger standard immediately.
3. Despite the scope of the problem, New York spends too little on lead poisoning prevention, citing budget constraints. The state could nearly double its budget—currently proposed at around $14 million—by adopting an idea Mario Cuomo put forward in 1992: Place a twenty-five cent per gallon surcharge on large paint manufacturers based on the amount of paint they sell in the state.  Based on Maine’s successful program, New York could generate another $12 million a year for lead poisoning prevention programs.
4. Lead poisoned families can face myriad health problems, learning disabilities and behavioral issues. Unfortunately, for many with serious, permanent injuries from lead poisoning due to poorly maintained rental housing, the civil courts provide no recourse.  This is because the state allows insurance companies to exclude lead poisoning coverage from standard liability policies sold to landlords.  The governor should direct the state Department of Financial Services to close the childhood lead poisoning liability loophole so lead poisoned kids can get their day in court.
5. The governor has proposed that local government housing code agencies enforce strict lead paint maintenance standards in housing located in areas with a track record of high numbers of poisonings. This “primary prevention” approach make enormous sense.  But without a long-term commitment by the state to fund prevention programs, it will never get off the ground.  The governor should commit to fully fund this proposal.

As the state’s chief executive overseeing state agencies and as the former administrator of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Governor Cuomo is uniquely qualified to be a champion in this area.  This is a matter utmost importance to public health, social justice and investment in New York’s future, its children.  2018 should be the year New York gets the lead out.

The governor has done a lot to promote the state’s program to boost breast cancer screening rates.  He spent considerable time advocating for the expanded program and made it a centerpiece of his 2016 State of the State address and earlier this month issued a news release about his Administration spending nearly $38 million on breast screening services.  But cancer is not only a women’s issue, it affects all of us.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in America – a close second to heart disease. According to the American Cancer Society’s estimates, in 2018 over 110,000 New Yorkers will receive a cancer diagnosis and over 35,000 New Yorkers will die from the disease.

Four cancers – female breast, prostate, colon and lung cancers – are responsible for roughly half of the cancers expected in New York State – both in terms of the number of cases and the estimated number of deaths.  Those “big four” drive the state’s cancer experience.

Of course, high rates of cancer occurrence do not necessarily translate to deaths occurring at the same rate.  While female breast cancer is the leading cancer for women, for example, it is not the leading cancer killer.

That “distinction” is reserved for lung cancer.  Lung cancer is far and away the biggest cancer killer in New York State, accounting for roughly one quarter of all cancer deaths.

And that key statistic should drive public policy.  We know that the overwhelming majority of lung cancers result from exposure to tobacco smoke.

There is no news there.

Using the experiences of states like New York, the federal government has offered blueprints on how to design tobacco control programs to have the most beneficial impact.  And here is where New York’s program starts to slide off the rails.

The CDC recommends that New York State spend roughly $200 million on its tobacco control program.  But New York never has.  In terms of spending on tobacco control, the high water mark was in FY2007-08 when the state spent over $85 million.  But tobacco control spending has declined since 2008.

The program has suffered from devastating cuts during the Cuomo Administration and has lost more than half of its funding from ten years ago.  New York State was once considered the fifth best in tobacco control efforts; due to these budget cuts, it has tumbled to 22^nd.

What is most inexplicable about this approach is that the state has the money for the program.  It collects over $1 billion in tobacco taxes and other revenues.

In this year’s budget, the Administration is expecting additional revenues from legal settlements with the tobacco companies to total $400 million.

Yet, the governor proposes no new money to fight tobacco use.

In another cancer-fighting area, the state is not improving its efforts.  New York State offers a Cancer Services Program (CSP), which provides breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings and diagnostic services at no cost to women and men, typically those that lack health insurance.  If the screening test finds something abnormal, diagnostic (testing) services are available for eligible women and men at no cost.  The CSP will also provide a case manager who will guide someone with cancer through their follow-up diagnostic appointments.

If breast, cervical or colorectal cancer is found, eligible women and men may be able to enroll in the special cancer treatment program to receive full Medicaid health insurance coverage for the entire time they are being treated for cancer.

But that program has never been adequately funded, with experts stating that it only historically offered help to 15 percent of the eligible population.  Even with the expansion of health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the CSP is still not adequately funded to meet the needs of the uninsured.

The governor’s budget ignores that best scientific evidence behind cancer screening and instead has consistently tried to cut spending for this important program.  Last year, CSP took a 20 percent reduction in funding.  This year, the governor is not proposing to increase the program’s spending to meet the state’s needs.

As lawmakers move ahead on developing a final budget, they should make sure that new revenues are added to the state’s tobacco control and cancer screening programs.  Not only is it the right thing to do, those investments will save lives down the road.

For the past two weeks, a former top aide to governor Cuomo has been on trial for corruption.  According to federal prosecutors, he was a key figure in a widespread bribery scheme that included shaking down those seeking government contracts for special treatment in exchange for campaign contributions and money for him and his associates.  The trial continues and the individual is presumed innocent.  But this trial – combined with others in recent years – offers unique insights into what ails Albany.  There are four overarching problems that emerge when reviewing the totality of the corruption cases brought in New York.

Problem #1: New York’s Limited Liability Company campaign finance loophole raises the risk of corruption.  The “LLC Loophole,” which treats each Limited Liability Company as an individual person for purposes of how much may be donated, has allowed some donors to give well over a million dollars.  And those donors almost always have business before government.

For example, in the trial against former Senate Majority Leader Skelos, one real estate developer spent more than $10 million in campaign donations since 2005 alone, funneled through 26 different limited liability companies – LLCs he controlled.  In return, that developer received tens of millions of dollars in tax benefits from the state.

What should be done?  LLCs should be treated like any other business entity and be subject to a $5,000 campaign contribution limit.  All business entities should be required to disclose their controlling interests and all subsidiaries’ contributions should be aggregated into one overall limit.

 Problem #2: Allowing outside income for elected officials raises the risk of corruption.  In many of the corruption cases, the opportunity to use one’s public office for private gain – “cashing in” – emerged as a serious problem.  In the case of former Assembly Speaker Silver, it was well-documented that he was able to use his power to amass millions of dollars in outside fees, for little work – other than applying his power as Speaker.

Unfortunately, the former Speaker’s case is not unique.  The recent convictions of elected officials underscore how lucrative it can be for lawmakers to inappropriately use the powers of their public office for private gain.

What should done?  After the Watergate scandal, Congress reformed its system and placed limits on outside income for lawmakers.  In a report, it concluded, “. . . substantial outside income creates at least the appearance of impropriety and thereby undermines public confidence in the integrity of government officials.”  New York State should follow suit.  All public officials, including those in the executive branch, must have strict limits on outside income.

 Problem #3:  There is too great a risk of corruption in how New York awards government contracts.  The investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office into allegations that state contracts were rigged to benefit campaign contributors to the governor underscores the need for action in this area.  For example, it’s been alleged that Buffalo’s largest construction company simultaneously paid a private lobbyist close to the governor $100,000 annually and kicked in $250,000 to Governor Cuomo’s re-election campaign in 2014.  The result, according to the U.S. Attorney, was that a huge Buffalo Billion project was steered to that company.

In addition to that case, Governor Cuomo’s former Executive Deputy Secretary is alleged to have solicited money from “companies with business before the State.”  In return, it is alleged, the former aide took official actions that would benefit these companies.

 What should be done?  The first step would be to limit campaign contributions from those seeking government contracts.  Under New Jersey’s pay-to-play law, businesses that “have or are seeking” government contracts are prohibited from making campaign contributions prior to receiving contracts.

Second, the New York Constitution established a separately-elected State Comptroller who is charged with monitoring the state finances.  Unfortunately, in recent years the governor and the Legislature have approved laws that have cut back the Comptroller’s oversight functions, coinciding with the period in which pay-to-play activities and bid-rigging were allegedly occurring.  Those powers should be restored.

Problem #4: Lack of independent oversight of ethics raises the risk of corruption.  Why is it that public officials think they can get away with these, and other, corrupt actions?  Because they believe that they would not get caught.  And if it weren’t for federal investigators, they would have – in some cases did – get away with it for years.  Ethics watchdogs must be independent – not political creatures.

Yet in New York, the ethics watchdogs are direct political appointees and are not structured to be independent.  In a 2015 comparison of state ethics laws, New York’s ethics enforcement received a grade of “F.”

What should done?  The state’s current ethics agencies should be abolished and replaced with a truly independent one.

Each of the first seven months of this year will see the beginning of trials for new, high profile, corruption cases.  Hopefully, New Yorkers will also see action from the governor and state lawmakers to respond to this corruption crisis.