The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the world.  An interconnected planet has its great advantages, but dangerous viruses can also hitchhike along aviation routes and shipping lanes to spread disease at incredible speed.  Not only has the pandemic savaged the world’s public health, but it has similarly devastated nations’ finances. 

New York – once the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States – has seen its state and local government budgets shredded.  In the face of a rapidly spreading, dangerous virus, businesses were shut down, travel and personal spending dried up – and as a result there has been a huge drop-off in tax revenues to the state.

The state’s elected leadership hoped that cratering public finances would be offset by federal government intervention.  In the meantime, the Cuomo Administration has withheld billions in state expenditures in hopes of financial relief from Washington.  Monies that had been withheld would be returned to agencies that have cut state aid.  If federal funds were never to arrive, these “withholds” would become permanent cuts, cuts that would total 20 percent.

Earlier stimulus packages helped New Yorkers directly and provided indirect financial help to the state and local governments.  This weekend – some nine months later – the most recent stimulus agreement appears to have been finally negotiated, but it leaves state governments largely out in the winter cold.

It became increasingly obvious that there would be no Congressional rescue of the states during the Trump Administration and the pressure has been building for New York to develop permanent solutions to its fiscal disarray.  New York State Assembly Speaker Heastie recently called for a special session to take place before the new year to raise taxes to offset expected cuts. 

In response, Governor Cuomo argued there can be no increase in revenues unless lawmakers agree to a full, new budget.  The Speaker responded with puzzlement, arguing correctly that the state’s current budget needs revenues and that revenues need to be added immediately.

So, what happens next?  In Albany’s opaque system, it’s always hard to tell what is really happening.  Public statements often do not reflect political calculations or private negotiations.

One thing’s for sure, there will be pain.

New York’s massive public deficits simply cannot be addressed by cutting programs; the cuts would be too deep and would harm those most in need – those who already have borne the worst of the pandemic.

The other option is to raise revenues – taxes.  The governor has repeatedly said that he is concerned that taxes on the wealthy will be a problem, that the wealthy may simply up and move.  What is left out in that argument is the devastation to those who rely on public support, and that without that support they will miss out on education, lose access to health care, or starve.

There is no magic bullet.  Whatever the state does will cause pain.  The question is, who should feel that pain the most?  The people who rely on government help and who have suffered the most during the pandemic or those who have become more well-off over the past six months and who have had far less exposure to the disease?

Seems obvious – the wealthy few should shoulder the burden.

There are options for policymakers to consider.  One is to increase the personal income taxes on those who make a lot of money.  Neighboring New Jersey has done that.  New York has done it in the past. 

Another option is to collect and retain the Stock Transfer Tax.  Since 1905, New York State has had a stock transfer tax which acts much like a sales tax on the buying and selling of equities.  Since the early 1980s, the tiny per trade tax has been refunded to investors.  While a small fee per trade, due to the high volume of speculative stock sales it adds up.  During the first half of this fiscal year, New York has collected – and rebated back to Wall Street – over $4.2 billion.

That’s right, over $4.2 billion in six months – sent back to one of the few sectors of the economy that has profited handsomely during the pandemic.

The state’s finances are a mess and there is no Congressional bailout.  Fortunately, two New York lawmakers – Senator James Sanders and Assemblymember Phil Steck – have introduced legislation that would allow the state to keep the Stock Transfer Tax revenues once again.  The stock market has handled the pandemic very, very well.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average index dropped around 8,000 points in the four weeks from February 12 to March 11, 2020, but has since recovered to over 30,000 points last week – a new record.

There are no easy answers, however one answer is quite clear:  The state should keep the billions it currently taxes on the buying and selling of stocks on Wall Street.  In a time of crisis, it makes far more sense to help those who need the help – not to add to their suffering.

Monday, December 14^th, the nation formally picks its President.  A full month after the popular election, delegates to the Electoral College will gather in each of the states to vote on whether Joe Biden or Donald Trump should be President.  Four years ago, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by the margin of three million votes, yet still lost the election since her opponent, now President Trump, won big in the Electoral College.

In most modern elections, the votes of the Electoral College fly under the radar.  The candidate with the most popular votes usually wins.  But in the 2000 election and the 2016 election, the candidates with the most votes did not win.

Technically when we vote for president, we vote for a slate of party officials who, if their candidate wins, have pledged to vote for that candidate at the state’s Electoral College.

The Electoral College consists of a certain number of delegates assigned to each state based on the census count of the state’s population.  Each state gets delegates for each of its two U.S. Senators plus one delegate for each of its members of Congress.  The District of Columbia gets three delegates too.  Each Electoral College delegate represents, on average, a bit more than 600,000 people, but the system is skewed since no state can have fewer than three delegates (the smallest states have two U.S. Senators and one member of Congress).

Thus, states with the largest populations are underrepresented in the Electoral College and the smallest are overrepresented.  If New York had the number of delegates that matched its portion of the nation’s population, it would have 32 delegates instead of 29.  Neighboring Vermont would have one delegate instead of three.

Every four years, 538 electors from all 50 states plus Washington, D.C. cast their votes for president and vice president of the United States.  A candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes to win each race.

The Electoral College system was created in 1787 as part of the Constitutional Convention.  The support for the system came from the smaller states, which – coupled with the requirement of each state having two U.S. Senators – wanted to make sure their voices would be heard.  Similarly, many states in the south feared that a direct popular vote would lessen that area’s influence, since a great deal of its population at the time was non-voting enslaved people. 

Ironically, the framers created the system to help ensure that partisan politics wouldn’t dominate the country’s electoral process — hoping that electors would choose the person running, regardless of party membership.  As we have seen in recent days, it hasn’t worked out that way.

Meeting at New York’s Capitol Monday will be the state’s Electoral College delegates for the Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, former U.S. Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, New York’s Democratic political leaders, the Democratic heads of the state Legislature, union leaders, local Democratic leaders, and other Democratic activists. 

The New York delegates will cast their votes for President-elect Joe Biden and in other state capitals delegates also will convene to cast their votes.  New York, like most other states, is a “winner-take-all” electoral state, so only the delegates that have pledged to the winning candidate cast votes at that state’s Electoral College meeting.

But it is unlikely that the drama will end there. 

While Biden is expected to far exceed the minimum number of Electoral College delegate votes needed to win the Presidency, there have been instances where delegates have refused to follow the will of the popular vote in their states.

These contrarian votes are cast by so-called “faithless electors” – someone who votes for someone other than their political party’s candidate.  Some thirty-three states (plus the District of Columbia) require electors to vote for a pledged candidate.  

New York, however, is not one of those states.  Legislation to require electors to follow the popular vote was passed in the state Senate this year but stalled in the Assembly.

Given the President-elect’s substantial victory – he won the popular vote by seven million votes and is expected to garner over 300 delegates – even if there are instances of “faithless electors,” it seems highly improbable for such electors to change the outcome.

The antics of the President and his followers to overthrow the clear decision of the voters hinges now on the unfair and confusing Electoral College system.  It’s long past time for the nation to once and for all fix the anachronistic and deeply flawed Electoral College.

One full month after Election Day, New York finally closed the books on 2020.  Although there is still one Congressional race outstanding, the final tallies are in for November’s elections.  What is most notable about the election is that by allowing the widespread use of mail-in ballots due to the pandemic, the outcome initially seen on Election Day was dramatically changed after all paper ballots were counted.

While there was no doubt that Democrat Joe Biden would carry New York, his margin grew significantly once the paper ballots were counted.  On Election Day, Biden had a solid lead:  Biden received 3.7 million votes to President Trump’s 2.8 million, a margin of nearly 1 million votes cast on November 3rd. 

But once the paper ballots were counted, the President-elect’s margin swelled.  Biden received 5.2 million votes to Trump’s 3.2 million, doubling the President-elect’s lead.  Once all the dust had settled, it looked like Biden had won 80 percent of the paper ballots and that gave him his overwhelming victory.

Compared to 2016 Presidential Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, Biden received 60 percent of the votes, while Clinton had garnered 58 percent.  Biden carried 21 of New York 62 counties, while Clinton carried 17.

Moreover, Biden had increased the Democrats’ margin of victory in the downstate suburbs and even carried the total aggregate vote for all counties north of Westchester (Clinton had lost).  While Biden crushed Trump in the total New York City count, the President got more votes in the Big Apple than he had in 2016.

New York’s total voter turnout swelled dramatically – even though the state’s overall population has remained stagnant between 2016 and 2020.  In 2016, 7.8 million New Yorkers voted in the Presidential election, but in 2020 that number jumped to 8.7 million.  While it is clear that voter turnout was high across the country, compared to the rest of the nation, New York’s voter participation looks to be below the national average – as it usually is.

Not only was 2020 the first Presidential election in which New Yorkers could vote by mail and vote early, it was the first year with new, and much more stringent, requirements for minor political parties to qualify for future ballots.

For years, New York allowed minor parties that received 50,000 votes or more in gubernatorial elections to automatically qualify for future ballots and to enroll members on voter registration forms.  This status is a huge advantage for a political party.

As a result of a big push by Governor Cuomo that standard was changed.  In order to automatically qualify for the ballot, minor parties now must garner far more votes (in November it was at least 130,000 votes) in both the gubernatorial and presidential election years.

This election, only the Conservative and Working Families Parties hit that mark.  Other minor parties, for example the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, failed to reach the new minimum and are now knocked off from having automatic ballot access.

The surge in mail-in ballots not only swelled the President-elect’s lead, but it also dramatically changed the preliminary vote tallies in down ballot races.

On Election Day, the Republican Party was ecstatic:  It looked like they had picked up three New York Congressional seats, four state Senate seats, and at least eleven state Assembly seats – despite Biden’s solid win.

The President-elect’s performance in mail in ballots – in which he took by an apparent 80-20 margin – was replicated in down ballot races.  Instead of Republicans gaining three Congressional seats, they have picked up one and there is one race that is still too close to call.  Instead of Republicans gaining four state Senate seats, it turns out that the Democrats picked up a net of three.  And the Assembly margin stayed the same.

One example of the swing in final vote tallies after counting mail-ins was in the third Congressional district on Long Island.  On Election Day, incumbent Democrat Tom Suozzi was down by 4,000 votes; once the paper ballots were counted, he had won by over 40,000.

Back in Albany, for the 2021 legislative session Democrats will have “supermajorities” in both legislative houses, instead of having lost seats.  That new political power will give them a greater say in the policymaking of state government.  One area that they should examine is how New York runs elections.

It took more than a month to properly tally the votes.  If New York had been crucial to determining the winner of the Presidency, it would have been the target of political pundits and late-night comedians.  While it is reasonable to consider that this was the first time the state had run an election with large numbers of mail-in ballots, New York’s overall voter participation is expected, once again, to be below the national average. 

And New Yorkers had to endure long lines as well as mishaps with ballots.  One policy to look at is whether New Yorkers should continue to rely on the two major political parties to run the state’s elections.  The parties’ interest is in their own success, not necessarily the public’s interest in a flourishing democracy.

Even a well-run elections bureaucracy needs resources.  The board of elections estimated that they would need $50 million to properly administer the November elections.  It’s clear that they didn’t get it.

Hearings are needed.  For too long, New Yorkers have had to suffer due to poorly resourced and inadequately managed elections.  Legislative hearings are a first step to digging into the problems and advancing solutions.  Elections are the essential machines of our democracy and in New York they are in serious need of repair and overhaul.

As the world continues to grapple with the deadly coronavirus pandemic, some potentially good medical news has developed.  In recent weeks, two major pharmaceutical companies claim to have developed vaccines that are far more successful than anyone had expected in protecting the public from COVID-19.

While these statements are welcome news, the reports are based on internal analyses that have not been independently reviewed.  Nevertheless, the reports – if borne out – are significant and potentially good news for the world.

Of course, it’s important for the public to stay vigilant.  These two companies – and the others that are sure to join with vaccines of their own – make money if their drugs are sold.  They have an incredible incentive to sugar-coat their findings and the underlying research.  The bad behavior of pharmaceutical companies over the decades should give all Americans legitimate concern over the release of as-yet-not-independently-verified data and should stiffen the resolve of federal regulators to rigorously validate safety and efficacy claims.

The two companies are longtime pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and Moderna.  Pfizer announced its results first soon followed by Moderna.  Each claimed that their vaccines are about 95 percent effective.  Assuming that these claims are verified by independent reviews, the nation would move to the distribution phase where there are immense logistical issues that will need to be addressed.  Both vaccines require two dosages, three or four weeks apart depending on the vaccine.  One important challenge will be ensuring that people get both shots and that they receive the booster that correctly corresponds with the strain in their initial vaccine.  Late last week, Pfizer submitted its research and findings to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approves medicines in America.

Adding to the challenges, both vaccines require very careful handling.  Both must be kept cold, in refrigerators and freezers. Pfizer’s vaccine requires storage at an incredibly cold minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit.  Safely shipping and storing these vaccines for distribution will be an incredible logistical challenge. 

Then there is the challenge of distribution to people.  Under ideal circumstances the logistics of transporting these medicines from manufacturing facilities to the public would be daunting – in the U.S. alone that’s more than 600 million dosages, two for each American.  Misinformation, disinformation, public skepticism, and Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic, all exacerbate the challenge.

The challenges of getting the medicines from the factories to local storage facilities and then administered to hundreds of millions – billions worldwide – is going to be an incredible feat.

Government will, of course, be the linchpin for a successful national vaccination effort.  There are no other institutions with the capacity and authority to make it happen.

The Trump Administration’s plan is called “Warp Speed,” which aims to stockpile and distribute to the states the vaccines that are ultimately approved for use by the FDA.  The stated aim of this effort is to deliver 300 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine by January 2021.

According to statements from the Trump Administration, it says that it will work with states to distribute vaccines relying on pharmacies as the backbone of its efforts. 

Here in New York, according to the State Education Department which regulates pharmacies, there are over 5,300 licensed pharmacies in the state.  It is expected that they should have the capacity to handle the delicate vaccines.

While there are many pharmacies, the federal plan issued late last month by the CDC and the New York State plan issued in October recognize the limitations of relying solely on pharmacies and have identified additional routes to distribute the vaccines.

But the biggest challenge will be convincing the public that they should get the vaccine.  As in any other campaign, members of the public respond best when the public health message comes from a trusted source.  Americans are skeptical of statements from public officials and the Trump Administration’s tortured response to the pandemic and its reprehensible reactions to its re-election loss makes that situation worse.

In many ways, it will take a public outreach effort not unlike the one used to get people to comply with the census to educate New Yorkers about the vaccine.  Unless the vast majority of Americans are persuaded that the vaccine is safe and effective for them and their families, the pandemic fight will be needlessly prolonged, and more lives put at risk.

As the nation – and the world – tries to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, the fight to combat the ongoing climate catastrophe caused by global warming must be a priority. 

One crisis threatens tens of millions of people, the other threatens civilization itself.

Decisions must be made immediately to limit the damage caused by global warming – damages that the world is already experiencing.  The world must act now. 

A scientific study released last week argues that even if greenhouse gas emissions – those created by the burning of oil, gas and coal – were reduced to zero, global temperatures will continue to rise for centuries to come.  The report, published in the British scientific journal Scientific Reports, projects that the world is already past the point of no return for global warming. 

The study predicts that by the year 2500, the planet’s temperatures will be about 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they were in 1850.  And sea levels will be roughly 8 feet higher. 

The report contends that global temperatures could continue to increase after human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced due to the continued melting of Arctic ice, increased water vapor in the warmer air, and the perpetual release of carbon dioxide from permafrost melt.

While there is no scientific disagreement that the world is experiencing harmful climate changes, some experts have challenged the report’s “doomsday” scenario.  These experts push back by saying that the predicted catastrophes can still be averted – if aggressive actions are taken now.

However dire the situation is, the report underscores the need to fundamentally reduce humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels to power the world.  The world must collectively act to shift investments away from old, dirty, forms of producing energy to new, green, energy sources.

And the report comes at a critical time in American politics.  The United States is the leading power in the world and leadership in taking on the climate crisis is sorely in need.  The Trump Administration’s approach to global warming was to tear up global treaties, undermine the science, muzzle the experts, and kowtow to the political power of the oil, gas and coal industries. 

While the incoming Biden Administration promises to rely on experts and to fill the leadership vacuum created by the Trump Administration’s willful opposition to sensible climate policies, it’s still too early to tell how this will all play out.

The Trump Administration walked out of the global Paris Agreement that pledged the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The incoming Biden Administration says it will rejoin the plan, which has been signed by 188 countries.  But the Paris Agreement will not solve the problem; it is essentially a promise to do better, not a worldwide, enforceable, action plan.

While the Biden Administration has pledged to follow the advice of climate experts, the President-elect’s inconsistent statements on allowing the expanded drilling of fracked gas, for example, could conflict with the science.  The world’s experts have made clear that the world must stop the expansion of the use of fossil fuels and instead cut back.  Expanding fossil fuel infrastructure – that effectively commit the nation to rely on fracked gas and oil for decades to come – merely accelerates climate carnage.

Instead, the nation should shift its support from oil and gas exploration to one that relies on energy efficiency and green sources of power.  And it should do so by shifting taxpayer support for the oil, gas and coal industries – the industries that have made global warming pollution possible.  For example, according to the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. spent $650 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in one year – far more than it invests in green technologies.  Here in New York, millions are doled out in tax expenditures to subsidize fossil fuel usage.

Without doubt the nation is in the grips of serious crises.  But we must keep global warming at the top of the list of items for urgent, immediate action.  As the nation grapples with how to balance its public health, environmental, and infrastructure needs, it should reduce support for the fossil fuel industry, eliminate those subsidies, and make those most responsible for the anti-science policies that have put us in this situation pay their fair share to unwind the damage they knowingly caused.

After all, it was – and is – the oil, gas and coal industries that provided the political and public relations muscle to attack science and install their cronies into running governments.  It’s now time for them to pay for the damages that they have caused.  It’s now time for the polluters to pay up.