Last week, Governor Cuomo made a push for environmental initiatives contained in his budget plan.  The governor advanced what he described as an “historic $33 billion, five-year commitment to fight climate change.”

The governor urged support for measures: to ban single-use styrofoam food containers and packing materials; to earmark $300 million for the state’s Environmental Protection Fund; to add $500 million to improve drinking water infrastructure; and to permanently ban hydrofracking. 

But the centerpiece of his environmental package was his plan to create a $3 billion environmental bond act that “will fund critical environmental restoration projects in every corner of the state to ensure New York is able to withstand the threat of more intense and frequent storms fueled by climate change.”  He dubbed this part of the plan, the “Restore Mother Earth” bond act. 

On the need for billions to address the costs of climate change, the governor’s right.  New York – like the rest of the planet – will have to spend billions to mitigate the enormous damage caused by climate change.  A “Restore Mother Earth” bond act offers a down payment for the costs that New York will undoubtedly have to pay.

The question is, who should pay back the costs of the bond act borrowing?

The governor’s plan proposes that the general public pay the back the costs of borrowing the bond monies; for most bond acts, the public usually pays. 

A bond act is a way for the state to borrow a large amount of money to meet pressing needs.  The borrowed money should be used for projects that are expected to last at least the lifetime of the borrowing – usually 30 years.  Thus, spending makes sense for state projects that would protect drinking and fresh water supplies. 

Usually, bond acts are paid back through general revenues – we all pay them back.  But not always.  In the Environmental Bond Act of 1986, for example, which was designed to finance the clean-up of hazardous waste sites, the bond monies raised were to be offset by the state charging polluters responsible for the messes.  That formulation was so successful that the 1986 Bond Act was overwhelmingly approved by voters. 

It’s a formulation that makes sense now. 

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s proposed bond act is – as he has stated – to finance projects to help the state “withstand the threat of more intense and frequent storms fueled by climate change.”  But who’s responsible for climate change?

The responsible parties for the climate crisis are the oil, gas and coal industries.  It is those industries that should pay the borrowing back. 

It was those industries that knew for decades the dangers of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels.  It was those industries that spent money – on lobbyists, public relations and campaign contributions – on a disinformation campaign to combat measures to curb greenhouses gas emissions that form the “blanket” contributing to the heating up of the earth.

The oil, coal and gas industries should pay for the costs resulting from their actions, not the general public.  If your neighbor dumped poison on your lawn and it had to be cleaned up, should you pay or the neighbor?  The neighbor should.

While that is a hypothetical scenario, effectively that’s what happened with climate change.  The fossil fuel industries used their political know-how to undermine the science—including their science—that warned the public about climate change and used their deep-pockets to block policy reforms designed to protect the public and the environment.

But like that fictional neighbor, it is their fault.  They made the mess, they should clean it up.  A responsibility lesson that every child learns, they’ve been able to dodge through political muscle and their fat checkbooks.

Governor Cuomo and state lawmakers should ensure that the oil, gas, and coal industries are on the financial hook, not taxpayers, for the looming climate catastrophe.  The “Restore Mother Nature” bond act is needed, but those responsible should pay.

Last week, as the state budget hearings continued, lawmakers heard pleas from academics, faculty and students that higher educational institutions are struggling, and that New York’s public policies make things worse.

One consistent refrain was the need for the Legislature to change the governor’s proposed budget by closing the so-called “TAP gap.”  What’s a TAP gap?  First, some background.

When Governor Cuomo came into office in 2011, one of the initiatives he advanced was a plan to annually increase tuition at public colleges and universities.  The appeal of predictable increases, according to the governor, is that students and their families would know the annual cost of tuition.  Under his plan, tuition would go up annually, but be capped at a certain amount.  In the early years, that cap was set at $300 annual increase.

But what was not fully discussed was the impact it would have on the state’s biggest college financial program – the Tuition Assistance Program, or TAP.  TAP is an almost fifty year old program that awards state financial aid to college students – both at public and independent colleges – based on income.  The poorer the student, the larger the award.

Until Governor Cuomo, the maximum TAP award matched the cost of tuition at public colleges.

When the governor first advanced his plan, that relationship was severed.  Instead the maximum TAP award was frozen at $5,000 annually (it was bumped up a few years later to $5,165) while tuition costs annually went up.  Tuition at the State University of New York today hovers around $7,000.  Under the new system, the local college must make up the $2,000 difference per needy student out of their own local budget.

The difference between public college tuition and the maximum TAP award is known as the “TAP gap.”  That “gap” is increasingly putting strains on the community colleges and four-year public colleges, since they now must pony up a million dollars or so to help needy students – assistance that used to be provided by the state.

Independent (private) colleges are facing the financial pressure too, since TAP offers less and less assistance for low-income students that often needs to be made up by those institutions.

In addition, there are substantial demographic changes in New York.  The upstate population is shrinking, particularly among the college-aged.  SUNY community colleges have taken a dramatic hit, with tens of thousands of fewer students than a decade ago.

As a result of these pressures, SUNY 4-year colleges have had to raise tuition and administrative fees to cover costs.  Many SUNY community colleges are teetering on the brink as they grapple with cratering student enrollments and tight state assistance.  Community college tuition – already among the highest in the nation – has had to jump.  With fewer students, but the same costs, tuition hikes have to cover the difference.  Higher tuition results in fewer students and things keep getting worse.

Independent colleges and universities are taking a hit too and their share of the TAP awards has dropped substantially. 

What is to be done?

In the short-term, the state needs to cover the difference of the “TAP gap.”  Doing so will immediately bring relief to struggling campuses.  The help to community colleges will need to be even more robust, as some of them are in dire financial straits.  Also, the state must boost aid to independent colleges to help them make ends meet. 

A longer-term solution is to modernize the state’s TAP program.  Peg the maximum award to the cost of public college tuition – which helps all colleges – and modernize it.  Ten years ago, the state stopped awarding TAP to graduate students.  In the modern age that doesn’t make sense.  Part-timers – students typically juggling job and family responsibilities – should get aid, too.

The state’s Excelsior Scholarship – which offers some help – benefits only a very small portion of students.  Last year, of the total 452,000 full-time undergraduate public college students (287,000 at SUNY and 165,000 at CUNY), only 25,000 received an Excelsior award.

One hundred years ago, reformers pushed to make public school free.  They argued that a better educated populace benefited the nation’s economy and strengthened democracy. 

In the 21^st Century, education beyond high school is as critical now as universal education was at the turn of the 20^th Century.  Public policies today should seek to make it more affordable and accessible, not less.  One place to start is by closing the “Tap gap.”

On January 11, 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General issued his first report on the dangers of smoking.  Based on more than 7,000 articles relating to smoking and disease then available in the medical literature, the Surgeon General’s report concluded that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer. 

The result was relatively mild; in 1966 the federal government required a health warning on cigarette packages and in 1970 it banned cigarette advertising in the broadcasting media.  The industry figured out how to circumvent these obstacles.  They started using cartoon characters, they offered candy-flavored tobacco products, they placed their products in popular movies, and advertised in magazines aimed at women, African Americans, and sports fans.  All with the goal of making cigarette smoking glamorous and to appeal to kids.  They knew that virtually all smokers started in their early teens; getting kids hooked was key to replacing the customers that were dying from tobacco diseases.

As the evidence began to pile up that exposure to tobacco smoke by non-smokers caused disease, public health advocates pushed for action to curb environmental tobacco smoke exposure.  In the late 1980s, New York State – considered a progressive state – enacted the first limited steps to ban smoking in certain work and public places.  Two decades later – and nearly 40 years after the first Surgeon General report – a more expansive workplace and public space tobacco use ban was enacted.

Why did it take so long for public policy to catch up to the science?  The political power of the tobacco lobby.  In New York for years the tobacco lobby hired lobbyists with close connections to governors and state lawmakers, funneled massive donations to friendly charities, showered public officials with gifts such as freebies to the U.S. Open, hard-to-get theater tickets, lots of free meals, and made big campaign contributions. 

The science was never the problem, the corruption of New York’s political system was.

It wasn’t until the politics changed that New York acted.  In a series of media investigations – led by the NY Times, it became clear that the tobacco industry had illegally – and legally – influenced Albany’s decision making.  Nearly all elected officials in New York were implicated.  It became an important act of political survival for elected officials to distance themselves from Big Tobacco.  Soon after the scandal was revealed they passed laws like banning smoking in public places and all workplaces – including bars.  They raised the cigarette tax to the highest in the nation.  They approved the first-in-the-nation requirement that cigarettes had to meet rigorous fire safety standards.

The state Democratic Party even swore to not accept campaign contributions from the tobacco industry.

And for a while it worked.  The tobacco industry’s power was dramatically weakened, and lives were saved.  According to the New York State Health Department, tens of thousands of New Yorkers were spared from tobacco-related diseases due to the pro-health actions taken.

But now, Big Tobacco is back.

While tobacco use dwindled, the industry identified a new way to sell their addictive products – electronic cigarettes.  The industry spent money to invest in the new nicotine delivery devices and we are now seeing the pay-offs – about one third of all high school students have illegally used an e-cig.  Use is growing dramatically, and so is the body count.

Governor Cuomo called for action to curtail the sale of flavored e-cigs.  One of the devilish ways the industry replaces the smokers who quit or die is to target young people.  In New York, the average age for beginning smokers is 13, despite laws banning sales to minors.  The e-cig industry took a page from Big Tobacco’s past and started selling vapes with candy flavors.  And it worked.

Governor Cuomo has advanced legislation that bans the sale of flavored e-cigs, but leaves in place the sale of flavored conventional tobacco products.  And opposition to even this approach is fierce in the Legislature.  The state Capitol has been flooded with tobacco and e-cig lobbyists all with the goal of protecting the Merchants of Death.

How these individuals sleep at night is beyond me.  These products serve no public purpose, they are designed to addict, harm health, cause early, painful deaths for many users and target children.

How our elected officials listen to the pleas of these death merchants and their paid mouthpieces is something that voters should know about.  Because voter anger at putting the wealth of Big Tobacco ahead of the health of children is not only despicable, but politically dangerous.

This is an election year.  Let’s see if New York – the supposed progressive capital of the nation – protects kids and bans flavored vapes and tobacco.  It’s time to put Count Dracula back in his grave.

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

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

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

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

Question #1:  How will the money be spent?

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

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

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

Question #2: Who will pay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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