Five years ago, Governor Cuomo and the Legislature approved annual tuition hikes for public colleges and universities.  At that time, the argument had two simple rationales to support the plan:

First, it was argued that college students and their families wanted “predictability” in tuition costs, so that annual increases could assure them that hikes would never exceed a predictable, annual amount.  That argument was weak, after all what could be more predictable than having no increases at all?

The second – and more compelling – argument was that the state was facing massive deficits and that it had no money to bolster public colleges.  The students would just have to pay more.

Fast forward five years.  The state has jacked up the cost of attending public college by a whopping 30 percent.  At the same time, the state has frozen its support for the State and City University systems.

In short, the students are paying a lot more and the state is not.

Yet, the governor has once again proposed hiking tuition.  He offers no new state support and wants students to continue to pay annual hikes in tuition.

The argument is the same – the far less compelling argument that students want the predictability of annual tuition hikes.  Which is simply not true.

In fact, it is the opposite that is true – students want predictability all right, but they want the predictability of no tuition hikes, they want the predictability of a state flush with cash adding revenues to enhance higher education.

The second argument used five years ago – that the state is facing deficits – is simply not true anymore.  In fact, according to the state Comptroller, the state has a $1 billion surplus this year.  While $650 million of that surplus is coming from state settlements, $350 million is coming from enhanced tax revenues.

Given that the state is flush with money, why should attending a college cost more?

In addition, the governor proposes no broad-based increases in state financial aid programs, thus leaving either the student, or the college, short.  He does propose to expand financial aid to those college students who are undocumented immigrants, but he proposes no expansions in the state’s Tuition Assistance Program, which provides benefits to all students in need.

As a result, the State and City University systems will have to offer financial assistance to needy students, and where will that money come from if not the state?  You guessed it, students.

Why do it?  One guess would be that the governor simply wants to spend less on public college and instead fund other projects.  Public colleges have no economic leverage, they can’t threaten to leave the state, and are, in fact part of government itself.  The students are the least likely group of adults to make campaign contributions, or even vote.

They are politically weak.

There can be no serious argument that making college more costly helps society.  The education level of the state (and the nation) is central to a growing economy – and it is important to ensuring that citizens can adequately participate in the policy debates of their own democracy.

Hiking college costs in an era of fiscal difficulty is bad, but understandable.  Hiking costs in an era of plenty is indefensible.

Recently, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced that 2015 was by far the hottest year in recorded history.  For the first time, the Earth is 1.8 degrees warmer than in pre-industrial times.

At the recent Paris climate accord, the world’s leaders promised to limit the increase of the Earth’s atmosphere to no more than 2 degrees.  The 2015 temperature hike underscores how difficult that pledge will be to keep.

Experts have said that an increase in the world’s temperature that exceeds the 2 degree limit is likely to unleash global climate changes that may be extremely dangerous and perhaps impossible to reverse.

The increasing global temperature is being felt in New York.  New Yorkers who have suffered through extreme weather events like Sandy, Irene and Lee need no reminder that incredible heat spells, snow falls, rain, surging tides and floods are the new normal.  Climate change is not just an environmental issue: A warming climate is affecting New York’s agricultural and tourism sectors; deteriorating air quality results in more emergency room visits, illnesses and deaths; extreme heat is taking an increasing number of lives; and heat and frequent severe weather significantly increase the demands placed on the state’s infrastructure, particularly the state’s rickety electric grid.

And that’s why governments must act.

Here in New York, the Cuomo Administration has offered plans to curb the state’s contribution to global warming.  The first step was to block expanded exploitation of fossil fuels in New York through the ban on fracking.  The next steps were unveiled in the governor’s 2016 budget plan.

The Administration has mandated that New York double its reliance on renewable energy to power the electrical grid in just 15 years.  By 2030 the goal is for the state to get 50 percent of its power from renewable energy sources.

In its budget plan, the Administration highlighted its $5 billion Clean Energy Fund, which will combine existing and new programs to grow renewable energy across the state, and the Clean Energy Standard, which will mandate more renewables in a tight timeframe.  Both of these plans are essential to the Administration’s efforts to curb power plant emissions and stimulate the use of alternative energy, from battery storage to electric cars.

In addition, the governor is seeking to phase out its two coal plants, by converting them to natural gas or shutting them down entirely.

Under the governor’s plan, New York will add 150,000 solar panels on businesses and homes, as well as at State University of New York campuses by 2020.  The state will also have a goal of making 500,000 new homes more energy efficient.  In total, the state’s energy research agency will finance $1.5 billion in clean energy projects across state-owned buildings as well as local and municipal projects by 2020.

The Administration also calls for the construction of 300 wind turbines, a 40 percent increase, and to create a plan to develop offshore wind resources.

Of course, there are still issues that need to be finalized.  For example, while the state moves toward its goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030, it must not subsidize energy sources that are not renewable—such as nuclear energy and solid waste incineration.

The governor’s budget contained other important environmental initiatives – from boosting support for the state’s Environmental Protection Fund, to enhanced spending on upgrading drinking water and sewer lines, as well as wastewater treatment facility repairs and upgrades.  New York’s aging infrastructure is in desperate need, and the costs of repair and replacement only increase after system failures.

History will judge how our society handles the unprecedented threat posed by climate change.  The governor’s budget offers a blueprint, now it’s up to the legislature to improve and approve it.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama designated Vice President Biden to lead the Administration’s “moon shot” to attack cancer.  Cancer touches the lives of all of us and is the second leading cause of death in America.  It is one term that covers a very wide range of diseases, including those of the lung, prostate, pancreas, breast and colon.

The President’s effort will hopefully make progress against that terrible disease.  Here in New York, Governor Cuomo advanced his own, though more limited, effort.

In his executive budget, the governor proposes to spend $91 million on a statewide campaign to boost the availability of breast and prostate cancer services.  Breast cancer is the leading form of cancer affecting women.  Prostate is a leading cancer in men.  Yet, neither are the leading causes of cancer deaths.  That terrible distinction is the result of lung cancer.  And the leading cause of lung cancer is tobacco use.

The state has the money to pay for programs to reduce smoking: it receives billions of dollars in revenues from the use of tobacco.  It would make sense to expand the state’s efforts – the state has a real health problem and the money to pay for an appropriate response.

Yet, the governor’s executive budget adds no new revenues to the state’s program designed to combat tobacco use.  Indeed, the state has slashed funding for that program, which now receives less than 50 percent of the funding it received a few years ago, and less than 20 percent of the amount recommended by the national experts at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In addition, there been budget proposals that not only put the state’s tobacco control funding at risk, but other cancer services as well.

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 who lack health insurance.  If the screening test finds something abnormal, diagnostic (testing) services are available for eligible women and men at no cost.

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 about 20 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.  In his executive budget, the governor proposes no new funding for this program.

The governor does, to his credit, propose $91 million to expand the state’s breast and prostate services.  And he proposes more money for Roswell Park Cancer Institute.  Yet, his budget does not propose any new funding for the CSP.

Ironically, the experts will state that colon cancer screening is a much more scientifically useful cancer-fighting tool than other cancer screening.  The national experts at the federal government’s U.S. Preventive Services Task Force regularly issue guidelines documenting the best available science to direct medical practice.

In the case of cancer screenings, they rank the efficacy of the effort with a letter grade, an “A” being the service that provides the most benefits with the smallest risks.  According to the USPSTF, colon cancer screening ranks an “A,” grades breast cancer screening with a “B” and prostate screening gets a “D.”  That does not mean that breast cancer screenings are untrustworthy, it means that there is less benefit and greater risks with that type of screening compared to colon cancer screenings.

Yet, unless the governor and Legislature agree, there will be no additional resources for colon cancer screenings.  And, unless they agree, no additional funding for anti-smoking programs, which are the best way to combat the biggest cancer killer.

Does this mean that lawmakers should reject the governor’s cancer services program proposals?  Absolutely not.  It does mean that other cancers, some of which are more dangerous and some of which are better candidates for screening, must get help as well.

New York should follow the lead of the President.  The best way to tackle the scourge of cancer is to rely on the best scientific evidence and to take it on comprehensively.  The governor’s budget is only one step.  Much more needs to be done.

The staggering scandals and collapsing public confidence in state government created an opening for Governor Cuomo’s State of the State address.  Could he advance a comprehensive reform package that was commensurate with the unprecedented ethics, campaign finance and elections failings of the state?  His address was comprehensive:  The governor’s proposals – if enacted – offer significant remedies to those failings as well as to help restore the battered public confidence in Albany.

What is clear is that the central failing of state law is in the area of ethics.  The stunning and unprecedented scandals that have rocked the state Capitol are the direct result of the enormous failures of New York’s ethics oversight system.  This area deserves the most attention by the governor and the Legislature.  Reformers have argued that the central focus of policymakers must be in setting strict limits on outside income; closing the so-called limited liability company campaign finance “loophole,” among other reforms.

The governor’s package tracked those recommendations and added more.  His State of the State proposed reforms in key areas.

First, outside income.  The governor’s proposal goes a long way toward reducing the obvious conflicts of interest that result from allowing elected officials to have significant outside employment.  His proposal tracks the Congressional approach to limiting outside income by capping the amount of income a lawmaker can be paid.

The Congressional system was an outgrowth of the Watergate scandal and has a proven track record of being effective in removing the kinds of outside conflicts that undermines public confidence in representative democracy.

As seen in recent scandals, this potential conflict exists in Albany and 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.

Second, treating Limited Liability Companies as the same as other businesses for the purposes of campaign contributions.  The governor proposes to close the so-called “LLC Loophole” in state election law that allows some business entities to donate much larger campaign contributions than other businesses.  The LLC Loophole allowed some to give enormous amounts of campaign contributions and played a part in the recent scandals in Albany.

Third, the governor’s package advanced a number of additional measures designed to strengthen other state laws.  In the area of campaign finance the governor’s plan enhances disclosure by requiring that contributions that exceed $1,000 must be disclosed every 60 days; it requires the identities of campaign bundlers; it lowers campaign contribution limits; and establishes a voluntary system of public financing.

In the area of ethics enforcement, the governor’s plan extends the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Open Meetings laws to the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (“JCOPE”), authorizes JCOPE to seek documents in support of information on financial disclosure statements; increases enforcement authority against lawmakers who failed to comply with JCOPE audits; and creates district attorney oversight over those who submit deceptive information.  Finally, the governor’s proposal allows for the forfeiture of pensions by public officials convicted of corruption.

However, more must be done to fix the structural weaknesses in JCOPE.  For example, the JCOPE board should have a smaller number (and odd number) of appointees; allow for appointments by the state Comptroller and Attorney General; eliminate the legislative “veto” over investigations; and prohibit elected officials from sitting on JCOPE’s board since it regulates the lobbying industry, a tremendous source of campaign contributions.  In addition, the executive director and other staff should not be hired directly from the executive or legislative branches.

In the area of voting and elections, the governor also advanced a plan that allows New Yorkers to vote early in all elections.  We agree.  The plan proposes automatic voter registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”).  However, such a system must be expanded to all state agencies.  Many urban residents as well as those of modest means, do not use the DMV.  The lowest voter participation rates include just those residents.

So the governor proposed reforms across the board, not only to address Albany’s own “Watergate moment,” but to also enhance government openness and boost voter participation.  But actions speak louder than words.  Only time will tell if the governor is planning to fight for his proposals.

In particular, failure to enact the ethics reforms can be seen as nothing less than a failure of Albany’s political leadership.  Here’s hoping that this is a test Albany’s leaders will pass.

The 2016 legislative session kicked off quietly last week. Typically, the governor unveils his legislative program on the first day. His State of the State address serves as the legislative curtain raiser for the session. This year, the governor has chosen to postpone his address for one week and has used that time to make daily announcements highlighting his upcoming initiatives.

As a result, lawmakers returned to a more subdued Capitol to begin the 2016 session. Both houses began their sessions with each house’s leadership discussing the top issues as they see them. Not surprisingly, both the Senate Majority Leader and the Assembly Speaker discussed the looming debate over how to strengthen the state’s ethics.

It was one year ago that the now-former Senate Majority Leader and now-former Assembly Speaker unveiled their legislative priorities. Little did they know at that time that one year later they would both be booted from office and facing prison time for corruption convictions.

But that is what happened and the new leaders had to at least tip their hats to the need for additional ethics measures.

During his opening address, the new Assembly Speaker offered his priorities for ethics reforms. He identified a number of reforms that the Assembly would advance, including closing the LLC campaign finance loophole, limiting the influence of big money in politics, and allowing for the pension forfeiture of corrupt public officials.

He then stated, “Make no mistake – over the coming weeks, discussions around proposals on ethics WILL be a priority of this house. The Assembly is serious about ethics reform and we know that words are not enough.”

Over on the Senate side, the statement was less sweeping and less definitive as to what the Senate Majority would do in the area, but very clear in what it would not do – support public financing of elections.

The Senate Majority Leader did echo the Assembly Speaker by stating that actions will speak louder than words.

And he’s right: For too long, New Yorkers have heard a lot about ethics reforms, but limited actions. The unprecedented corruption convictions create a unique historical moment, a moment that should lead to sweeping changes.

All eyes turn to the governor. His State of the State address this week can offer New Yorkers a glimpse of what may happen. It is the governor that has the power to leverage real changes in the state’s ethics laws.

And it is safe to say that the governor understands that he has this opportunity. In recent weeks, the governor has ramped up his rhetoric about the need for changes.

In a recent media interview, the governor stated that addressing the issue of corruption in state government is a top priority, “The top of my agenda is going to be ethics reform,” he said. “We have done a lot in Albany but we haven’t done enough. And I’m going to push the legislature very hard to adopt more aggressive ethics legislation, more disclosure, more enforcement.”

The governor is right. But soaring rhetoric, while important, does not mean change. As the legislative leaders correctly pointed out, at the end of the day what matters is whether that rhetoric meets the reality found in new laws.

Albany’s soaring reform rhetoric has rarely met the actual changes. The governor’s Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption was disbanded before it ever got off the ground, at least in part because the governor and the legislative leaders wanted a deal more than an independent investigation.

The governor will set the stage this week. How he uses his power will determine whether there is an historic change in Albany’s ethical climate that matches the opportunity.