In support of Gov. David Paterson's proposal to cut an additional $600 million in state spending, his office this week presented lawmakers with some serious talking points: five specific areas from which Paterson said $1 billion could be trimmed.
Whether one considers the proposal ambitious or outrageous, it is something that state lawmakers need to take seriously - election-year politics be damned.
Having already called the state Legislature to meet Aug. 19 for what he calls an “emergency economic session,” Paterson this week laid out options that include a reduction of more than $500 million in Medicaid funding, cutting aid to local governments by $250 million and slashing pork barrel spending by 50 percent.
The numbers are huge, but so is the growing state deficit, and something has to give.
Cuts totaling $1 billion may not be realistic, but surely some reduction in health-care spending, municipal aid and member-item projects can be made without devastating consequences.
Paterson contends that a reduction in Medicaid spending would simply reduce the growth in that spending from 4 percent to 1.7 percent.
And cutting $250 million in aid to local governments would mean that the municipalities will be forced to make up the other 6 percent. Can this be done without raising taxes? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that local governments are being forced to join the state in finding ways to cut costs.
The state is facing a crisis, and things will only be worse if the Legislature needs to be called back in November for failing to make some tough decisions now.
History, unfortunately, has taught us to expect little more in the coming days but self-serving news releases explaining how one house in Albany has a better plan and how the other house is really the one standing in the way of progress.
But if our representatives really have our best interests at heart, they'll find the courage to look us in the eye on Aug. 20 and say they supported spending cuts that were necessary for the fiscal health of the state, even if doing so loses them a few votes.
Having already called the state Legislature to meet Aug. 19 for what he calls an “emergency economic session,” Paterson this week laid out options that include a reduction of more than $500 million in Medicaid funding, cutting aid to local governments by $250 million and slashing pork barrel spending by 50 percent.
The numbers are huge, but so is the growing state deficit, and something has to give.
Cuts totaling $1 billion may not be realistic, but surely some reduction in health-care spending, municipal aid and member-item projects can be made without devastating consequences.
Paterson contends that a reduction in Medicaid spending would simply reduce the growth in that spending from 4 percent to 1.7 percent.
And cutting $250 million in aid to local governments would mean that the municipalities will be forced to make up the other 6 percent. Can this be done without raising taxes? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that local governments are being forced to join the state in finding ways to cut costs.
The state is facing a crisis, and things will only be worse if the Legislature needs to be called back in November for failing to make some tough decisions now.
History, unfortunately, has taught us to expect little more in the coming days but self-serving news releases explaining how one house in Albany has a better plan and how the other house is really the one standing in the way of progress.
But if our representatives really have our best interests at heart, they'll find the courage to look us in the eye on Aug. 20 and say they supported spending cuts that were necessary for the fiscal health of the state, even if doing so loses them a few votes.
