| If there is one thing you can associate Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi with, it is the property tax cap that he has pushed for in New York. But Suozzi knows, as a county executive, that the financial crisis that has provided us with plenty of media attention on how the federal government will deal with it also trickles down to the state and local governments.
Suozzi authored an op-ed featured in Politico today about the federal government should address financial woes that are not only impacting the nation's economy, but are also impacting state and local economies.
States, localities can't fix economy alone
As chief executive of a county with a budget larger than 16 states, I've seen and successfully managed through some challenging situations. But during the current economic crisis, I'm doing everything wrong.
Like Governor Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg - and hundreds of governors and local leaders across the nation who are responding to rising costs, shrinking revenues, and massive projected budget deficits - I'm cutting jobs, eliminating programs, and in the case of Nassau County, reducing capital spending and raising property taxes for the first time in five years. We have to. Because unlike the federal government, states and localities must, by law, balance our budgets every year, leaving us no choice but to make difficult decisions. These efforts are necessary in the short term, but we are undoing any national efforts to stimulate the economy.
In the war to save America's economy, the local, state, and federal governments are all on the same side but pulling in opposite directions.
State and localities need our federal government's help. As Governor Paterson so articulately made the case just one month ago on Capitol Hill and again earlier this week, the American public needs Washington more than any time in recent memory. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent to bail out banks, insurance companies, mortgage firms, and maybe even the automobile industry. Why can't Washington spend $50 billion to help the beleaguered American taxpayer by stabilizing their state and local governments?
I included the rest of Suozzi's op-ed below the fold so that you can read the whole thing. It is an interesting read.
A state and local government bailout would be helpful. Surely the governments would be more responsible handling the money and the money would be easier to track. With private corporations, you can't say the same thing.
I do think that state and local governments have to be more responsible. Cutting taxes is a must and there are certain things you need to keep spending money on. However, there are some things you don't have to spend money on. There are useless expenditures and perks that are afforded to elected officials that need to be taken away during these tough times. Removing such perks would send a clear message to their constituents. Hopefully they realize that.
Suozzi's op-ed is a must read. Again, I posted the rest of the op-ed below the fold. He presents plenty of great ideas and thoughts, along with the suggestion that there be a "bailout" of state and local governments. |
| We are in a promising position with an incoming president who has been given a clear mandate to take dramatic action on a number of fronts, starting with our fragile and faltering economy. Just last week we learned President-elect Barack Obama will have access to $350 billion of the federal bank bailout funds. Given that Congress is still unclear as to how that money can and should be used, it seems reasonable to offer some concrete suggestions.
President-elect Obama's National Infrastructure Reinvestment Deal, reminiscent of President Roosevelt's New Deal, would invest $60 billion over 10 years in roads, bridges, and other infrastructure projects across the country. An excellent idea and one that should be pursued, but it has two major shortcomings for dealing with the current economic crisis. First, it will take time to get it up and running, with any short-term benefits offset by all the "wrong" things local governments are being forced to do. Second, with great variations in investments state-to-state, depending on who has a local Robert Moses with pending projects in hand, it is highly inequitable.
My proposal will get the federal, state, and local governments working together on the same side. It deals directly with America's Medicaid program and will provide immediate budgetary relief for states and, where applicable, local governments that contribute to the cost of the program. Just as important, it also fulfills a major policy commitment by President-elect Obama to develop a national health insurance plan. And given the rising numbers of unemployed Americans, this proposal provides a framework for preserving health coverage for the unemployed.
The plan is simple and could be implemented in two phases. Beginning in 2009, the federal government would start a three-year phased- in assumption of the state and local share of Medicaid costs. By assuming one third, or approximately $50 billion, of the state/local cost each year, plus normal inflation, at the end of three years, the Medicaid program would be fully federally funded. The benefit to each state would be proportional to its Medicaid expenditures, resulting in all states being treated equally and fairly. In New York, for example, this proposal would relieve the state of approximately $8 billion or two thirds of its current projected deficit, thereby averting further reductions to critical programs, including education and health care.
As a condition of participation, states must maintain their current state plan, agreeing not to alter the existing scope of services or impose restrictions on eligibility. Bad debt, charity care, disproportionate share, and other funding programs will continue. States could expand the Medicaid program to cover those receiving unemployment benefits either by funding COBRA benefits or granting them Medicaid benefits.
In addition, state participation in Phase I would be conditioned on implementation of cost-saving measures, including combating fraud and abuse, developing programs to prevent, detect ,and manage illness, reforming long-term care, and eliminating minority health disparities, among many others.
Phase II would incorporate a number of health care proposals now being developed by knowledgeable members of Congress, including Senators Kennedy and Baucus and our own Senators Schumer and Clinton, a recognized national expert on health care. Together with the new administration, they would further develop and refine these proposals to build toward a national health insurance program that this nation so desperately needs.
For a modest investment of $50 billion, our new president would deliver real and immediate relief to state and local governments, and ultimately our taxpayers; the benefits would be distributed equally to every state; and it would provide a significant step forward toward achieving his vision of a comprehensive health care plan, including helping those out of work due to the economic downturn.
The election of Barack Obama has infused our nation and its people with a sense of optimism even amidst numbing economic turmoil. His energy, vision, and refreshing willingness to consider creative ideas have us all thinking of ways to help move our nation forward again. With his leadership, the American people will get the change we overwhelmingly supported, and by supporting simple proposals like this one, he will have literally hundreds of state and local elected officials lining up to say ,"Yes, we can." |
