Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cuomo the Conservative - Believe it. (At least fiscally, who knew?)
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | February 2, 2011 | Michael Tanner

Posted on 02/02/2011 8:02:23 PM PST by neverdem

Cuomo the Conservative
Believe it.

Looking for a tax-cutting, budget-slashing, fiscally conservative governor? How about Andrew Cuomo? Yes, that Andrew Cuomo.

With the possible exceptions of California and Illinois, no state is facing as big an economic mess as New York. Years of profligate spending and crushing taxes have left the state with a $10 billion budget shortfall. The conventional wisdom said that despite having the nation’s highest tax burden, and what Cuomo has called the “worst business climate in the country,” New York would have no choice but to hike taxes yet again. That is, after all, the path that Illinois just chose, raising its state income tax by 75 percent.

Cuomo rejected that approach, early, often, and loudly. He vowed to balance the state’s budget without borrowing and without raising taxes.

“The old way of solving the problem was continuing to raise taxes on people, and we just can’t do that anymore. The working families of New York cannot afford tax increases. The answer is going to have to be that we’re going to have to reduce government spending,” Cuomo declared.

In fact, Cuomo didn’t just rule out tax increases, he actually called for tax cuts. Already he has pushed through the state senate a bill establishing one of the nation’s strongest caps on property taxes. For New York businesses and homeowners, this is a long overdue move. Nationally, the median annual property tax is $1,917. In some New York counties, the average property-tax bill exceeds $9,000.

Cuomo’s proposal, modeled after nearby Massachusetts’s successful Proposition 2½, would limit property-tax increases to no more than 2 percent or 120 percent of the inflation rate, whichever is lower. Significantly, it does not include traditional loopholes for things like government employees’ health-insurance premiums or pensions. It would also eliminate the practice of localities’ voting separately to approve school budgets without regard to their impact on taxes. And most important, the bill would require a 60 percent supermajority for voters to override the cap, ensuring that taxes would only be raised for genuine emergencies or the most worthwhile projects.

Cuomo also has announced that he will allow the state’s “temporary” income-tax surcharge on the wealthy to expire as scheduled at the end of this year. That has outraged liberal groups, unions, and the New York Times, but Cuomo responds by warning that high taxes are a job-killer and would “just prolong the recessionary conditions in the state.”

Of course, tax-cutting is always easier than budget-cutting — as Congress has shown in recent years — but Cuomo also seems serious about controlling state spending. In fact, Cuomo sounds almost Reaganesque, declaring flatly, “The state spends too much money.”

Almost immediately, he imposed a freeze on salaries for state workers. While that move was more symbolism than substance, it was important symbolism. Public-employee unions have been some of the state’s most powerful special interests. Since 2007, while most Americans have been struggling, New York public employees have seen their wages and benefits go up by 13 percent. Beyond the symbolism, Cuomo’s freeze will save taxpayers $200 million this year. Cuomo is also set to cut the size of the state bureaucracy. His 2011 budget, released yesterday, calls for a reduction in the state work force of some 15,000 people, slightly more than 7 percent of the state’s 200,000 employees. And he cut his own office’s budget by 25 percent.

Overall, Cuomo’s budget represents the first proposed year-to-year drop in state spending since the mid 1990s. Everything is on the table, from prison construction to state aid to New York City.

Cuomo also appears ready to go after the sacred cows of state spending: education and health care. He has pledged to eliminate state budget rules that lock in annual increases to educational programs and Medicaid — a 13 percent hike this year. But beyond doing away with the automatic $8 billion hike built into the budget formulas, Cuomo plans real cuts as well. His budget would cut Medicaid spending by $3 billion.

He would also shave nearly $1 billion from state education spending. And Cuomo has made it clear that he was talking about actual cuts, not just the traditional game of decreases in the rate of increase.

The proposed cuts have engendered the usual howls of outrage that it will lead to fired teachers, overcrowded classrooms, and sick people dying in the street. In response, Cuomo notes that New York spends more per pupil on education and more per enrollee on Medicaid than nearly any other state, yet has little to show for the money.

Andrew Cuomo apparently understands that the secret to economic growth is a smaller, less expensive government. It’s an approach that some of his fellow Democrats in Washington — including the White House — could learn a lot from.

— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: andrewcuomo; cuomo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: DoughtyOne; calcowgirl

D1, a number of your comments were about conversion of voters to conservatism. I have made hundreds of comments on that subject myself. “Selling conservative proposals’ is a phrase I have used for years here at FR.

But consider this thought : converting liberal leaning (middle left) voters that liberalism is bankrupt and conservatism is our national (and personal) salvation is something that can only be done successfully by a conservative communicator like Reagan. The Angles and Palin’s (just for example) are only going to get the current believers. They don’t have the Reagan magic, not close.
They would just get crusified without convincing, in fact they already were.


41 posted on 02/03/2011 6:35:42 PM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; sickoflibs

Thanks for the additional good examples CalCowGirl.

BTW: I agree with the premise SickOfLibs addresses to..., to a point. Let’s not forget that some of these liberal states were won by none other than Ronald Reagan.

You have to make a connection to people. If you give the right focused bedrock speech, one that people can identify with, “Hey, you know, that makes sense to me...”, you can win over people.

Not everyone on the left is an automaton.

With Obama and his policies on the table, every state in this nation is ripe for the picking.


42 posted on 02/04/2011 9:57:56 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Okay, I appreciate the fact that you have made that case.

You’re not going to get an argument out of me regarding Palin or Angle. I agree.

You’ll have to speak up on specific issues. You’ll have to be genuine. You’ll have to take what may seem like unpopular stands to some. Who does that these days?

People don’t necessarily have to agree with you 100%. They have to be able to trust you. If you explain yourself and follow through with resolve they’ll know you’re genuine.

You can’t say you’re a member of the tea party and then back a crass back-stabber who would sell out this nation at the drop of a hat.

It does take a good communicator. And when I say that I’m talking about substance, not a cheerleader.

We agree on a great deal of things.


43 posted on 02/04/2011 10:04:11 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; sickoflibs
BTW: I agree with the premise SickOfLibs addresses to..., to a point. Let’s not forget that some of these liberal states were won by none other than Ronald Reagan. You have to make a connection to people. If you give the right focused bedrock speech, one that people can identify with, “Hey, you know, that makes sense to me...”, you can win over people.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't trying to say that was not true. And again, my comments were with respect only to California. IMO, conservatives can win by offering an honest, common-sense, constitutionally based vision. And that does rely on having a messenger that people are willing to, or want to listen to. It would also help if there was an objective media... but those type journalists are a dying breed, I'm afraid.

44 posted on 02/04/2011 1:36:13 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Sapere Aude!" --Immanuel Kant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Oh no problem. That was a given. I knew where you stood.

D1


45 posted on 02/04/2011 3:32:10 PM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; DoughtyOne

OK I’m back. Today was another work travel day.

Here’s some more rain to support my thinking: The country has become much more liberal than it was 20 years ago. Think about how gays in the military hurt Clinton in 1993 politically. But last year few elected Republicans even talked about it. The polls had changed dramatically on the subject in the past 20 years and Obama knew he had an easy win. (Gates helped too especially with his military surveys.) It was pathetic, barely mentioned on FNC.

Much of this change happened during Bush. There is some backlash over Democrats being in charge more recently (and NJ is a great surprise ) and but I wouldnt over-read it.


46 posted on 02/04/2011 6:21:37 PM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
OK I’m back.

Did you ever show up at a party after everyone had gone home?

(Sorry, just jokin' with ya.) :-)

47 posted on 02/04/2011 11:10:33 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Sapere Aude!" --Immanuel Kant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
RE “Did you ever show up at a party after everyone had gone home? (Sorry, just jokin’ with ya.) :-)

We need a good SE vanity now. Something amusing like “Voters who don't support Palin for president don't deserve to live” or “Is American good enough for Sarah Palin?” or “I've never felt these feelings before that I do Sarah Palin

48 posted on 02/05/2011 11:31:32 AM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson