• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

New York State debt to hit $49 billion

Status
Not open for further replies.

goodcow

Member
http://www.transitspot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=210

State Legislature agrees to $2 billion increase over Pataki plan in borrowing for roads, bridges, rejects tuition hikes
By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau
First published: Thursday, March 24, 2005

ALBANY -- The Legislature agreed to a giant increase in borrowing for roads, bridges and mass transit Wednesday while refusing to increase public college tuitions.

The deals ended the sixth day of legislative conference committee sessions and added to Gov. George Pataki's concerns that the Legislature is spending too much.

"I fear there is going to be spending levels much higher than acceptable and revenue levels much lower than acceptable," Pataki said.

The deals came after public and private wrestling between the Assembly and Senate over differing spending preferences. The chambers compromised as leaders try to figure out how to add $1.55 billion to the governor's proposed $105.2 billion budget.

After a week of debate, lawmakers appeared to have resolved the big transportation funding problem, although committee chairmen Sen. Thomas Libous and Assemblyman David Gantt said details on how to finance the capital plan are still uncertain. Libous was unable to say how much additional borrowing will be part of the plan because of uncertainties on how much revenue will come from other sources.

Lawmakers agreed on a $35.8 billion, five-year program to pay for transportation projects, about $2 billion more than Pataki proposed in January. At the insistence of Senate Republicans, the money would be split evenly between roads and bridges, an upstate concern, and mass transit, generally a New York City issue.

A joint transportation committee received applause from about 200 town and county highway superintendents wearing orange vests who filled the conference room to lobby for more funds for local projects.

The Assembly and Senate also agreed to ask voters to approve a $2.9 billion bond issue to help pay for the projects. Pataki declined to support the plan.

Lawmakers say they will be adding to state-backed debt, but are at least asking for voters to go along with much of it.

The state's debt, now at nearly $47 billion, would grow to $49 billion under Pataki's budget plan. Comptroller Alan Hevesi has warned that debt limits are needed.

"This $2.9 billion is the right kind of debt if its authorized by voters, but it needs to fit into an overall picture of limiting our reliance on debt as we move forward," said Jeffrey Gordon, a spokesman for Hevesi.

Libous would not rule out raising taxes and fees, including some DMV costs that Senate Republicans earlier said were unacceptable. Lawmakers said higher title charges are more likely than an increase in vehicle registration fees.

The transportation budget negotiators said they will work on how bond act proceeds would be spent. In 2000, voters rejected a $3.8 billion bond act, in part because state officials never identified specific projects.

Most voters upstate, including in Albany County, opposed the measure, overcoming support in New York City. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a member of the transportation committee, said it will be important for Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other city officials to support the plan during this year's mayoral elections.

Lawmakers also rejected Pataki's plan to raise SUNY and CUNY tuitions and cut Tuition Assistance Program funds for college students. Pataki had proposed a $500 tuition hike for SUNY students and regular annual increases for incoming students.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, health care lobbyists, lawmakers and Pataki are negotiating agreements that may allow the governor to claim some victories in his fight to lower Medicaid costs.

The parties are inching toward an agreement to raise hospital gross receipt taxes by about .35 percentage points, according to some health industry sources, although the talks are inconclusive. The tax hike, half of what Pataki sought, would raise $90 million in the 2005-2006 fiscal year, according to the sources.

A nursing home tax would increase 1 percentage point to raise $40 million.

Negotiators are also close to agreeing on a preferred drug list that would allow the state to save tens of millions by negotiating cheaper medication costs for Medicaid patients. And, the governor will be able to cut graduate medical school funding, but not as deeply as he desired.

Lawmakers further agreed to $2.5 billion for services and programs for poor and needy families. Local officials, however, were upset that the $600 million for cities and towns was about $200 million short of what they sought.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno said Wednesday's progress was substantial. But Pataki, who has been getting the final say each day with early evening news conferences, criticized the chambers for failing to make important spending decisions, particularly on health care and education.

"The governor has a right to his opinion," Bruno said. "We feel we're doing extremely well."

Silver said the Legislature is moving toward consensus on a new budget before the new fiscal year starts on April 1.

Lawmakers are attempting to break the 20-year string of late budgets. M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or by e-mail at jodato@timesunion.com.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
New York is also home to about 20-25 billionaires with a combined net worth of around $75B. Hmmm...what to do. :D
 
I'm ignorant to these things, but what happens when a State doesn't pay its debt? I mean, does the Federal Government strip it down to its bare bones and leave residents there with nothing?
 

goodcow

Member
NintendosBooger said:
I'm ignorant to these things, but what happens when a State doesn't pay its debt? I mean, does the Federal Government strip it down to its bare bones and leave residents there with nothing?

The federal government doesn't really loan them money I believe, I think it's just banks and private lenders...

NYC almost went bankrupt in the 70s, and had to cut huge amounts of spending, which also sent the subways spiraling into disarray.

Basically, it's like when a regular person gathers up a lot of debt... all their money goes to interest payments, not things they want/need, and if they default their credit is fucked and they won't get loaned money again.
 

Shinobi

Member
And yet these idiots want to host the 2012 Olympics? :lol They might as well throw what's left of their money into the Jersey river.
 
Shinobi said:
And yet these idiots want to host the 2012 Olympics? :lol They might as well throw what's left of their money into the Jersey river.

[bullshit]But it will be great for the city! It will create jobs! The people of New York want it![/bullshit]
 
brooklyngooner said:
[bullshit]But it will be great for the city! It will create jobs! The people of New York want it![/bullshit]

Yeah, people don't realize that 90% of those jobs would consist of selling hot dogs and Olympic crap to tourists.
 
FortNinety said:
Yeah, people don't realize that 90% of those jobs would consist of selling hot dogs and Olympic crap to tourists.

Considering about 90% of the jobs there currently are selling hot dogs and NYC crap to tourists, would this be so different?
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Hosting the Olympics is just a way for Bloomberg and his rich friends to make out like bandits. It will have NO overall benefit for the city, even when factoring in tourism, concession revenues etc. It's amazing that Bloomberg is still pushing for this despite polls that show that upwards of 70% of New Yorkers don't want the Olympics here. Ridiculous.


Mayor Michael "$5 billion ain't enough for me" Bloomberg. Anyone who thinks that he's pushing for this out of the goodness of his heart, so that it'll be a boon for the city's economy, is kidding themselves.
 

SickBoy

Member
Don't worry, that debt is only a fraction of one year worth of federal deficit...

I wonder when (not so much if) the house of cards is going to come down... because things can't sustain this way forever, can they?

What is it? $427B this year or something stupid?

Really, New York's per capita share is somewhere around $28B or so, so how bad does a long-term, $49B deficit really look? :D
 
Loki said:
New York is also home to about 20-25 billionaires with a combined net worth of around $75B. Hmmm...what to do. :D

Push it too far and they're just going to move to another state or country.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Instigator said:
Push it too far and they're just going to move to another state or country.

You're right, of course, which is why nationwide policy should be enacted so that the top marginal tax rate would be substantially higher than it is now. The top rate was 70+% for decades until Reagan lowered it to around 40%; subsequent reductions have cut it to around 35%. Furthermore, many affluent (read: net worth of $25M+) individuals don't even pay that low rate, instead evading taxes by way of offshore banking and accounting loopholes. I don't think that the top rate should be 90% like it was for a few decades after the Depression (the very Depression which unchecked economic stratification, of the sort we witness presently, was the chief cause of; stratification and concentration of wealth are now at their highest levels since 1920-- we shouldn't ignore history, you know; the portents are all around us)-- I believe it should be around 55-60% or so. Nobody needs such obscene amounts of money-- it perverts the values of society, retards true industriousness rather than encouraging it (as is commonly proffered), creates systemic maladies, and is repsonsible for the degradation of our political process, which has been infiltrated by, and appropriated by, moneyed interests for decades now. It has to stop.



Make it nationwide policy and if business leaves the US, so be it-- give them an ultimatum stating that they won't be able to sell their products in our markets, then. Bam, just like that-- 40+% of their worldwide market is gone. Think that many companies are going to take that sort of immediate hit instead of simply paying what they owe by way of social obligation? I doubt it, since fledgling consumer economies in China, India etc, are not nearly robust enough to make up for the loss (i.e., their citizens don't have nearly the spending power that we have-- to say nothing of our prodigal spending habits).


Still, even if companies do decide to play hardball, sometimes you have to cut off your nose to spite your face; sensible policy measures in the wake of such events would mitigate the damage done anyway. New companies would spring up to replace the old gluttonous, rapacious ones, and they would be animated by a new, more temperate ethic (all of this is assuming larger societal change, which will never happen; hence, this is all hypothetical :D). Such changes would redound to the benefit of all of society over the course of time.


There are only two possibilities here: something that looks roughly like what is stated above (or at least other, more stringent, measures aimed at getting the obscenely wealthy to pay their due), or terrible social unrest in the decades to come. Common sense says to choose the simpler and less destructive course of action, particularly when it's also the more reasonable one. People are free to ignore these signs at their own peril. This is how I see it. :)
 

marsomega

Member
FortNinety said:
Yeah, people don't realize that 90% of those jobs would consist of price gouging hot dogs, bottled water and Olympic crap to tourists.


$15 12 oz bottled waters. I'm looking at you Atlanta.
 

Shinobi

Member
brooklyngooner said:
[bullshit]But it will be great for the city! It will create jobs! The people of New York want it![/bullshit]

:lol Same line fed to suckers all over the world. Ask the people in Athens what good the games have done for them. Even Sydney residents are getting fucked over from the 2000 games, and that was supposedly a model in how to host the games right. :lol

When Toronto lost the '08 Olympic bid to Beijeng a couple years ago, I was one of the happiest people in the city. I love watching the Olympics, but fuck hosting them...it's nothing but a money-losing farce for the taxpayer, who wouldn't be able to afford to enjoy 'em anyway since the tickets are priced for nobody but the corporate types and filthy rich. Fuck the IOC too for that matter.
 
Shinobi said:
:lol Same line fed to suckers all over the world. Ask the people in Athens what good the games have done for them. Even Sydney residents are getting fucked over from the 2000 games, and that was supposedly a model in how to host the games right. :lol

Wasn't there a terrorist explosion in Atlanta that killed like 11 people?
 

Shinobi

Member
MaverickX9 said:
Wasn't there a terrorist explosion in Atlanta that killed like 11 people?

It was one person killed...don't think they found the real suspect, since the Atlanta cops were busy grandstanding with their mistaken suspect for a couple weeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom