The Truth About Budget Extenders
By Mike Connery on 04/27/2010 @ 12:18 PM
Yesterday the Democratic Majority Conference passed another round of budget extenders. The extenders are receiving the lion's share of media attention this morning, so it's worth taking some time to know what exactly is included in the extender, and why Republicans who vote against the extenders are not only hypocritical, but also working against the interests of the public, who rely on the jobs and services the extenders provide.
First, a look at what, exactly, the extender's fund:
- $2.57 billion mandated payments to schools for General Aid Payments not associated with the Executive’s delays of school aid payments.
- $2.5 billion for local providers of the Medical Assistance Program including:
- $1.45 billion for payments to Medicaid providers including:
- $900 million for medical services provided by State facilities operated by OMH, OMRDD and OASAS.
- $311 million for nursing home services.
- $261 million for managed care services.
- $234 million for long term care services.
- $172 million for hospital inpatient services.
- $137 million for pharmacy services
- $67 million for non-institutional and other spending.
- $30 million for outpatient and emergency room services
- $29 million for clinical services
- $12 million for transportation services
- $7 million for dental services
- $40 million for contracts approved prior to April 1, 2010 where payments must be made during the period from April 1, 2010 to May 2, 2010.
- $40 million for contracts approved in the period from April 1, 2010 to May 2, 2010 where payments must be made during the same period.
As is readily apparent, these are all vital services that New Yorkers rely upon, and represent thousands of jobs that are putting food on the table and a roof over the heads of New York families. Those who support this extender are supporting our troopers, guardsmen, corrections officers, nurses, and social service workers who care for our veterans, the homeless, and mentally disabled.
Which leads me to my next topic. Seventeen Republicans voted against the extender: DeFrancisco, Flanagan, Golden, Hannon, O. Johnson, Larkin, Libous, Marcellino, Maziarz, Nozzolio, Ranzenhofer, Seward, Skelos, Volker, Griffo, Winner and Young. Many of these Republicans have been in office for a decade or more. They had no problem voting for budget extenders when they controlled the chamber.
- 2008: 9 days late/ 2 extenders
- 2004: 133 days late/ 12 extenders
- 2003: 42 days late/ 5 extenders
- 2002: 42 days late/ 8 extenders
- 2001: 125 days late/ 12 extenders
- 2000: 39 days late/ 3 extenders
- 1999: 126 days late/ 19 extenders
- 1998: 14 days late/ 4 extenders
- 1997: 126 days late/ 10 extenders
- 1996: 104 days late/ 14 extenders
- 1995: 68 days late/ 10 extenders
Plainly, Republican opposition to the budget extenders isn't about taking a principled stand. It's about showboating for voters and shirking tough decisions. It's playing politics with people's lives and jobs. New Yorkers deserve more.
Poison Party?
By Mike Connery on 04/21/2010 @ 11:10 AM
Helping children is usually about as uncontroversial an issue as you can find in politics. Children are our future. Everyone is for children. Unless you're in the New York GOP.
Yesterday, as part of a package of Earth Day related legislation, the State Senate passed a bill sponsored by Brian Foley that prohibits the use of certain toxic chemicals for pesticide and weed control at schools.
Bill Before New York State Lawmakers Would Ban Use of Pesticides on School Playing Fields
Chemical companies are pressing lawmakers to vote against the bill. They say pesticides are highly regulated and safe to use.
Children are especially susceptible to pesticides because of their small size and still-developing organs, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than a purely chemical approach, the agency recommends schools use Integrated Pest Management, which combines several more organic and less toxic techniques to manage pests and weeds, such as overseeding, mowing grass taller, watering less and applying “compost tea,” a liquefied form of compost.
“Put simply, IPM is a safer, and usually less costly option for effective pest management in a school community,” EPA regulators said.
It's not just safer, though. It could also save schools money in the long term:
Schools would see a slight increase in cost during the first two years of IPM, but after the third year, the price would fall about 25 percent below the costs of chemical lawn treatment, according to a study by Grassroots Environmental Education, a nonprofit public health advocacy group in Nassau County. That group has offered free training to school groundskeepers on ways to care for fields without pesticides.
Keeps kids healthy? Check. Fiscally responsible? Check. So why are 22 GOP Senators opposed to this again?
Would Senate Republicans Prefer a Government Shutdown?
By Mike Connery on 04/20/2010 @ 01:26 PM
Yesterday the State Senate voted to pass budget extenders that will fund the essential functions of government and protect vital services on which millions of New Yorkers depend. The budget extenders allow the state to continue paying our troopers, guardsmen, corrections officers, nurses, and social service workers who care for our veterans, the homeless, and mentally disabled. They provide funds for Medicaid, Social Security, and Unemployment.
Without these extenders, the state cannot function, and New Yorkers already struggling to make ends meet with take yet another hard hit. This is a big deal, with an immediate impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the state's residents. So it's worth noting that 16 Republicans - as they have so often since they lost the majority - said 'No' to a functioning government, 'No' to services for their constituents, and 'No' to paying the first responders we rely upon in emergencies by voting against the budget extenders.
Here is the list of Republicans who voted against yesterday's bill. It's a wall of shame if ever there was one:
- John DeFrancisco
- John Flanagan
- Martin Golden
- Joe Griffo
- Kemp Hannon
- William Larkin
- Ken LaValle
- Tom Libous
- Carl Marcellino
- Michael Nozzolio
- Michael Ranzenhofer
- James Seward
- Dean Skelos
- Dale Volker
- George Winner
- Catharine Young
Here's my question. With so many New Yorkers struggling, and the state facing one of the biggest fiscal crises in recent memory, does this gang of 16 really think shutting down parts of the government and letting vital services lapse is a good idea? I wonder if their constituents would agree with their answer.
