The process of developing the annual New York State Budget officially begins when the governor presents his spending proposal in late January. But the terms of negotiations become clearer once legislative-majority conferences offer their financial plans, which Assembly Democrats unveiled recently. “One-House Budget Resolutions” should be viewed as a political statement rather than a policy document. However, the statement made by progressives in the Assembly is cause for concern and anxiety.

First and foremost, the Assembly one-house budget proposal calls on taxpayers to subsidize $208 billion in total spending, an unprecedented 10.9 percent increase in operating expenses. In addition, the plan calls for $6.8 billion in new taxes for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and another $7.8 billion the following year.

This is especially troubling when you start comparing New York’s budget to other large states. The proposed $208 billion price tag puts New York in the same ballpark as California, which has an annual budget of about $227 billion. California, though, has a population of nearly 40 million people; that is more than double the population of New York. 

 Texas has a population of 29 million residents and an annual budget of $112 billion while Florida has a population of 21.5 million residents and an annual budget of $97 billion. New York’s (shrinking) population totals about 19.5 million residents. Why are Assembly Democrats suggesting New York’s budget should be the size of those two states combined?

 California, like New York, is a liberal-leaning state, while Texas and Florida trend toward conservative principles. New York’s problem, apparently, is a self-inflicted spending problem that has never been adequately addressed.

What makes these figures even more disturbing is the reality that we are set to receive $12.7 billion in federal funding as part of the recently-enacted American Rescue Plan. Much of that money — as much as $10 billion — has not been earmarked for specific purposes. Conceptually, that is outrageous. In addition, revenues are coming into New York at a much higher rate than previously predicted. While restraint and fiscal prudence are still necessary, the immediate budget crisis is not as severe as we thought. Raising taxes permanently on New Yorkers still reeling from one of the worst economic collapses in a lifetime while sitting on $10 billion in cash is both illogical and insulting. 

 New York State has some of the highest tax rates in the country. People are fleeing. Democrats look at this information and somehow see an opportunity to raise taxes and increase spending. The progressive instinct to spend money with reckless abandon and treat taxpayers — in this case, the federal government as well — as a personal piggy bank is going to bankrupt our state. Don’t forget, the state was already facing a $7 billion budget deficit even before COVID struck. The Assembly Democrats’ budget proposal demonstrates that some have learned nothing. 

 The Assembly Republican Conference has repeatedly called for more fiscal responsibility. Somehow, a major economic crisis has emboldened Democrats to spend more than ever rather than craft a budget that acknowledges reality: we spend way too much money and our taxes are too high. The direction of our state is concerning. This budget could have been an opportunity to reduce waste, use much-needed financial aid to ease taxpayers’ burdens, and put New York back on the right track. Instead, it appears Democrats are gearing up to make a bad situation even worse.        

William (Will) A. Barclay, Republican, is the New York Assembly Minority Leader and represents the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. Contact Barclay at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us. 

There’s not much question where the Biden administration’s domestic priorities lie. Getting the pandemic health crisis under control and moving past its attendant economic crisis were always going to be the first order of business for the new White House. It’s what comes afterward — where the administration wants to head, how the American people respond, and what Capitol Hill does with it all — that will give us a sense of whether the country is ready for the kind of change Biden is signaling he wants to bring.

 To be sure, some of that change has just been enacted into law. The stimulus package that made it through Congress a few weeks ago was an abrupt shift in tone from Washington. Beginning with Ronald Reagan and lasting to some extent even through Democratic administrations, the prevailing view valued limited government action on the economy, tax breaks for businesses, and wealthy Americans — on the theory that their investments would ultimately help everyone else — and at best a wary view of the public sector. The stimulus bill heads the opposite direction, taking the attitude that forceful government action is needed in this moment and that the way to prosperity lies in helping poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans.

 I suspect that a lot of Americans won’t care much about the ideology behind the stimulus bill. They’ll just judge it on whether it works, and on whether the economy recovers and produces jobs — especially jobs that pay decently. Right on the heels of the stimulus bill, though, will come a host of issues that test both the new administration and Congress.

 One of them has already begun making headlines, as young migrants and migrant families show up in rising numbers at the southern border [with Mexico] and federal officials scramble to shelter and process them — and in many cases, expel them under a Trump administration public-health order that Biden is under pressure to drop. This all comes after a flurry of early executive actions aimed at developing a more generous immigration stance and talking up a “path to citizenship” for people in the country illegally and is a reminder that shifts in policy can produce results that overwhelm the best intentions. My sense is that many Americans would welcome a reasoned and humane approach to immigration — but not if it produces chaos.

 And just as Republicans on Capitol Hill are seizing on events at the border to raise the heat on immigration-reform efforts, so the other big item on the administration’s agenda — infrastructure — may also fall prey to intense partisanship. If ever there was an issue on which Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to carve out agreement, it’s spending money to bring roads, highways, bridges, public-water systems, and other basics necessary to modern life up to snuff. So far, the two parties continue to insist they intend to work together, and the Biden administration says that bipartisanship is a priority. But as Democrats push for an expansive view of infrastructure — including cybersecurity, public transit, and shifting spending priorities toward cleaner energy — and Republicans insist that they will not back any move to raise taxes to fund infrastructure improvements, the stage is set for a classic Washington face-off. 

 Beyond that, of course, any number of exceedingly complex issues await action. There’s the pressure to raise the minimum wage, reform policing, address climate change, a set of issues around racial equity, and any number of hot-button cultural issues that the wings of both political parties would like to push, but the administration so far has shown little interest in addressing. 

 But what may be the biggest test of all has less to do with policy priorities and the specifics of legislation than with whether Washington can move forward on challenges that matter to the American people. We have had many years now of Washington, collectively, struggling to advance on issues of importance to the day-to-day lives of Americans. Our political leaders have a chance to reset our expectations of what they can accomplish. Here’s hoping they take the opportunity to do so.      

Lee Hamilton, 89, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south central Indiana.