New York has a reputation for enacting policies that are punishing to businesses. Over the past three years, business owners have had to absorb onerous mandates such as new fast-food wage orders, higher minimum wages, and a paid family-leave policy. These policies come on top of other regulatory burdens and high tax rates that make our state less competitive than other states. Annually, the Tax Foundation ranks states on their business tax climates and it comes as no surprise that last year New York ranked 48th out of 50 states. Corporate tax, individual income tax, sales tax, unemployment-insurance tax, and property tax are all considered in this ranking. New York property tax and individual income tax led the way at 47th and 48th, respectively. 

Small businesses are vital to our state and local economy. We must do better addressing the challenges they face. In the Assembly, my conference has put together a viable plan to help small businesses. We have introduced the Small Business Full Employment Act. This legislation would lower taxes, offer regulatory amnesty to businesses, and reduce regulations.

If enacted, the legislation would among other things:

• Provide a 15 percent personal income-tax exemption for businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

• Reduce the corporate franchise tax rate (from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent).

• Provide employee-retention tax benefits for those with fewer than 100 employees. If businesses retain workers, they would receive a tax credit — between $1,000 and $5,000, depending on how many are employed. The tax credit would count against what is owed in personal income and/or corporate franchise taxes.

• Provide tax credits for each new job created for businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

• Establish a regulatory amnesty program to allow small businesses to remedy violations within 6 months to avoid financial penalties.

• Provide a tuition-assistance tax credit. Sometimes employers choose to send employees for additional training at a college. Those who do would receive a tax credit of up to $5,000 annually.

• Prohibit new unfunded mandates and require any new law to indicate its fiscal impact on local governments. Considering that property taxes are one of the biggest expenses for small businesses, lawmakers should be fully aware of the fiscal impacts new laws will have on localities.

The legislation also would create a division of regulatory review and economic growth. This division would require state agencies to provide economic-impact statements on any proposed regulations effecting small businesses and would have the authority to approve or reject state agencies’ proposed regulations. The division would also prepare a comprehensive study to measure and report the cost of regulations to business throughout the state of New York. The division would provide small-business owners with a point of contact if they need help sorting through regulatory burdens or excessive fines levied by other state agencies. In addition, this legislation would also expand the legislative Administrative Regulations Review Commission and authorize such commission to review proposed legislation and advise the legislature if the bills being put forward are detrimental to the economy. 

The facts are before us — with our low national rankings, the U.S. Census indicating an outward migration, and the recent development of Amazon deciding not to bring 25,000 jobs to New York City. Our state needs a new approach. Helping our businesses maintain employment and incentivize them to invest in their employees will help the entire economy. Our state can do more and the state legislature and Gov. Cuomo should use this session as an opportunity to prove New York can be a friend to small business.       

William (Will) A. Barclay is the Republican representative of 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 him at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us or (315) 598-5185.

One of the more striking political developments of the last few years has been the partisan sorting of American voters. It used to be that both the Republican and Democratic parties covered some ideological ground. Now, it’s so habitual for conservatives to make their home in the GOP and liberals in the Democratic Party that party and ideological labels stand in for one another.

 Still, you have to be careful. Because when you’re talking about something as complex as Americans’ political beliefs, there is really no such thing as uniformity.

 Sure, liberals put a lot of emphasis on collectively helping individuals who are in trouble, and they tend to be more inclusive and open to change. Conservatives, as their name suggests, are more likely to support tradition and authority, and to support conformity to traditional values. Both have strong senses of right and wrong — they just define them differently.

 Yet, I often run into conservatives who hold surprisingly progressive positions on one issue or another, and vice versa. So while we tend to place both ourselves and others within particular boxes, their sides are porous. It’s very easy for political elites to overstate the degree to which ideological categories actually apply to real people.

 Then, of course, there are all those Americans who don’t believe they fall into either category, liberal or conservative, and who don’t identify with either party. We tend to label these people independents — as they do, themselves. In truth, though, even independents usually lean one way or the other, sometimes quite noticeably. They’re much more liberal or conservative than they think of themselves as being.

 The divisions that separate liberals and conservatives are real. On social issues, many find themselves sharply divided: over same-sex relationships, the place of marriage and family in our society, and, of course, abortion. The last may be the most divisive issue of all. Liberals tend to have more tolerance for abortion; very few conservatives I encounter have that feeling, although a few do.

 And they are sharply divided over the role of government and government intervention in the lives of Americans on economic matters. Conservatives tend to believe strongly that government regulations do more harm than good, and that government itself is wasteful and inefficient. The differences are especially stark on health care — conservatives abhor the mandate on purchasing insurance policies; progressives see it as a necessary step toward the larger goal of expanded coverage.

 This is part of a broader division over welfare and the degree to which government should be involved in programs to alleviate poverty or to protect working people from the bumps, bruises, and hardships dealt out by the national economy. Conservatives tend to think those roles ought to be taken up by the private or nonprofit sectors and by individuals themselves. Liberals, of course, believe government can be helpful.

 But even here, the divisions are not as sharp as they used to be. You hear a good number of conservatives open to government assistance and government involvement in social and economic issues. I’ve been surprised by the number of times I’ve run into conservatives who support particular government programs, and liberals who take a libertarian view on some question or another.

 I’m often reminded that learning a voter’s views on a given issue may tell you next to nothing about his or her views on others, or could actually mislead you.

 It’s pretty common these days to bemoan the ideological divisions evident in our politics, especially when the differences are weaponized for partisan purposes. But I’d argue that far from being debilitating, ideological divisions are fundamentally a sign of the vitality of our politics. The political debate they give rise to is a sign of the vigor of the political system.

 Sure, trying to deal with deep-seated differences is extremely difficult for a politician. But it’s also part of the attraction and the challenge of politics. And if you see voters as the complex opinion-holders they really are, common ground may not be as impossible to find as it can seem at first glance.             

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