Once again, New York’s budget was passed with little respect given to even the most basic expectations of transparency and democratic ideals. It was a week late, passed in the dead of night with almost no input from anyone outside the governor and legislative majority leaders, and it featured a record level of spending. New Yorkers have grown sick and tired of this kind of leadership, and Gov. Kathy Hochul’s promises to change the way things are done in Albany have proven to be little more than lip service.

The final spending plan, at an unsettling $220 billion, shows no regard for fiscal prudence or responsible spending. Unsurprisingly, the enacted budget includes a 3.5 percent spending increase. In order to sustain that multi-billion-dollar spike in costs, the budget relies heavily on emergency federal funding — a
$12.7 billion injection that will be spread out over the next four years. To put the enormity of Albany’s new budget in context, the state of Texas has nearly 9 million more residents than New York but spends in two years ($248.6 billion) just above what New York spends in just one year.

Democrats in Albany have shown time and again they do not understand the value of taxpayer money, and this budget is another perfect example of that fact.

Perhaps the most disappointing element of this budget is what it will fail to do. Public-safety concerns and record inflation were glossed over with superficial remedies designed to do the bare minimum to placate critics. Judges need to be allowed to consider the public’s safety when setting bail and they still aren’t. Meanwhile, everyday items New Yorkers rely on are still too expensive. While New Yorkers continue to fear for their safety and worry about balancing family budgets, Democrats failed to adequately address either of these critical issues in the budget.

In addition, there was no long-term commitment to solving the state’s persistent affordability crisis. The cost of living and doing business is the primary driver of New York’s nation’s-worst outmigration, and that remains a problem despite a record-setting spending plan. One-time revenue streams won’t be here forever, and a sustained solution to cut costs, fees, and regulations is still needed.

While overall a disappointment, there were some agreements offering a modicum of promise that I was happy to see included in the final budget. For example, the temporary suspension of the state tax on gas will provide some relief for consumers and is part of $4.6 billion in tax cuts, which are overdue and welcome. This budget needed to do more, though, and it came up short where it counts.

Ultimately, this state budget is heavy on short-term solutions that make for neat press releases and is woefully shy on long-term systemic solutions to New York’s tax-and-spend mentality. The Assembly minority conference will continue to push back against these unsustainable policies and fight to improve the lives of New Yorkers from every region of the state. This budget leaves much to be desired and much work for us to do in the coming months.            

William (Will) A. Barclay, 53, 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. 

Is bipartisanship dead? Sometimes it seems like it is. Watching Democrats and Republicans fight over nearly everything, you’d think they can’t agree on the difference between day and night.

Witness the partisan reaction to President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. An eminently qualified jurist who would be the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court, she faced nearly unanimous opposition from Republicans.

When I was first elected to Congress, Supreme Court nominees were approved by voice vote in the Senate, without even a record of who voted for and against. Later, three of President Ronald Reagan’s appointees were approved unanimously. Things have changed.

Look beyond the headlines, however, and you’ll find evidence that bipartisanship is still alive, if not always well. Republicans and Democrats may deadlock over high-profile matters, but they can still work across the aisle to make progress on many issues.

Bipartisanship is popular with the public, which likes to know that legislation has support from both parties. Polls find that overwhelming majorities of the American people consider bipartisanship important. And for good reason. It’s difficult, in our system of government, to get anything passed — and to get it implemented — without some bipartisan support. Legislation doesn’t need overwhelmingly bipartisan support to be effective, but even a few votes from the other side can make a difference. Bipartisanship isn’t just popular; it’s necessary.

Yet there isn’t any doubt that we live in a politically polarized time, and what we see in Washington, D.C. reflects that. Thanks to social media and partisan cable-news outlets, Americans increasingly live in partisan bubbles, having little contact with people with different views.

Congress reflects those divisions, and it can from time to time, exacerbate them. This is a critical election year, with control of the House of Representatives and Senate up for grabs. Politicians know that stoking outrage by attacking their opponents is a good way to raise campaign funds, boost turnout, and win elections. Conflict gets attention, and attention can increase the benefits of conflict.

Often in the past, U.S. politicians fought bitterly over domestic issues but united around a bipartisan foreign policy. A popular maxim after World War II was that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” That’s no longer the case, and it hasn’t been for a while.

Certainly, Americans have been united in their outrage at Russia’s unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine. Nearly every member of Congress condemned it, Congress approved billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid for Ukrainians, and Republicans and Democrats mostly supported Biden’s imposition of sanctions on Russia. But lawmakers struggled to respond legislatively, and some Republicans cited the war to question Biden’s leadership.

Partisan headwinds blocked some of Biden’s domestic priorities, including ambitious efforts to create jobs, fight climate change, protect voting rights, reform immigration laws and strengthen gun control. But other worthwhile measures have won support from both Democrats and Republicans, often without a lot of attention.

Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, adding the language to a government spending bill. It overwhelmingly passed legislation to reform Postal Service finances. Both the House and Senate have passed versions of a bipartisan act aimed at investing in semiconductor production and helping the U.S. compete with China.

Congress banned companies from forcing their employees to settle sexual assault or harassment claims with arbitration, a practice that hushed up the claims and kept them out of court. And the idea of banning stock trading by members of Congress has gained traction.

These bipartisan success stories — and there are others — often required lawmakers to compromise and work with their political adversaries, but that’s the way our system of government was designed to work. Bipartisanship isn’t dead, and by strengthening it we will make our political system work better.        

Lee Hamilton, 91, 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.