Editorial Roundup: New York

Oneonta Daily Star. January 4, 2024.

Editorial: Resolve to be kind in this new year

Welcome to 2024, readers.

On this fifth day of the new year, we find ourselves hopeful at the potential a new year always brings.

We aren’t necessarily referring to the practice of setting New Year’s resolutions as that practice is becoming more and more outdated — likely because people rarely stick to them.

Fun fact: One week from today is National Quitters Day. A day dedicated to recognizing the fact that most of us will have given up on our resolutions by the second Friday in January.

We find that amusing, and not at all surprising.

According to a Forbes Health survey, the top New Year’s resolutions for 2024 are improving fitness, improving mental health, improving finances and losing weight.

Those are not at all surprising either.

Unfortunately, most who endeavor to make lifestyle changes like the ones reported by Forbes will fail. A large percentage likely have failed already.

We applaud those who are able to look inward and embrace change, even if they aren’t ready to see those changes through. Maybe next year.

We propose to our readers a different type of resolution.

Imagine how all of our lives (and our world) could improve if we all resolved this year to show more compassion toward others.

More empathy to those who are hurting.

What if we all decided the most important thing in 2024 is to show just a little more kindness to one another? To be a slightly better and more loving version of our 2023 selves.

Surely those resolutions are easier to stick to than resolving to spend two hours a day at the gym — not that improved fitness is not a worthy resolution. It certainly is.

Physical activity does wonders for physical and mental health. It relieves stress and releases endorphins and serotonin which improve your mood.

It is undoubtedly easier to love others if you first love yourself.

Perhaps those resolutions are too difficult to stick to, as well. After all, 2024 is also an election year.

In many ways, this year will likely bring out the worst in people.

Sciencedirect.com published an interesting study authored by Dr. Sankar Mukhopadhyay, professor of economics and director of economics graduate programs at the Nevada College of Business, which looked at the health consequences of the 2020 election.

The study concluded, “Closely fought elections can have significant adverse effects on mental health … the 2020 election also led to increased use of anxiety and depression-related mental health visits and prescription drug use.”

We imagine, sadly, this year’s election cycle will take us on a similar journey to the one our country experienced in 2020.

The races will be contentious. The candidates will make promises they have no intention to keep. They will name-call. They will pander. And all the while their supporters will grow more and more angry, argumentative and stubborn.

It is hard to be kind to one another when you so passionately and fundamentally disagree on the direction our country should take. We get it.

While it will surely be difficult, we stand by our request for our readers to embrace resolutions of compassion this year.

We can all choose to look at every day as an opportunity to be better knowing having a bad day does not mean you have failed, only that you had a bad day and tomorrow will be better.

Let’s rise above the chaos at the end of the tunnel and, instead, embrace one another.

___

Albany Times Union. January 7, 2024.

Editorial: Tuition hikes? Not so fast.

New York should not return to the days of solving SUNY’s fiscal problems on the backs of students and parents.

A decade ago, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state lawmakers were slowly but steadily shifting the financial burden of funding the State University of New York from the state itself to SUNY’s students and their families. One of the world’s largest public higher education systems was quietly transforming into one with less and less public support.

And here we are again, with SUNY facing what Chancellor John B. King Jr. says are looming deficits that could reach $1 billion over the next decade. As the Times Union’s Kathleen Moore reports, the analysis from Mr. King and his staff suggests that the financial crunch could be greatly reduced to more manageable levels – around $89 million a year – through consistent increases in state appropriations, or through “modest” tuition hikes.

That sounds disturbingly similar to the talk in 2011 when Mr. Cuomo, and some lawmakers, were talking about hyperinflationary tuition increases as high as 47 percent over a period of a few years. The state eventually came up with what it billed as a “rational tuition plan” for $300-a-year tuition increases – well above inflation at the time – along with fee hikes.

The state also agreed to a “maintenance of effort” – an assurance that state funding would not be cut. That sounded fair, but what wasn’t clearly stated was that the state’s support for SUNY’s day-to-day operations wouldn’t increase much, if at all. So tuition came to represent a bigger and bigger part of SUNY’s revenue – so much so that students were shouldering about twice as much of the burden as the state. To call SUNY “public higher education” was becoming a stretch.

That ended – to a point – thanks to a combination of outrage, political embarrassment and, we’d like to think, some enlightenment on the part of state leaders. SUNY’s 2023 financial report shows that state appropriations are now about twice that of tuition and fees – about where things stood before the Cuomo administration and the Legislature engaged in fiscal sleight-of-hand.

This is not to say that the goal of putting SUNY on a sustainable track, as Mr. King urges, can’t include truly modest tuition increases. But there need to be at least a couple of fundamental guidelines.

First, the state’s share of SUNY’s expenses must not drop. A look at SUNY’s budget shows that between direct state appropriations and the Tuition Assistance and Excelsior programs, the state covers just 32 percent of SUNY’s annual cost. Tuition, fees, room and board and other student costs make up another 17 percent. The rest comes largely from SUNY hospital revenue, federal funds and grants. New York should certainly increase its share before digging into student’s pockets.

And second, when the time comes for tuition to rise, it should not come as a massive hike, as the state has done at various points over SUNY’s 76-year history in the name of making up for lost time. The increases should be affordable and reasonable – and again, they must not be used to make up for shortfalls in state support.

As Gov. Kathy Hochul puts the finishing touches on her executive budget proposal, she should continue the progress the state has made in restoring SUNY as an institution of public education in every sense of the word. That must always include strong, public financial support.

___

Adirondack Daily News. January 6, 2024.

Editorial: With mail-in voting expansion, plenty of blame to go around

New York’s lawmakers were right to push for the expansion of mail-in voting. The process through which lawmakers ultimately imposed that expansion, however, is deserving of the scrutiny it’s now receiving courtesy of a lawsuit filed by Republicans, including North Country Rep. Elise Stefanik.

Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the “Early Mail Voter Act” into law on Sept. 20, 2023, expanding the criteria registered voters would need to meet to be able to vote absentee early. Stefanik, along with other Republican and Conservative politicians and political organizations, almost instantly sued Hochul and state Board of Elections officials, arguing that the law was passed unconstitutionally. It was passed through the state Legislature rather than put on the ballot in the form of a constitutional amendment, as all previous expansions to mail-in voting have been. To make matters worse, the state Legislature knew that this expansion was not what the majority of New Yorkers wanted. They passed the Early Mail Voter Act anyway.

The core idea was a good one: Opening up the criteria voters must meet to receive early absentee ballots to include any registered voter – not just those who are outside their county on the day of the election or be unable to appear at a polling place because of illness or physical disability – could boost voter turnout. More people having their voices heard is always a good thing.

But where the state Legislature went wrong was passing this expansion in the form of a bill and seemingly ignoring the will of more than half of New York’s voters.

In 2021, a proposed constitutional amendment expanding mail-in voting was shot down by New York voters. A constitutional amendment that would’ve deleted all requirements for absentee voting was proposed in 2019. In 2020, the state added a third qualification for people concerned about contracting the virus at the polls. The 2019 proposed amendment passed the state Legislature in 2021 and went to a public referendum on the ballot of the November 2021 general election. Voters rejected this proposal 55% to 45%.

Republicans argue that this law a “blatant violation” of the state constitution. As Enterprise Staff Writer Aaron Marbone reported in a story this week, what the lawsuit’s argument boils down to, because this law is not a change to the constitution, it is not valid.

The court will decide whether or not this assertion is sound. However, the Republicans’ rushing of the court to issue a decision showcases the same partisanship that they accuse Democrats of by passing the mail-in expansion.

Republicans asked the court to halt the rollout of the mail-in expansion as the lawsuit makes its way through the courts. Three days after the historic expulsion of Republican Rep. George Santos from the House on Dec. 1, Republicans asked the court to make a decision on their request “as soon as possible,” citing a “change in circumstances” relevant to their request.

On Feb. 13, a special election in New York’s 3rd Congressional District will be held to fill the seat formerly held by Santos.

Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the House, meaning they have more power to control the legislature’s agenda. This majority was made slimmer by the ouster of Santos. And with all House seats up for election in November, political parties are clamoring to gain or maintain power through this election.

Stefanik and the Republicans said this halt in the rollout is important for the 2024 election. This election carries national implications.

Republicans claim that the mail-in voting law “places them at a disadvantage as compared to other candidates.” They say they will be harmed because early mail voters will cast more ballots for Democrats than Republicans.

So as Democrats sought to expand mail-in voting via a legally-questionable process, a measure that Republicans say is politically-motivated, Republicans are, in turn, essentially rushing the court and arguing that more people voting will put them at a disadvantage politically.

Pot meets kettle.

On Dec. 26, 2023, state Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba rejected Republicans’ request to stall the implementation of the law.

In her decision, Ryba said the new law has yet not been declared unconstitutional, so the balance of equities do not tip in the GOP’s favor regarding a pause on its rollout. Ryba said stalling it at this time would “harm New York voters.” She further says that “while (Republicans) argue in conclusory fashion that early voters by mail will cast more votes for (Democrats) than (Republicans), this belief is insufficient to grant a preliminary injunction.”

Ryba’s decision has been appealed and is now heading to the Court of Appeals, which could maintain her decision, keeping the law in place as the larger lawsuit carries on. The court could overturn her decision and side with the Republicans, stopping the law from being implemented until the state courts make a decision on the larger lawsuit.

We have faith that the courts will weigh the Republicans’ lawsuit fairly and, if indeed the law is unconstitutional, it will be struck down. But the court must be allowed to make this determination on its own timeline.

In the future, New York lawmakers must first remember who they serve. If New Yorkers voted against these expansions, that decision must be respected. The process through which the state’s constitution can be amended is in place for a reason.

___

New York Post. January 9, 2024.

Editorial: Hochul’s ‘State of the State’ holds a glimmer of hope that the gov gets it: 1 ½ stars

Gov. Hochul’s 2024 State of the State Address was an improvement over her past performances — but this “franchise” has a long way to go.

Local audiences had every right to expect a speech that genuinely reflected their state’s current predicament: its nation-leading hemorrhage of residents, high crime, flood of migrants and $22 billion in red ink over the next three years.

The speech’s best moments waved in that direction: “Thieves brazenly tear items off the shelves and menace employees. These attacks are nothing more than a breakdown of the social order,” she thundered of the public “atmosphere of anxiety,” and “Safety at the grocery store, the synagogue, the subway is always top of mind.”

And: “I say, no more” to “baby formula locked behind plastic panels” and “people suffering a mental breakdown or an overdose” on the subway.

But she also delivered a disjointed series of stilted vignettes about great investments she’s made with your money — such as an added $5.3 billion for (over-funded, under-performing) schools.

And about how she’s held the line on taxes, even “cutting them for the middle class” — when, in fact, she raised them on downstate businesses, with painful ripple effects on employees and customers.

And of course her live audience of members of the Legislature surely took her fine line, “We cannot spend money we do not have,” as a challenge to find more money to spend (by bleeding the taxpayers even more).

Her overall storyline could’ve been compelling if the rest of the script held up: New York has “work to do,” Hochul declared, and even acknowledged challenges, like the state’s decades-long population loss.

But she pulled the punch out of her own narrative: People aren’t fleeing, in her account, because of New York’s highest-in-the-nation taxes — since, after all, many moved to neighboring states, where taxes are also high.

Except plenty of top taxpayers and their companies are fleeing those levies, to places like Florida, which has no personal income tax, and plenty of low-tax states.

Meanwhile, few businesses come here without major taxpayer bribes.

And while Hochul noted New York’s “persistent crime,” her dialogue focused mainly on retail theft, hate crimes and domestic violence — leaving the audience puzzled about the scant mention of, say, the 386 murders in New York City last year, a 32% jump over its 2017 low of 292.

Or of car thefts, up 191% over 2019.

Things added up even less as the show concluded with plot jumps so fantastic no audience could suspend disbelief.

Hochul wants to create a “whopping” $20 million pot for prosecutors to share to pursue domestic abuse; a task force will curb retail theft — though perps will still get set free moments after arrest under the state’s (also unmentioned) broken bail laws. And so on.

Perhaps most glaring, the speech only teased when it came to two of the state’s biggest dilemmas — the waves of migrants and monster multibillion-dollar budget gaps: Those plot-lines, she announced, will be the focus of her sequel next week, when she rolls out her budget plans.

To be fair, Hochul was never meant for this role: She’s an understudy vaulted into the spotlight when the previous star got yanked in a #MeToo scandal; at least this speech leaves hope she’ll give New York more of what it needs down the line.

Even if that means overcoming her “supporting cast: a Legislature packed with venal time-servers and wacko ideologues.

Give it one and half stars, with a chance for better next time.

END