Gov. George E. Pataki's budget proposals for 2003 aim to offset the unprecedented financial crisis that plagues the New York state government. But with goals to reduce government spending, cuts are aimed at both education and health care programs. These current plans to reduce the $11.5 billion deficit would, in the long run, do more harm than good.
Rather than cut from programs that will show an immediate, but short-term, benefit, the governor of New York must develop a plan that will allow the state to develop a strong and stable economy that can survive challenges such as these. Pataki's plan will not do that.
SUNY students are facing a $1,200 to $1,400 tuition increase this year, joined by a $107 million cut from New York's Tuition Assistance Program, which could be used to assist the thousands of students who qualify for state-based aid.
With an increase in tuition paired with the decrease in financial aid, many SUNY students would be unable to pay their way through school. This would affect over 300,000 students, many of whom rely on TAP to pay their college tuitions. Students who are unaffected by the TAP cuts will be hit by the tuition increase, which may make some state residents opt to attend out-of-state universities with comparable tuitions and reputable names.
To make matters worse, the money collected through the tuition increase and TAP cuts is not going back to the SUNY system. According to New York State Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, Pataki is stealing money from students to put in the state's general fund. The money will be put into a pool of state funding, which could be used toward anything. This means that current students will not see any of their money put to use to improve their schools or quality of education.
Pataki's methods are counterproductive, since having students leave the SUNY system will hurt not only the individuals leaving, but also the state itself. If students decide to go to out-of-state schools for financial reasons, it will negatively affect the state economy. Young adults fresh out of college are the most sought-after individuals to fill job positions, and if students leave for schools in other states, there are fewer to occupy positions in New York.
The second major factor in Pataki's proposal is the $1.23 billion cut to state health care programs such as Medicaid. This would directly affect working families and individuals who rely on health care programs and who feel the most weight from the cuts. In addition, hospitals and insurance companies will also be hit hard. William D. Pike, president of the Western New York Healthcare Association, predicts there will be an increase of hospital closures and bankruptcies due to the cuts.
Despite all this, we understand that cuts and balances need to be made. Taxpayers cannot expect to see their government repair itself without making certain sacrifices. Cuts and reforms are naturally expected, but Pataki is moving in the wrong direction.
A more thought-out budget would be key for New York in its dire situation. Instead of recycling old budget ideas, Pataki should sit down and work out a long-term budget proposal with figures and projections that will prove the cuts will pay off. Federal aid has all but disappeared, but this is one of the factors Pataki should take into account and not count on to bail him out.
The federal government must look toward home. President George W. Bush's proposed budget did not include money to assist New York and its deficit. Instead of spending money on foreign affairs that appear to only secure the security of oil companies, that money should fund homeland dilemmas. New York is not the only state that is in a bad financial state, and this should clue our president in to the fact that the United States cannot afford an expensive and senseless war right now. Hometown problems require hometown solutions.
Education and health care have always been default targets for budget cuts, and while it is uncertain that these cuts will help repair the state deficit, it is clear that there are no positive effects for taxpayers. Instead of taking chunks of money to give the public a false sense of gratification, better long-term plans must be developed to give solid direction in balancing the budget.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
