'Stop playing games with the budget deficit'

On April 5, New York state Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released a report showing that the state has, for decades, masked budget deficits by “shifting funds dedicated to a specific cause or program to provide one-time influxes of cash for the General Fund.” Net result: It is impossible to pin down the state’s real fiscal condition. He said that every time this type of game is played, taxpayers lose.

On Aug. 20, then-Gov. David Paterson proudly announced the Enacted Budget Financial Plan for 2010-11, “which closes a $9.2 billion gap without deficit borrowing, reducing the multi-year (2013-14) budget deficit by $29 billion or 44 percent.”

On Jan. 20, Gov. Andrew Cuomo indicated he will close a $9-10 billion deficit by eliminating 15,000 state jobs, closing 20 percent of state agencies and departments and cutting Medicaid and education spending.

Watch the bouncing ball on what were are reading and hearing. The mess described by DiNapoli remains problematic, Paterson’s pronouncement fallacious and, Cuomo’s plan subject to practical and political machinations well beyond his control.

On a practical level the oft-quoted budget deficit continues to hang over our heads as a dark cloud. It’s no wonder, with 159,656 individuals employed by 1,094 public authorities at a cost of $9.7 billion; and, an additional 131,000 attributed to the executive branch. The force reductions cited by the governor are not indicative of what actually needs to be done.

Operational costs add to our fiscal nightmare. Using information available on the Office of the State Comptroller’s website, the operation of our state’s Senate and Assembly totals $142 million annually, 80 percent of which is wages and salaries.

Even more startling, the current budget defect we are dealing with is substantially understated because, unlike other state and local government obligations, our public authorities issue more debt than they can afford, “back-loading” the payment of principal. Game playing the repayment of debt is probably as disingenuous as reducing the number of agencies by 20 percent.