Editorial: New York is Uncle Sam's piggy bank — Tom DiNapoli shows the state/federal balance of payments
Thank you to state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli for publishing an analysis of the balance of payments between the 50 states and the federal government. This is his ninth annual review, continuing a tradition that began when Pat Moynihan first arrived in the U.S. Senate in 1977 and that Moynihan kept up for all his 24 years of service.
Moynihan, always the professor, called his report the 'fisc.' While the word 'fisc' was archaic (look it up and learn something), the purpose was, and remains, cutting edge: How much does each state pay into the U.S. treasury in total taxes and how much government spending does each state receive from Uncle Sam?
Thus there are surplus states and deficit states, or recipient states and donor states and, of course, it does not balance to zero since the U.S. government annually runs hundreds of billions in the red. Getting the most back from the federal government are the poorest states like Mississippi and West Virginia, which makes sense since they need the most assistance. At the other end are the richest ones like New York, Massachusetts and Washington State paying for that assistance.
The other factor than poverty is government spending, so Virginia is a big surplus state being loaded with federal facilities like the Pentagon and No. 1 on the DiNapoli's list is New Mexico, which has the Sandia National Laboratories and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, both funded with billions from the feds every year. On that scale, New York also comes up short, with many fewer per capita federal employees and at the bottom for federal highway expenditures.
Which is why for decades New York has been one of the biggest donor states, sending more money each year to Washington than we got back. What temporarily changed that was COVID, as the Congress sent out billions to state and local governments and businesses and individuals when the pandemic began in 2020 in order to keep people afloat and prevent the economy from collapsing as the virus tore through the country, killing more than a million Americans.
DiNapoli's report finds that during the last four years, due to all those COVID dollars, New York was a surplus state, but that is ending. Yet even being on the plus side was not by much, as for every tax dollar remitted to feds from New Yorkers in fiscal year 2023, New York got back $1.06 in return, but the national average was $1.32.
Now comes what could be the next disaster putting New York into even more of a negative balance than before COVID, as DiNapoli warns: 'Actions taken by the Trump administration and Congress may cut health care, food assistance, infrastructure and other critical programs to the detriment of all New Yorkers.' He continued, saying that 'will exacerbate the long-standing history of New Yorkers sending more of their hard-earned tax dollars to the federal government than they get back.'
For two dozen years, Moynihan showed that New York was carrying much more of the federal weight than other states. The numbers told the truth, even as politicians from elsewhere complained about New York getting too big of a share. The facts, now collected by DiNapoli, are that New York gets a small slice of the pie.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Michael Goodwin: Dems agree NYC is too expensive — and voters can't afford them being in charge
If there is a single point of agreement among all the Democrats running for mayor, it's that New York is too damn expensive. They uniformly call it an 'affordability crisis' and pledge to do something about it if elected. They are largely correct — the cost of living in New York has become absurdly high. Advertisement Although part of the trend grew out of the inflation sparked by massive spending by federal, state and local governments during the COVID era, there is also a long history of Gotham being one of most expensive places in the nation to live. A study shows that, in comparison to the national average, food prices in the five boroughs are about 22% higher, while housing is 278% more expensive. Making ends meet The United Way finds that basic costs for city households have risen twice as fast as the median income and estimates that about half of them need help from the government, friends or family just to make ends meet. Advertisement As Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani recently told The New York Times, 'There are far too many New Yorkers who do not know if they will be able to call themselves that next year, who do not know if they will be able to afford their rent, or their child care, their groceries, or even their MetroCard.' True to his socialist affiliations, Mamdani is promising the longest list of freebies, but his rivals have all joined the spree. Even Andrew Cuomo, often regarded as the most centrist of the bunch and the leader according to polls, is no shrinking violet in the giveaway games. The candidates' promises to address the problem sound very nice — until you realize that nearly everything they are offering would ultimately drive the sky-high cost of living even higher. Advertisement Already that burden is one of the top reasons why New York City and state lead America in losing residents to lower-cost jurisdictions. Congestion pricing is the latest example of how and why the cost of living here keeps rising. If the candidates all want to raise prices even higher, they should support a joint slogan: 'Dear Voters, If you're not broke yet, just wait.' The problem is that government compassion doesn't come cheap. Advertisement In fact, it's outrageously expensive. That's certainly true in the case at hand. The candidates' 'solutions' are just promises to give away more stuff to more people, such as free bus service, free child care, free this and free that. It's all wrapped in the language of compassion for the poor and working class. But what the lefty Dems leave out of the conversation is an honest explanation about where the money would come from to pay for all their added goodies, and what the impact would be of an expanded redistribution scheme to deliver them. Don't be fooled by the lack of details. That's intentional because the numbers would be frightening. Take away to give away But hiding the truth doesn't change the fact that because City Hall can't print money, it will first have to take more from residents and businesses if it is going to give away more. Advertisement Consider the obvious impact on businesses. If they are taxed more, most will make up for it by raising prices on their customers, cut the pay of their workers or reduce the number of workers. When a business goes broke, the city gets no taxes and the workers have no income. Because higher taxes always impose a trickle-down cost on some people, a similar outcome is true if the government raises income taxes on individuals, sales taxes or property taxes. Advertisement Somebody somewhere along the line is going to feel the pinch of every added dollar the city takes to give away to someone it declares more deserving. For those forced to pay more, the 'solution' to the problem means their cost of living is going to get even higher. That's why the candidates' plans need to be seen in light of the current budget. As it stands, City Hall will raise and spend a whopping $112.4 billion this year — nearly as much as the entire state of Florida. Advertisement New York state, meanwhile, will raise and spend $255 billion, with much of that money coming to the city. Additional agencies, such as the MTA, have their own budgets, which spend tens of billions more. Clearly the problem isn't a shortage of money to spend. Advertisement The problem is a shortage of responsible spending. Thus raising spending for 'new needs,' as the politicians call their freebies, by hiking taxes and fees at this point is almost certain to create as many problems as it solves. There is still time for the Dems to lay out a plan to actually reduce government costs. The first debate was little more than a bidding game to see who could promise more new giveaways and most vehemently denounce Donald Trump while pledging to 'resist' his presidency. The second and final mayoral debate, required by the NYC Campaign Finance Board, will take place Thursday, with primary day falling on June 24. It's incumbent on the moderators to demand that Mamdani and all the others explain, with specifics, where they would get added funds and who would pay them. Glib lines like taxing the 'top 1%' mean nothing because those families already pay inordinate amounts of the city's personal income tax. According to a city comptroller report, in 2021 the top 1% — about 6,000 families who reported incomes of $1 million or more — paid a whopping 48% of the city's total income tax haul. It's neither fair nor sensible to demand they pay more, when packing up and leaving altogether is proving to be so popular. Leftward lurch Unfortunately, we haven't heard much of a different message from other candidates in the race, including Mayor Adams, who is running as an independent. With GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa widely considered not viable, there is so far no check and balance on the Dems' leftward lurch. The vast majority of their spendthrift City Council candidates and those seeking other offices on the ballot are proving to be automatic supporters of larger and more expensive programs. National conversations about cutting taxes and reducing government waste, fraud and abuse have yet to find meaningful support in New York. That must start to change this week. Libs' stupidity taking a toll There they go again: Another major media outlet is confusing victimhood with the consequences of wrongdoing. The bleeding heart Boston Globe writes, 'Unpaid fees jeopardize thousands of Mass. driver's licenses,' saying, 'Thousands of Massachusetts drivers each year face the possibility of losing their legal authority to drive unless debts unrelated to road safety are paid in full.' Among the debts it cites are tolls the drivers evaded. Here's a crazy idea: The drivers could pay the tolls and keep their licenses. Why is that so hard?
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can Trump unilaterally abolish 2 controversial monuments in Utah?
An advisory opinion issued Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Justice says protections for land designated as monuments can be abolished by a sitting president because it is not expressly forbidden in law. The 1906 Antiquities Act — long a thorn in the side of Utah and other Western states — gives the U.S. president the authority to create a monument to protect cultural artifacts, precious landscapes and more. But the act was clear in that it has to be 'right sized' for the area it is meant to protect, which is where the controversy comes in. The law was passed and put into motion by President Theodore Roosevelt, who designated Yellowstone as a protected and cherished space. The first of its kind. Utah has five national parks — 'mighty' attractions for the state. The parks would not be affected by this order. It also has land designated as national monuments. Zion National Park, the state's first, comprises 146,597 acres. It was a monument first but to become a national park it had to go through Congress, which is what happened. Arches National Park, with the world's most intense concentration of more than 2,000 sandstone arches, is just over 76,000 acres. So when the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and its 1.7 million acres was designated by President Bill Clinton in 1996, it felt like a slap in the face to many Utah politicians and rural families. When President Donald Trump was in his first term in office, he sent an envoy to survey Grand Staircase and Bears Ears National Monument, another controversial designation. The Interior Department secretary at the time, Ryan Zinke, rode through portions of the monument on horseback. He also did a flyover. All he could simply say: 'It is big.' Bears Ears, a 1.35 million-acre monument was created by President Barack Obama, reduced in size by Trump then restored by President Joe Biden. This advisory opinion says there is nothing in the law, or sitting precedent, to preclude a presidential action to completely reverse or alter previous monument designations. It cites a variety of actions taken over the years. In 1911, President William Taft reduced the size of the 60,776-acre Petrified Forest National Monument by 25,625 acres, stating only that a geological survey allowed the relevant land to be 'more particularly located and described.' In another instance, President John F. Kennedy acted to 'exclude(d) from the detached Otowi section of the' Bandelier National Monument 'approximately 3,925 acres of land' that he concluded 'contain(ed) limited archeological values which had been fully researched,' as well as because the land was 'not needed to complete the interpretive story' of the monument. The question that has been stirred by this advisory opinion centers on the balance between public lands protection and the vitality of industries that include ranching, mining, and even harvesting fish off the East Coast. Environmental groups were quick to call the advisory opinion an assault. 'This legal opinion is (Pam) Bondi's desperate attempt to re-write a century of caselaw in order to feed America's national monuments into the ravenous maw of the fracking and mining industries,' said Taylor McKinnon at the Center for Biological Diversity. 'The MAGA fixation on enriching polluting extractive industries at the expense of our natural heritage is a national embarrassment and an insult to every single American. These monuments protect some of our most iconic landscapes and cultural treasures. We'll fight like hell to safeguard their future.'
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why are more Americans filing for Social Security benefits?
(NewsNation) — More older Americans are claiming their Social Security benefits earlier, a potentially alarming trend that could significantly reduce the income many rely on in their golden years. As of May, individual retirement claims are up 13% in the current fiscal year compared to the same period last year, an increase of nearly 320,000 claims, according to the latest Social Security data. To put the recent surge in perspective: From 2012 to 2024, retirement claims rose by an average of just 3% per year, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute, a research group. Plan to garnish Social Security checks for student loan debt paused Part of the recent uptick is due to more retirees claiming Social Security benefits earlier, a choice that permanently reduces their monthly checks if done before full retirement age. Jack Smalligan, a senior policy fellow at the Urban Institute, described the increase in earlier claims as 'disconcerting' because it can impact people's 'long-term retirement security.' 'For most individuals, delaying the time that they claim Social Security is a smart retirement decision,' Smalligan said. While demographic factors, such as an aging population, have contributed to the rise, increased concern over the Trump administration's handling of the system may also help explain the surge. Social Security data shows the spike in monthly claims was especially pronounced in November and January — the month Trump was elected and the month he took office. Polling shows public concern about Social Security is now at a 15-year high, an uptick that coincides with the Trump administration's plans to slash the agency's workforce. The president and advisers, like Elon Musk, have made unfounded claims about rampant fraud within the system, while website outages have also caused confusion. Smalligan pointed to the recent surge in calls to Social Security and the rise in field office visits as further signs of growing anxiety. At the same time, top Democrats, including former President Joe Biden, have amplified those fears with misleading claims that give the impression Americans' monthly retirement checks may not arrive. Democrats sound alarm on Social Security as Biden returns to stage Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has warned that Trump and Musk are coming for people's benefits and hiding behind bogus fraud claims to justify stealing people's checks. The political rhetoric appears to be resonating, but it's also fueling the broader uncertainty, potentially causing real harm. During a meeting in March, Social Security officials said that 'fearmongering has driven people to claim benefits earlier,' The Wall Street Journal reported. Overall, 52% of Americans say they worry a 'great deal' about the Social Security system, up from 43% in 2024, according to Gallup. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, that figure rises to 65% — a 30-point increase from the previous year. 'No one's scheming right now to privatize Social Security or dismantle it … that type of fearmongering is not helpful,' said Charles Blahous, a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University who specializes in Social Security. While Social Security does face long-term financial challenges, the system isn't going away, and future policy uncertainty isn't a good reason to claim benefits early today, Blahous said. Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits, while Democrats argue that staffing reductions will make it harder for retirees to access services, undermining the system in a different way. Other factors, unrelated to political rhetoric, could also be driving the rise in retirement claims. There are three key reasons for the uptick, according to a Social Security official: The start of the peak 65 baby boom, a massive surge of Americans turning 65 years old Implementation of the Social Security Fairness Act, which increased benefits for certain workers receiving pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security Improved outreach notifying spouses of Social Security beneficiaries that they may be eligible for a higher benefit Blahous acknowledged that the three factors are real but thinks 'the jury's still out' on how much of the recent rise is due to anxiety about the program's future. Another possibility is that stock market volatility, partly driven by Trump's ever-changing trade policies, temporarily lowered the balances of millions of retirement accounts and prompted some older Americans to claim their more reliable Social Security benefits earlier than planned. Americans can start collecting Social Security retirement benefits as early as age 62, but that doesn't mean they should. Claiming before full retirement age permanently reduces monthly benefits, which is why waiting often makes more financial sense. It's even more concerning when that decision is driven by fear about the program's future rather than a careful assessment of personal circumstances. 'It's basically an irrevocable decision, which is all the more reason why people should be very cautious about when they make it,' Blahous said. When is the best age to take Social Security? Someone who turns 62 in 2025 would see their monthly benefit lowered by about 30% versus what it would be at their full retirement age of 67. On the other hand, those who delay claiming until after their full retirement age receive an 8% increase for each year they wait, up to age 70. That can amount to thousands of dollars. In 2025, the maximum Social Security benefit is $2,831 for someone retiring at 62, but it rises to $5,108 for those retiring at 70. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
