The state budget dance

After covering state budgets for 25 years, more people are asking me what is so different about this year.

The most obvious way is that the numbers are worse than they have been in any year I have been here, with the exception of 1991, when lawmakers voted to cut school aid in the middle of the year. The governor is also in the weakest political position of any chief executive since I have been paying attention. Some think that voter anger over taxes and spending is at an unusually high pitch.

But in another sense, it is the same dance that goes on every year.

If there were a lot of money available, schools, hospitals and other groups would scream as loudly as they could that they need more. And instead of talking about tax increases, how big tax cuts should be, and who should get them, would occupy lobbyists and journalists.

And every year since Nelson Rockefeller left office in 1973, the governor has wanted to spend less (or cut more) while lawmakers want to add spending or minimize cuts.

In other words, the numbers change, but the basic structure of the budget dance is predictable.

What does that tell us about this year? That whatever is finally adopted will be less than lawmakers want but more than the governor proposed, and that all sides will try to find painless ways to pay for more spending (higher estimates of tax revenues, rosy assumptions about fraud recoveries and expenditures, etc.)

The final deal will leave the state in a weaker financial position going forward, but will allow lawmakers and the governor, all of whom are running in this year's elections, to say they stuck up for their constituents.

And next year, most likely, things will be even worse.