Explaining My Opposition to Additional Tax Diversion Proposals
Opinion Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the author/producer’s interpretation of facts and data.
County government tax diversion mandates and proposals have been debated many times over the years and I have been consistent in my opposition to the overall concept, which can be viewed on my campaign website’s taxes and spending page.
That notwithstanding, given the increased interest expressed by some individuals I believe it would be helpful to share with you a more comprehensive justification which is provided below.
I do not support additional tax diversion proposals that would simply redirect county tax revenue from the county’s budget to other governments. If the county government has more money than it needs, then it should work to keep more of it in the pockets of our hardworking taxpayers. Giving more of our tax dollars away to other government entities will not ensure it will be used to improve services or reduce or better control the tax burden. If we as a county government can do more to control taxes on the county level, then we should.
We also have several serious financial challenges before us. Decades-high inflation and the rising cost of energy is affecting every Putnam County resident directly, but it is also impacting them indirectly by increasing the cost of government as I explained during the recent Putnam County Legislature’s Physical Services Committee meeting.
Another consideration is that Putnam County has a number of contracts with public employee labor unions that will need to be negotiated in the future while simultaneously addressing these other rising costs. Furthermore, as interest rate increases limit our county government’s ability to borrow, the importance of a strong general fund and access to cash will be extremely important if we are to remain prepared for the challenges that lie ahead. Those challenges include a potential recession, which continues to be discussed by economists nationwide.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is also worth noting that New York State, not Putnam County, imposes many unfunded mandates on county and local governments, including school districts. Therefore, it is the state that should work to provide financial resources to cover the costs of those mandates.
Of course, it’s always important to have collaborative relationships with our partners in local government and those relationships will remain important for the next Putnam County Executive. In the Assembly, I successfully fought for various forms of mandate relief as well as bringing back financial support to local governments through programs like Aid and Incentives for Municipalities (AIM), the Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS), Extreme Winter Recovery (EWR), State Aid to Municipalities (SAM) grants and more.
The county government should absolutely continue to work with our partners at the local level to enhance services, but not if it undermines its own long-term financial health.
Assemblyman Kevin Byrne
Mahopac
Kevin Byrne is running for Putnam County Executive in November.
