Thursday, February 19, 2009

WFP Connects Majority Leader Smith Back To His Constituents

Plenty of State Senators want to see a drastic change in the state's budget being considered for the coming fiscal year. Several forms of a millionaire's tax have been introduced in both chambers, but the Governor and Majority Leader Malcolm Smith have not warmed enough to the idea to moderate spending cuts with an additional tax on the wealthiest New Yorkers. So to bring a little fire to Malcolm, the Working Families Party is talking to the people that elect Smith into office every two years. WFPers are going door to door in Smith's area of Queens to deliver a message.

From Newsday:

“Governor Paterson, I’m willing to make sacrifices, but there’s no way I’m putting my little girl’s future at risk,” the flier reads. “There’s a better way. Tell Majority Leader Smith (to) Stop the Governor’s Budget Cuts.”

The flier has the logo of the Working Families Party and a tear-off, postage-paid postcard that can be mailed to the Healthcare Education Project, a venture of the 1199/SIEU union reprinting many health care workers and the Greater New York Hospital Association.

The postcard has a plug for the Fair Share Tax Reform, which the WFP and its allies say “would roll back tax cuts for the wealthiest New Yorkers... those making more than $250,000 would pay their fair share so we can balance the budget without devastating cuts... Over the last 30 years, New York has reduced income tax rates for the wealthiest New Yorkers by 50% and eliminated high income tax brackets, resulting in $8 billion of lost revenue each year.”

And it all comes back to the Governor's message of "shared sacrifice," only it really reflects the sentiment. WFP is absolutely right to mention how income taxes have been continually cut, reducing revenue to make government work for the majority of our state that makes far below $250,000 (or even if the bill starts out with people making $500,000, that still makes a big difference). Conservatives love to cry about run-away spending, but when you cut revenues, it helps them make the argument to say we can't afford those programs because they leave out all the facts.