How about an "actual cut" of $700 million in school aid, for starters?

Even though the total proposed budget is still an increase of a half percent over this year, some of those costs may be outside of the government's control, such as required pension payments, bond payments, or Medicare commitments. So it's a lot more complicated than saying if the overall budget is up, then there weren't serious spending cuts.

Anyway, I'd gladly agree to not taxing sugary soft drinks if we could stop subsidizing corn and let the price of those drinks reflect the true cost of the corn syrup that goes into them.

Anyway, I'd gladly agree to not taxing sugary soft drinks if we could stop subsidizing corn and let the price of those drinks reflect the true cost of the corn syrup that goes into them.

Let's not mix state and federal issues. I suspect all of us would like excise or sales tax burdens to fall on things we don't use.

I use sugary soft drinks. And I think they should be more expensive to reflect their true cost, regardless of the mechanism. (At least eliminating the subsidy would actually save taxpayer dollars on the federal side.)

Plus I think my income taxes should be back at least where they were during the Clinton years.

So not all of us think that just everyone else should have to bear the burden of balancing the budget. If we're serious about spending cuts, I think we should be willing to say what we're willing to give up or help pay for, not what everyone else should have to give up or have to pay for.

How would Governor Strat propose balancing the state budget?

On another note if this does pass you will be able to purchase wine in grocery stores in New York, not great for the small retailer but good for consumers

eliminating farm subsidies is a scary idea. how many people have to go hungry before the folly becomes apparent?

Not that this is a NY State issue, but...

People won't go hungry. We grow too much corn, which is why so much of it gets turned into corn syrup in soft drinks, or goes to feed cattle instead of people, or gets turned into inefficient ethanol. We could grow far less corn and still have plenty to feed people at the same price if we reduced these other uses. And fewer subsidies means more money available for food stamps and other support for people who really need it. So getting rid of subsidies could result in fewer hungry people.

And we won't have so much in taxpayer dollars going to Archer Daniels Midland, which really doesn't need our support. And higher prices for sweeteners (to return tangentially to the op) may lead to a price rise and a reduction in consumption in items which use it, which may reduce the incidence of diabetes, the treatment of which also costs us money (not to mention the burden on those with diabetes).

There's an appropriate op-ed piece in the Dec. 18 NY Times on this very subject.

I wonder how hard Coke & Pepsi will fight this?

Typically, in a bad economy, families switch from name brands to generics, not much anyone can do about this.

However, both Coke and Pepsi have zero/low calorie alternatives now that are not "diet"; Coke Zero and Pepsi One. These won't be taxed, which means they won't be that much more expensive than the generic, or might even be the same price.

I wouldn't expect many people to switch to diet, but there may be more that would rather switch to Zero or One instead of a generic. Coke and Pepsi might fight the tax since they have other brands that are affected, but the tax may actually help stem the flow of people to the generics.

Daniel, when farm subsidies were first invented, it was a lot simpler: we simply paid farmers to burn crops. Why? Because we need to maintain excess supply of a resource as critical as our food supply. It's basic economics: when the demand for a commodity exceeds the capacity for quick supply increases, prices will skyrocket. When excess capacity exists, prices will fall to the marginal cost of the commodity. When we subsidize farmers, we pay them to burn a percentage of crops, and we pay for the burned crops at the marginal cost. This is a better deal than paying the 2x or 5x higher prices that result when prices begin to climb above marginal cost. Simply put, farm subsidies ensure adequate investment in our infrastructure.

Putting corn to nonessential uses such as sweetener or relatively inefficient biofuel is simply a better deal than outright burning the crops used to be...