Kathy Hochul and lawmakers’ budget deal isn’t just late, it’s reckless too

New York Post - Apr 29th, 2025

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers reached a budget agreement nearly a month past the deadline, resulting in a $254 billion spending plan, a $15 billion increase from last year. The budget, which fails to account for expected federal aid cuts or potential tax revenue decreases, introduces a $1.4 billion annual payroll surcharge, increasing the tax burden on workers and consumers. Critics argue the budget's one-time refunds for lower-income New Yorkers are politically motivated rather than economically beneficial. The deal also sets the stage for significant budget shortfalls in the coming years.

The Citizens Budget Commission criticized the budget for not addressing imminent federal budget cuts, highlighting the long-term financial risks posed by increased spending. While Governor Hochul achieved some legislative goals, such as changes to discovery laws and mental health policies, other initiatives, like a ban on public masking, were diluted. The budget reflects a strategy of postponing tough fiscal decisions, leading to concerns over New York's economic stability and prompting ongoing taxpayer migration out of the state.

Kathy Hochul Tax Increase Citizens Budget Commission Federal Aid Cuts New York Budget

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical perspective on New York's recent budget deal, highlighting potential fiscal risks and policy shortcomings. While it addresses a timely and relevant topic of public interest, the article's accuracy is compromised by a mix of verifiable facts and speculative, editorial content. The lack of balanced viewpoints and credible sources further diminishes its reliability and potential impact. Despite its clear and engaging style, the article's strong editorial stance may limit its ability to foster informed and constructive debate. Overall, the piece raises important questions about fiscal policy but would benefit from a more balanced and well-sourced approach.

Accuracy

The article contains several factual claims that are partially verifiable or lack precision. For instance, the claim that the budget was finalized nearly a month late is accurate, as multiple sources confirm the budget was sealed almost a month after the deadline. However, the statement regarding the $1.4 billion-a-year payroll surcharge is misleading, as it contradicts actual tax cuts mentioned in other sources. Furthermore, the claim that New York has the 'highest tax burden' is not directly verified within the article but aligns with external analyses. The assertion about 'refund checks' being 're-elect bribes' is editorial in nature, lacking factual substantiation. Overall, the story mixes verifiable facts with speculative and editorial content, affecting its overall accuracy.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a critical perspective on the budget deal and Governor Hochul's policies, with limited representation of opposing viewpoints. It heavily criticizes the budget's fiscal approach and potential consequences without offering substantial counterarguments or insights from supporters of the budget. The piece also lacks voices from neutral experts or stakeholders who might provide a more balanced view. This imbalance suggests a strong bias against the current administration's fiscal policies, which could mislead readers by not presenting a comprehensive view of the issue.

Clarity

While the article is clear in its critical stance and presents its arguments in a straightforward manner, the language used is often charged and editorial, which may detract from its objectivity. The structure is logical, with points presented sequentially, but the tone tends to be more opinionated than neutral. This approach may affect the article's clarity for readers seeking a more balanced and factual account of the budget deal.

Source quality

The article does not clearly attribute its claims to specific sources or provide direct quotes from authoritative figures, except for a mention of the Citizens Budget Commission head Andrew Rein. The lack of varied and credible sources diminishes the article's reliability, as readers are left without a clear understanding of where the information originates. This absence of source diversity and authority weakens the article's credibility and its ability to present an informed analysis of the budget.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of its sources and methodology. It does not disclose how the claims were derived or provide context for the figures and assertions made. The piece also fails to reveal any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence its perspective. Without clear explanations or disclosures, readers may find it challenging to assess the impartiality and reliability of the information presented.