As Gov. Hochul and the Legislature hash out the details of this year’s budget during a very uncertain economic panorama, there are a couple of areas where some of Hochul’s gimmicky $3 billion in $300 rebate checks can be much better spent.
Two are the Child Care Assistance Program, which needs a funding boost to continue offering child care vouchers to a chunk of eligible parents and the Housing Access Voucher Program would subsidize rent for rent-burdened and low-income New Yorkers who are homeless or at risk of eviction.
This is not a tax-and-spend Editorial Board, but we have long understood that worthwhile government services do cost money, and some of these investments are not only socially beneficial but have positive economic ramifications that can outweigh their raw cost.
In the case of child care, it’s pretty cut-and-dry: the spiraling costs are not something most families can absorb without significant assistance, which means the disappearing subsidy will leave them without options. That, in turn, will pull parents, predominantly women, out of the workforce in a way that is often difficult to recover from down the line even if alternate child care is arranged.
This is an issue that the governor has already prioritized, including via infrastructure improvements like investment into child care facilities, tax credits, pushing employers to provide more childcare and more. She is largely responsible for the program’s expansion in recent years, leaning on federal COVID funds, but now that those have run out, NYC’s Administration for Children’s Services needs some additional $240 million for this fiscal year and $900 million for next.
In the case of housing, this is ideally a stopgap measure whose need will wane as the city and state move more aggressively towards housing construction, as we know that the governor wants to do.
The unaffordability of housing in the state is partly the product of decades of recalcitrance from leaders who have only too late understood the scope of our housing emergency, and a voucher program can be seen as a tool to prevent the worst outcome, which is continuing to drive middle-class families out of the state. The ask of $250 million isn’t going to fix that or cover everyone at risk of eviction, but it can help staunch the bleeding.
Let’s be clear that these aren’t throwaway amounts; they’re not budget bombs but they are sizable investments, yet we believe that in both cases Hochul and the Legislature have a strong argument to make that these are just that, investments, that will pay out for New Yorkers.
This we know not only theoretically but from experience. Voucher programs like Section 8 federally and CityFHEPS at the city level have shown the concept works, and tens of thousands of New Yorkers already rely on the child care vouchers. Each in turn is reserved for the needy, those who legitimately need the support.
Ultimately, the alternatives are often more expensive. Shelters are extremely cost-ineffective for those New Yorkers who have lost or cannot find homes. Both inaccessible housing and lack of adequate child care are significant economic anchors that burden New Yorkers who would otherwise be more empowered to start and expand families, make career changes, get additional education and start businesses, among other things. These are more targeted and surely more effective expenditures than generalized tax rebate checks.
