“We’re all keeping up with the Syossets. One school installs FieldTurf; now we’re all installing FieldTurf.” This comment, from a participant in a Long Island forum on school property taxes, holds more truth than we care to admit. The athletic facility improvements are the most obvious—but the same principle applies to class size, science labs, technology, even our approach to special education. Confronting a lawsuit on the funding of education in NYC, various groups tied themselves up in knots attempting to develop guidelines on “necessary” school spending. Studies aside, parents apply a relative standard—my kids deserve the same as the kids in the next district.
The proposition that we should “Buy Local” is appealing. We may continue to buy apples from Chile and lettuce from California, but we have the common decency to feel guilty about it.
But do we need to?
American producers of beet and cane sugar have long supported a Buy Local policy. Dominated by a relatively small number of large and politically savvy producers and processors, these “buy from us” sugar interests keep prices high through official U.S. policy that includes a robust quota and tariff regime. Protectionist trade policies for American sugar acquire additional political weight from the powerful Midwest corn lobby, as cheap sugar from Brazil, Thailand and other countries also competes with corn sweeteners. Corn sweeteners—only 13 percent of total sweetener deliveries in 1970—surpassed beet and cane sugar in 1986 and now contribute 20 percent more to the sweetener market than refined sugars.

Gov. David Paterson wants state government to do more with less.
The rumblings started as early as March when the annual budget was completed. Then, last week, Budget Director Laura Anglin asked agencies to prioritize programs and match them to agency purpose, and allocate staffing accordingly. Presumably, this information will be used by the Budget Division to prepare for the Legislature’s mid-August emergency session.
Paterson’s alarm bell will have a familiar ring in state agencies Not so long ago, then-Budget Director John Cape asked agency heads to provide a one-page list of their top three strategic priorities for the 2005-06 budget. Certainly across-the-board cuts are easier for the Division of the Budget to administer, but taxpayers deserve better. Some state functions are more important than others and the cutbacks should reflect conscious priorities. Some cutbacks save more money than others. As an example, when state expenditures are partially funded by the federal government, cutting state staff can actually cost money if federal reimbursement is affected.