Powerful teachers’ union boss Mike Mulgrew summoned lawmakers to a closed-door strategy session Friday to fight Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s budget plan, which would shift more of the growing costs of the massive Medicaid program to New York City and other localities, The Post has learned.

The city having to foot a bigger bill for Medicaid could mean less money for schools and other programs, Mulgrew argues.

“Why am I doing this? I stand up for New York City,” the union boss told The Post Friday night.

“You keep fixing the budget in Albany by shifting costs to municipalities. It’s ‘I balance the budget by making you pay for it.’ Enough of this,” Mulgrew said.

Mulgrew hosted the extraordinary meeting at UFT headquarters in lower Manhattan Friday afternoon, and it was attended by city Comptroller and mayoral candidate Scott Stringer, Council Speaker and mayoral candidate Corey Johnson, Public Advocate Jumaane Williams and numerous state lawmakers and City Council members.

The legislators who showed up to the strategy session included Assembly Health Committee chairman Richard Gottfried, Senate Health Committee Chairman Gustavo Rivera and state Sens. Robert Jackson, John Liu and James Sanders, among others.

Mayor Bill de Blasio did not attend but some budget and agency officials from his administration were there, Mulgrew said.

Mulgrew held court and told lawmakers they must hold the line to block Cuomo’s Medicaid plan.

Mulgrew, who was joined by DC 37 executive director Henry Garrido, said his union would support all lawmakers facing tough primary fights if they do the right thing and not saddle the city with hundreds of millions of dollars in added Medicaid costs, according to a source familiar with the deliberations.

Cuomo’s plan would cap the growth in Medicaid to 3% to close a projected $4 billion shortfall in the Medicaid. The city and other counties would have to pay for any costs above three percent.

The cost of the Medicaid program in the city increased by seven percent last year.

City budget officers estimate the five boroughs will be on the hook for $1.1 billion annually under the new proposal. The state argues the city is vastly inflating the cost.

Cuomo has also asked his Medicaid Redesign Team to come up with $2.5 billion in recommended savings.

Gottfried expressed concern about delegating decisions to a Medicaid Redesign Team whose members are appointed by Cuomo.

“The Medicaid Redesign Team is meant to be a vehicle for imposing a large part of that cutting. We need to set aside the artificial spending caps’ the Governor has imposed, and raise the necessary revenue through taxes on the wealthiest corporations and individuals,” Gottfried said.

“It’s important that unions representing teachers, municipal workers and others are helping to lead this fight,” he added.

Attendee Sen. Liu, who chairs the cities committee, said, “There is a collective sense of outrage and unfairness about the governor’s plan to simply shift costs to New York City and other municipalities.”

At the heart of the fiscal hole are the exploding costs of the state’s $77 billion Medicaid program for the needy, the costs of which are meant to be split between the federal, state and local governments.

In order to help local government abide with a state-imposed 2% property tax cap, the governor and the Legislature agreed six years ago to pick up the added costs for the Medicaid program and freeze payments made by New York City and the counties.

Thanks to an expansion of Medicaid allowed as part of the Affordable Care Act, 95% of New Yorkers now have medical coverage.

But now, surging Medicaid costs account for about two-thirds of the state’s projected $6 billion shortfall for the 2020-2021 fiscal year.

Cuomo called the Medicaid costs “unsustainable” and said the cap would serve as an “incentive” to help control costs.

Asked about City Hall’s complaints with his proposal, Cuomo earlier Friday said, “The problem with the budget is the Medicaid program is now going up at 7% per year. Seven percent per year is unsustainable, period,”

“It’s not whether or not you can pay 7% per year, it’s can you survive 7% per year. You can survive on normal inflation index, which is about 3%. So we say to our partners around the State, we can’t pay 7, we have to get it down to 3 … This deviation only happened after the locals were no longer paying any money. OK? So we have to get back to 3.”

“And this is how we’ll do it. You have to have a financial incentive and disincentive. Anything under 3 will give you 25% of the savings. You can make more money than you did last year, anything under 3 will give the local government 25%. Anything over 3, you pay. If you don’t go over 3, you don’t pay anything. You go under 3, you make money. Period, end of story.”

Source: Read Full Article