Jaybird Flies

Jay Walder Is Not Casey Jones,

Jumps From NYC to Hong Kong

Because MTA Nears Fiscal Crash

Jay Walder is no Casey Jones.

Unlike the iconic railroad engineer, who kept his hand on the throttle while his train plunged down curving tracks to disaster, and by doing so saved the lives of many people, the MTA chief Jay Walder did not even complete two years at the helm of the transit authority before he jumped ship for a more secure and lucrative berth in a private, profitable transit system.

Walder was not shanghaied in the dead of night; he is going voluntarily to MTR (Mass Transit Railway), a railroad colossus headquartered in Hong Kong. Any idea where they might bank?

Actually, Walder had a number of good reasons for his secretive flight from New York and the MTA. The first is the impoverishment of the system he is leaving. The MTA has consistently been undersupported, not given enough money to operate, let alone to build and maintain the system in good repair. Before he came, they overspent wildly, in part because of bureaucracy, over-engineering, and weakness before unions, as well as traditional corruption, particularly in construction and real property. Walder did not want his reputation endangered by too many years presiding over a system subject to those perils.

Second is the apparent indifference of Governor Cuomo to the plight of the MTA, and the absence of any effort to develop a relationship with Walder. It was not nearly as bad as Governor Paterson, who refused to speak with Lee Sander, Walder's predecessor, or even to return his calls, because Sander had been appointed by his predecessor, Governor Spitzer. Sander did not have the luxury of another job offer as Walder did, so he hung around until he was dismissed by Paterson on May 7, 1999 on practically one day's notice, even though it took more than two months after that to find a successor (Walder).

Sander was not the only Paterson commissioner to be fired practically instantly. On October 21, 2010, just twelve days before the election of Governor Cuomo, the Environmental Protection Commissioner, Pete Grannis, who had served since the start of the Spitzer administration and before that, spent 32 years in the Assembly, was told to clear out immediately by Larry Schwartz, at the time a key aide to Governor Paterson. The trumped-up charge against Grannis was that he had sought to avoid budget cuts for his agency, which every commissioner worth anything does every year. Grannis was told that Paterson would not speak to him about the matter and that his dismissal was final. He got the news as he was preparing to deliver a speech and receive an award from an environmental group at what became his last supper in office.

The question arose as to why Grannis was fired just then. Why not leave it to the incoming governor (Cuomo) to choose his cabinet? Why should Grannis' 36 years of state service end in peremptory dismissal? One plausible explanation is based on where Larry Schwartz is now. Governor Cuomo has appointed him Secretary to the Governor, which is the equivalent to chief of staff on the national level and the same post Schwartz held in the Paterson administration.

It is likely that, in firing Grannis on the spot, Schwartz was serving his new master, Cuomo, and sparing the governor-elect the embarrassment of firing an environmental icon. Cuomo has the right to choose his own commissioners, and Joe Martens is a good choice for the position, with a fine environmental record. Nonetheless, we recount the story now to tell you how it was done, which is in accord with the important Rule 26, "No prints."

Walder chose to accept what could be the best transit job in the world, at a multiple of the salary which was begrudged to him in New York. He thus avoided the fate of his predecessor Sander and his colleague Grannis.

Last night, I watched The Call on New York 1. People called and emailed the station to express their views on Walder. Almost all were very negative, with the exception of Richard Ravitch, the former lieutenant governor, as well as MTA chair. Ravitch was highly complimentary, as was Mayor Bloomberg. The hostile attitude of the public came because of the service and personnel reductions that Walder was obliged to make because of the lack of public funds and steadily rising expenses, most but not all of which were uncontrollable. How many years should one devote to serving people who think you are doing a lousy job, when in fact you are doing a very competent job at an obviously thankless task?

One could tell that many of the disgruntled callers were transit employees or union activists. Even so, there were precious few callers who admired the service they received from the MTA or its departing chairman. If there were an attempt to jam the switchboard, it succeeded. If there were not, the negative sentiment was more authentic. Of course, no one likes waiting for a train on a hot platform, being squeezed or crushed inside a car, or being delayed for an indefinite period, whether by "the dispatcher" or by "train traffic ahead".

The underlying fact is that the transit system is in a financial bind comparable to that which faces the United States, except that it cannot run up fourteen trillion dollars in deficits and then ask for more. Sooner or later, probably sooner, fares will rise and interest on the MTA's indebtedness will increase. The State and City, traditional sources of additional funding, are, as we know, undergoing severe fiscal problems and highly unlikely to substantially increase transit subsidies, if indeed they are willing to retain them. One cannot mention state aid without recalling with sorrow the disgraceful decision of the New York State Assembly to eliminate the commuter tax on May 17, 1999, a date which will live in infamy in mass transit history. How long should Walder remain at the helm of a ship which takes on more water each year?

We believe that Jay Walder is, by and large, a decent, honorable, hard-working and competent bureaucrat, who will be missed after he is gone. He is not an inspirational figure, nor did he attempt to be one. Nicole Gelinas, giving Walder a mixed review, asks today in The Post: "Can the next MTA chief be a fighter?" One answer to that question is that the MTA chief is an appointed, rather than an elected official. Major funding decisions are made by the elected, and it is the job of the appointed to do the best they can with the resources that they have been given.

Of course, they can and should demand more; that is what Commissioner Pete Grannis (who was from 1974 to 2005 an elected official, given to expressing his own opinions) did in October 2010, for which he was summarily politically beheaded in what appears to be a pre-election housecleaning. Fortunately, Grannis has found a new job in what appears to be a more congenial setting, so his public service can continue and his pension clock keep running.

"Speak truth to power" is a noble slogan, but truth is better spoken by those with no power than by those with some. People with intermediate degrees of power are likely to lose what little they have if they engage in unappreciated candor. Those outside the Beltway (or its local equivalent) are less subject to the whims of the authorities.

We wish Walder the best in his new adventure, which we hope will be excellent, for the sake of the millions of Chinese and others who will benefit from his services. The search for a successor should begin at once. It will be a real challenge to the Governor and the MTA to find someone as knowledgeable and professionally skilled as Walder. But once such a person is hired, s/he must be given the appropriation that is needed for the MTA to do the job right.

P.S. It is ironic that people now go from New York to Hong Kong in order to triple their wages.

He Had a Dream

Weiner, Spitzer, Strauss-Kahn:

How Could They Have Done It?

The next mayor of New York City stands in the shoes of the next president of France.

Both highly successful political careers have been derailed by the same nemesis: inappropriate behavior toward women because of the need for immediate gratification of the man's sexual desires.

Of course, what the self-destructive trio did, in different ways, was indicative of mental disorder. Other leaders of countries and cities have been mentally ill. They continue until their disorder becomes public, usually as a result of an act so at variance with conventional ethical standards that it would not be tolerated by the electorate.

What is it that makes people who have everything to lose - and nothing to gain but transitory relief - engage time and again in conduct which results in their losing everything? We don't know; we are not psychiatrists. But self-destructive behavior is not new. Its most direct example is suicide. People do that when the pain of living is worse for them than the fear of dying. Former Queens Borough President Donald Manes, facing imprisonment in 1986, chose that cowardly route.

In the cases of Governor Eliot Spitzer and Congressman Anthony Weiner, the suicide is professional. They remain alive, and are free to build new careers. They both, at this point, have loving wives. Neither man will reach the heights he could have attained, but they will not starve.

Why, oh why, do these gifted and talented people engage in such obviously ruinous behavior? How could the sitting governor believe that no one would recognize him on his repeated liaisons? How many people did the Congressman proposition on Twitter without realizing that any one of them could turn him in? It only takes a single complaint to topple the house of cards. Then others will rush in, confirming the sordid tale. Cf. Tiger Woods.

I have high regard for Anthony Weiner's better side, which I believe exists somewhere under all the lies, self-deception and cruelty to others. He has suffered from his family's instability, his brother's tragic death, his comic last name, and rejection by his peers before he became too important to ignore. The Sammy Glick comparison may be the most obvious literary reference, but I like to believe there was more to Anthony than that.

I hope he makes the best of his new life. There are four dangers lying ahead. First is censure or expulsion from the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. What better way for the hypocrites to demonstrate their purity than by removing the offender? The second is the Democratic primary in 2012, where he would undoubtedly be challenged. The third is the general election, in which, although it has not be noted, he received only 59 % of the vote in 2010 against a little-known Republican opponent. The fourth hurdle is redistricting. When the lines are drawn for 2012, his seat will be the first to be butchered.

His downfall is a personal tragedy. It is also a loss for the city and state. There are few enough smart politicians to let one go down without an expression of sympathy, and regret over what might have been if he were well.

There are government and private agencies created to help the physically challenged. It is unfortunate that, in the field of mental health, people are less forgiving and help is more difficult to secure, particularly when it involves disclosure of behavior which must be secret because of valid social norms.

The immortal words of Terry Malloy come to mind in another Schulberg reference: "I coulda been a contender."

Anthony Weiner was a contender, but he could have been a champion.

Brief Encounter

Charges Fly in Weiner Hacking Case,
Rightist Distributed His Photograph.
You Just Can't Leave Junk Pictures
If You Would Be Mayor of 8 Million,
Especially If You Would Scrap With Others

As you all presumably know, there has been enormous press coverage of a possible scandal based on Internet communications, allegedly from Congressman Anthony Weiner and addressed to a college student in Washington State. Both parties deny that they ever met, but that deepens the mystery of why a public official would send a bizarre photograph of his own amply filled underpants to a woman, an event which is considered unlikely to have occurred in the manner depicted.

Unlike most of the media, we will look at the issue without gratuitous puns or snide references. The subject is intrinsically interesting because it involves an important man (think Eliot Spitzer, former Congressman Chris Lee and Dominique Strauss-Kahn) involved with a woman not his wife in a manner considered inappropriate by most of the public. One wonders why those men were foolish enough to become involved in damaging situations, whether the momentary orgasmic release is worth the prolonged pain and embarrassment that is likely to ensue? In some cases, the immediate pleasure surmounts the risk, because men keep doing it, and some of them get caught.

In the Weiner case, it seems totally bizarre that a man who has devoted his life to personal ambition and public service should jeopardize all of that for the vicarious pleasure of sending unsuspecting, relative strangers a photograph, not even of his genitals, but of his stuffed drawers. This may be a fetish or a perversion whose name has not yet come to our attention, but in time it may be entered on the list of psychiatric disorders. It may, or may not, have happened.

Rule 34-S, obviously not original, is "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Substitute "press" for "sword" to get Rule 34-P. There is irony if this congressman's embarrassment, and possible ruination -- if such is to be the case -- comes at the hands of the same instrumentality he used so effectively in his rise. Whatever they may bleat, his rivals are not distressed at his misfortune. It assists them in pursuing their own ambitions, and it immobilizes a power-seeking force that could be used against them.

We waited until the end of the day to send out this relatively brief article, anticipating that new events or interpretations would transpire (become known) during the afternoon. We believe that by tomorrow morning, more facts will be revealed. Whatever may have happened is recorded on mechanical devices somewhere, and it is probably simply a matter of time before the truth is discovered.

The last item we received comes from one Benjy Sarlin, a writer for Talking Points Memo, a major, left-leaning online publication. Its headline: "Leaked Emails Show Tip to Breitbart About Weiner Tweet." Its lede: "The ongoing scandal surrounding a lewd tweet sent from Rep. Anthony Weiner's Twitter account took yet another turn for the weird Thursday as alleged e-mails between the person who first noticed the photo and conservative media guru Andrew Breitbart were leaked." For the rest of this tale, which has considerable bearing on the origin of the story and the motives of those who disseminated it, click here.

If the congressman distributed salacious photos to an audience, that is very bad because it would show a profound lack of judgment. If someone stole the undistributed photos from his computer and sent them out in an effort to embarrass the congressman, that is very bad, and should be criminal. There is the possibility that the congressman or his agent took the picture, and the photo was hacked (stolen, to seniors) and distributed by his political enemies, who are widely depicted as numerous and motivated, in part by the congressman's progressive ideology and in part by his aggressive personality, which probably has had a role in his political and social success over the years.

In our judgment, stealing and distributing an image is a worse sin than taking a foolish and embarrassing photograph of oneself. We are not learned in photography, but the picture looks like it was taken by the owner of the underwear.

Another story came out this afternoon on Salon.com: "Embarrassing Emails From Weiner Tweeter Leaked." It was written by Justin Elliott. It refers to intriguing an article "The Wolfe at Anthony Weiner's Front Door" just published by The Smoking Gun, which includes the revelation that Dan Wolfe, the conservative activist who is the apparent source of the leaked tweet, claimed on May 5th, three weeks before the current scandal, that "compromising photos of a 'big time' congressman were in the hands of a 'top 5 Right Wing blogger.' He tweeted, '@RepWeiner are you this Congressman?' He reprised this photo rumor in a May 11 tweet." The story began to go public on Friday, May 27. Was Wolfe prescient or was he guilty?

It is fascinating to observe how the Internet telescopes the news cycle, at least with regard to time. We will see what tomorrow brings in this case. The congressman may have acted foolishly, first in having the picture on his computer (if it were there) and, second, with his confused responses to media questioning in a series of press meetings which he called. But it is not likely that he was foolish enough to disseminate an embarrassing photograph of himself. If he did that, he needs psychiatric help. If he did not, we should see to it that his accuser is identified and punished. Fair is fair.

90 Days to First Base

A Turn for the Better

In State Government

For nine years, we have been writing about city and state government, from the point of view of someone who has been very fortunate to have enjoyed (more often than not) fifty-three eventful years in New York City public affairs, in the executive, legislative and judicial branches, as a civic group's watchdog and as a blogger.

The substance of the 748 articles, all of which are available on our blog, www.nycivic.org, tend to be related to fiscal responsibility, public and private corruption, and the performance of elected officials. There is widespread discontent with the state legislature and the performance of its swollen and self-serving solons. We have also seen arrests and indictments of city and state officials for dishonesty (with an occasional rap for assaulting a girlfriend, a newspaper photographer, a staff member or a police officer).

Public attention focuses on notorious cases, based on the importance of the accused and the dimension of the misconduct. The case of former Governor Eliot Spitzer is a textbook example. The governor is the most important public official in the state, although the United States Senators may have more national influence. The governor's behavior was not that grievous a criminal offense because it was sex between adults who were more than consenting.

The Mann Act is a prosecutorial weapon to obtain guilty pleas from people who do not want to go to trial on a charge punishable by a longer sentence. The law was originally The White Slave Traffic Act of 1910. It prohibits the interstate transportation of females for 'immoral purposes'. The first person prosecuted under the act was the first African-American heavyweight boxing champion of the world, Jack Johnson, who had an affair with a white prostitute, whom he later married. Johnson was later rearrested for an earlier crossing of a state line with another woman, who testified against him. He was found guilty and sentenced to a year and a day in prison, the maximum under the law.

What was really shocking in the Spitzer case was the absurdity of it all. Why should a governor with an attractive, intelligent and devoted wife jeopardize his reputation, his family's good name and his successful career for momentary carnal gratification? And why pay thousands of dollars for a service available at far lower cost? What this shows is a person so possessed and self-deluded that he really was not fit to be governor. One could not rely on his judgment on important issues because of the enormous lack of self-control he repeatedly demonstrated.

Even so, the legislature would not have impeached him for his dalliances if they didn't hate him already, for his bullying and threats, and the general contempt he showed for all of them. The contrast with Andrew Cuomo is striking. He may or may not have any higher opinion of his colleagues in government than Spitzer had, but he knows what to say and what not to say to keep people happy and to get them to do what he wants them to do.

When the accused governor asked Speaker Sheldon Silver about his prospects if the Assembly were to consider his impeachment, he was told that he would receive no more than a handful of votes against impeachment. (I wasn't there at the conversation, of course, but it has been widely reported and not contradicted. The statement has the ring of truth.) The sexual indulgence simply provided an excuse for the dysfunctional legislature to rid itself of a pesky governor, who would put the rest of them in jail if he could.

Unfortunately, the forced resignation took state government out of the frying pan into the fire. It would be too painful to recount the errors, misjudgments, false and misleading statements, intrusions into criminal cases, appointments and dismissals of personnel, not to mention other embarrassments that marred Governor Spitzer's successor's term.

The strong start by Governor Cuomo has raised some hopes that the state may, after all, be governable. The sight of Republican leader Skelos and Speaker Silver, along with their minority counterparts in each house, shows that it is possible for people to work together, in their own interest of course, regardless of party.

One must not forget, however, that the state's basic problems remain unsolved despite the remarkable agreement by its leaders. The financial problem looms every year, and pension and interest costs may continue their upward spiral. The cuts in education and social services will have some cost, but failure to stem the constant increases in these big-budget items would be inexcusable.

Looking back to 1995, Governor Pataki's first year, he too reduced the budget. Then the state reverted to its constant upward climb in expenditures. We hope that the new Governor Cuomo will not be a one-year wonder, but will continue to exhibit fiscal responsibility despite the demands of state employees. What is not said is that there are other ways to cut the budget, locating and excising unnecessary or excessive expenditures, without closing down programs which are essential to physical or mental health and competently administered. It takes more work to cut with a scalpel than with a meat-axe, but if the result is superior service at lower cost, the effort will be worthwhile.

Day 90 - Some things have changed.

Herding Cats

Glory Be. Big Three Agree.

Foresee Albany Tranquility

The Post's front-page headline this morning, PIGS FLY, reflected the skepticism and cynicism that some New Yorkers feel at the report that the governor and legislative leaders had agreed on a state budget five days in advance of the April 1 deadline. The Times' headline was predictably more sedate: ALBANY STRIKES BUDGET ACCORD TO CUT SPENDING. The News' block head was HAMMER TIME, a catch phrase used by '80s rapper M.C. Hammer.

There was some wonderment at the timely bipartisan agreement, considering that the Senate is Republican and the Assembly Democratic. In fact, however, it would have been more difficult to reach agreement if both houses of the legislature had been controlled by the Democrats. In that eventuality, the party leaders would have no one to blame but themselves for their failure to submit entirely to the demands of the interest groups who contribute so handsomely to their campaigns. This way, they can blame the opposition party. Rule 18-X-6 applies here: "The Devil made me do it."

The state budget proceedings are generally fraught with misrepresentation by the participants. How can a ten billion dollar projected deficit disappear overnight without new taxes or new borrowing? The mayor and the governor are in direct conflict, as their predecessors have been for over fifty years or more. The worst battles were between two Republicans, Nelson Rockefeller and John Lindsay.

When one consults experts as to who is telling the truth with regard to financial claims, one is told that the two sets of numbers are both accurate, but are derived from different baselines, and therefore impossible to compare.

The possibility remains that the deal will fall apart over the next few days, as each party tries to derive maximum advantage under the frame of reference agreed upon. In that event, the high popularity of the governor in the polls, combined with the low regard shown for the legislature, should give Andrew Cuomo the upper hand over the refractory solons, a number of whom are ethically challenged.

Conventional wisdom has it that the outcome is ordained by the fact that the State Constitution gives the governor great power over the budget. Speaker Sheldon Silver and former Senate President Joseph Bruno tried to amend the State Constsitution in 2007 to give the legislature power over the governor on the state budget, but their plan was defeated at the polls.

Former Governor Paterson had the same authority that Governor Cuomo has now, but did not make the fullest use of it. There are critical theories as to why this was the case:

l. He was unaware that he had power over the budget.


2. He knew he had the power, but was indifferent to making the effort to use it.


3. He knew he had the power, and he wanted to use it, but did not know just how to do so.

4. He didn't want to upset any of the special interests in the Democratic Party, or be responsible for any budget reductions that would impact negatively any of his perceived communities and supporters.


5. He wanted to use it, but was so grateful to the legislature for not seeking to pursue him for various ethical misjudgments that he did not want to ruffle their feathers by a major disagreement over his authority.


6. Not being a friend and mentor of the Chief Judge, he feared the outcome of litigation over the issue.


7. No longer having available the services of Fr. Charles J. O'Byrne, his competent and trusted confidant, he feared that his case would not be adequately or professionally pursued.


8. He thought it might injure the Democratic Party to have a public quarrel of this nature with the Speaker.


9. Any combination of the first eight reasons.

In fact, Governor Paterson did affirmatively make use of his Constitutional authority in 2010. He acted after the April 1 budget deadline expired, by sending continuing resolutions to the legislature which included various budget reductions, some of which affected issues of public policy.

If the legislature failed to approve his resolutions, the government would have to shut down for lack of funds, causing some disruption to the public and in effect locking out state employees. Governor Paterson had success with this tactic, which Governor Cuomo is widely believed to be ready to use again to achieve the reductions and policy changes which he, and a majority of the public, generally believe to be desirable.

At this point, the close of his third month in office, Cuomo is off to a healthy start. "Day One: Everything Changes", the slogan of the Spitzer administration, is in the dustbin of history. By his third month, Spitzer was at war with the Senate and the Assembly. It was a war he was not destined to win.

With regard to Cuomo, so far the public likes what they have seen of him. He has handled himself well, speaking with both force and restraint. He was particularly good with regard to the strange intrusion by the Roman factotem into his private life, a 21st century reprise of a 16th century dispute between a pope and a king.

We don't have enormous confidence in the budget data that any politician offers, although by the laws of probability, some set of figures must be more accurate than others. It is said that the only true news in some papers is the obituaries, and the only true budget reductions come when people are separated from the payroll, or when prisons actually physically close. That has not yet come to pass, and we do not wish unemployment on anyone, especially in these difficult times. It is difficult, however, for ordinary people to figure out how it is that multi-billion dollar budget goals are proclaimed to have been achieved while personnel costs remain largely untouched and pension costs continue to rise.

Meanwhile, it is better to see both parties on good behavior than to watch them snipe. Governor Cuomo deserves credit for, at least temporarily, restoring good manners to the Capitol. We hope he stays calm. Remember, the governor proposes, the legislature appropriates, but the governor has the last crack at what the agencies spend. He cannot add to appropriations, but he can subtract, particularly in the event of financial emergency, which we have been told is the present exigency.

FYI, the California state budget deficit this year is estimated at $25.4 billion. We are not alone.

BTW: Former City and State Comptroller Alan Hevesi's sentencing on a felony conviction was postponed today after Judge Lewis Bart Stone sent the case back for assignment to another judge because of a potential conflict of interest between the judge and Hevesi's lawyer. Hevesi pleaded guilty on October 7, 2010. He had resigned as State Comptroller on December 22, 2006, after a prior conviction for an unrelated felony.

Lastly, for information about herding cats, click here.

Inconvenient Truths

Cuomo Takes on Dragons,

Can He Win Submission?

Governor Cuomo kept his word and presented a state budget of $132.9 billion for Fiscal Year 2011-12, which begins April l. This figure, believe it or not, is a sharp brake on spending, the first reductions since the Pataki years. He also gave a fine speech Tuesday afternoon, with greatly improved visual aids, to make the state's financial distress evident to anyone willing to see, including the legislature.

For eight years, New York Civic has been preaching that state spending is irresponsibly high, a notion that has gradually gained acceptance even though is nothing is done about it.

On September 22, 2002, we wrote an article headlined DRIFTING FROM ERIE TOWARD ONTARIO. The geographic reference to the two Great Likes is intended to imply to readers just what happens to ships that try to drift from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario: they go over Niagara Falls, a natural wonder but a disaster for shipping. Vessels can use the multiple locks of the Welland Canal, which connect the two lakes a little over ten miles west of the Niagara River, which forms the boundary between the United States and Canada. The original canal was begun in 1824 and opened in 1829. It was subsequently widened and enlarged until 1932, when it reached its present size. Niagara Falls has occupied its present location since the end of the Wisconsin glaciation in the last Ice Age.

The point of our 2002 article, which was written when Governor Pataki was in his second (of three) terms, was that New York State was running out of money. In the intervening eight years, during the administrations of Pataki, Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson, disaster was postponed by borrowing billions of dollars in the name of various public authorities which are euphemistically referred to as 'off-budget entities'. That is an Enronian phrase that should rank with 'collateralized debt obligations' in the vocabulary of fiscal irresponsibility.

In his remarks Tuesday, the new governor also referenced Enron, once No. 7 in the S & P 500, and now a synonym for fiscal flim-flam. We have mentioned that defunct corporation eighteen times over the eight years of our editorial criticism of New York State's unsound borrowing practices and concealment of its growing deficits. Governor Cuomo said:

"When you use reality-based budgeting, as opposed to Albany-based budgeting, which is where Albany meets Enron, in our opinion, the Albany-based budgeting institutionally assumes an exorbitant growth rate that is disconnected from fiscal reality. And this has been going on for many, many years."

It is too early in the budget season, for us, anyway, to offer judgments on the individual appropriations that the governor proposes for agencies. But he is definitely inclined in the right direction. It is ironic that his message has resonated most with Republicans and Conservatives, and least with the Democratic left. That shows that the principal fault line in fiscal policy is not between the two parties, but between spenders and savers, with the Democrats evenly divided.

For those of you who are political junkies and keep box scores (which we think is completely laudable), the vote on imposing the property tax cap proposed by Governor Cuomo in his campaign was 45 to 17. The 45 consisted of all 32 Republicans and 13 Democrats. The 17 Democrats who voted against the cap were Addabbo, Avella, Diaz, Dilan, Duane, Espaillat, Hassell-Thompson, Krueger, Kruger, Montgomery, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Rivera, Serrano, Squadron, and Stavisky.

The 13 Democrats who voted in favor of the cap were Adams, Breslin, Carlucci, Gianaris, Huntley, Kennedy, Klein, Oppenheimer, Sampson, Savino, Smith, Stewart-Cousins and Valesky. We note that the four members of the Independent Democratic Conference - Senators Jeff Klein, David Carlucci, Diane Savino and David Valesky - all supported the tax cap, voting with the Republicans, as did Senate Democratic leader John Sampson. So much for ideology, vote your district.

It has been a generation since New York had a governor of whom we could be proud. A swallow does not make a summer, but think of where we were on Groundhog Day four years ago. The new governor had already described himself as "a fucking steamroller", was preparing for the Troopergate war against Senate majority leader Joe Bruno, and was trying to impose his choice for State Comptroller, Martha Stark, on the state legislature to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Alan Hevesi following his first felony conviction.

The legislature chose one of its own, Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli, for the plum position. DiNapoli was a better choice than Spitzer's candidate, who was subsequently compelled to resign as City Finance Commissioner because of sundry irregularities whose details you can find with the aid of Google. DiNapoli is not as bright as Hevesi, but there are more important qualities, like decency and integrity, that high public office demands. The Comptroller is a good man, highly affable and liked by his colleagues. His industry and devotion are unquestioned. Nonetheless, it is ridiculous that he be the sole trustee of a pension fund that exceeds $120 billion. That should be corrected.

BTW, DiNapoli's new First Deputy Comptroller is Pete Grannis (park name "Reliable"), who served 32 years (1975-2007) in the Assembly and four as State Commissioner of Environmental Protection before being rudely and unceremoniously dismissed by the dying swans of the lame duck Paterson administration. When Grannis asked to see Paterson to ask why he was being fired after four years service, particularly since it was only weeks before the whole bunch would be turned out by the calendar, he was denied that opportunity.

REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST

When I was Parks Commissioner, February 2 was the day of an annual ritual, consulting a groundhog who would advise what the season would bring. If the day were clear, and the groundhog saw his shadow, that meant that winter would continue for six more weeks (until mid-March). If the day were cloudy, there would be no shadow, which indicated that winter was over. In 2011, winter is not over, no matter what the groundhog indicates.

The groundhog custom is most closely associated with Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Its spread to New York zoos (Queens and Staten Island) was flagrantly derivative. The Borough President of Queens, Claire Shulman (park name "Queen Bee"), a good friend of parks, came to the Queens Zoo every year to open the little door behind which the animals hovered, awaiting their annual fifteen seconds of fame.

We had a difficult experience one year with Claire's predecessor, the late Borough President of Queens, Donald Manes. On a similar occasion, he saw a pair of otters climbing out a pond in the zoo, and he threw rocks at them, even when asked to stop. To me, that was as bad as all the money he extorted from parking meter operators. You can Google him, too, for a sad chapter in New York City history. Who ever heard of a great big borough president stoning an innocent family of otters?

The Governor's Speech

Cuomo Warns Legislature

Fiscal Disaster Lies Ahead

Without Sharp Reductions

The new Governor Cuomo delivered his first State of the State message yesterday. I watched the speech and found it credible and constructive. Cuomo seems to be making a conscious effort to get along with the legislature. At the same time, he outlined spending reductions, ethics reforms, independent redistricting and other proposals which have been anathema to the Senate and Assembly in years past.

Politics requires a certain level of optimism, and with a new governor, there is more reason for hope than there has been for many years. The wrenching disappointments of the Spitzer and Paterson administrations are now behind us, the ever-mounting budget deficit is before us. The device of expert panels proposed by Governor Cuomo in his speech will have limited impact in reaching agreements or even postponing the day of reckoning, but to the extent that it brings new people into the mix of decision-making it may be helpful.

I liked the informal approach of Cuomo's PowerPoint presentation in principle, although it was not particularly proficiently executed. That will be cured by staff training or staff upgrading. The governor of 19 million people should have the highest level of technical support when he reaches out to the public.

The substance of the message showed clearly the Governor's awareness of fiscal reality and his willingness to make hard choices. Of course, he didn't get around to specifying those choices precisely; that will presumably come in the budget message next month. What seems clear, today, is that Andrew Cuomo is conscious of how his policy decisions will be perceived not just by New Yorkers, but by people across the nation as well, the potential greater constituency.

It was said that in the French Army, every corporal has a field marshal's baton in his cap. So it is that every governor of New York State dreams of the White House. So far three have made it, Martin Van Buren (1837-41) and the two Roosevelts, Theodore (1901-09) and Franklin (1933-45). Among those who tried and failed in the 20th century are Charles Evans Hughes (1916), Alfred E. Smith (1928), Thomas E. Dewey (1944, 48), and Nelson A. Rockefeller (1960, 64 and 68). George Pataki tested the waters in 2008 and found them frigid, as everyone knew.

Perhaps the most dramatic non-candidacy occurred on December 21, 1991, when Governor Mario Cuomo, whose staff had chartered two planes to fly him and the press corps to Concord, New Hampshire - where he would have paid a $1000 filing fee and announced his candidacy in the Democratic Presidential primary in front of the State House - unexpectedly left the aircraft waiting on the tarmac when he decided not to take flight. That afternoon, Cuomo announced his decision in the New York State Capitol. He said that the Republicans, who then controlled the State Senate, had made it impossible for him to run "for their own purposes". Click here to read a fascinating Times account of that eventful day.

It was twenty-nine years ago that budget problems obstructed Mario Cuomo's presidential campaign, and those difficulties have only grown in the years that followed. Although there have been years of unheeded warnings that the days of reckoning were at hand, the national recession of the past two years and the continuing spiral in health and pension benefits have brought a number of state governments to the brink of insolvency.

Some cities and counties have been through bankruptcy, but no state has yet defaulted on its sovereign debt. No government wants to be the first to blow, so fiscal reality has been widely concealed by bookkeeping devices loosely described as Enronian. The budget problems that New York State faced in 1992 are dwarfed by the $10 billion deficit the state must deal with today. However, New York is not the worst. The California state budget deficit is expected to be $19 billion in the next fiscal year - and this after seven years with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was not a weak public figure, as governor.

There is a problem in the governor's plan to enlist groups of stakeholders to recommend policy changes and service reductions. Many of these stakeholders have directly conflicting interests, and it is hard to foresee what they might agree on to suggest to the governor. Cuomo evoked the Berger Commission, ably chaired by Stephen Berger, which recommended hospital closings in 2006. There is enormous local resistance to closing hospitals, or any other state facilities. Whether they are medically needed or not, they are job providers, like the upstate prisons and juvies (juvenile detention facilities) which Cuomo specifically targeted in his remarks.

We think the Governor jumped the first hurdle nicely, with spirit and good humor, showing his desire to bring people together, which is urgently needed. The next test will be his executive budget, which is due on February 1, twenty-six days from today. The deadline for adopting the budget is April l, but that date is rarely met, and no one seriously expects a ten billion dollar gap to be closed in two months.

We enjoyed the spirit and verve of Andrew Cuomo's speech: the young lancer laying out the problem and part of his plan (if there be a plan); the Albany veterans, expressing verbal support and encouragement, the infighting necessarily left for another day and a place outside public view. Nonetheless, Cuomo made real progress, speaking bravely about the fiscal chasm. For a Democratic governor, it was an astounding admission of reality. There were no impractical schemes to tax rich people who, by pressing a button, can move their industries and their income outside the state.

The merger of the Departments of Banking and Insurance is quite sensible. Since the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Congress, the same companies are in both fields. The Consumer Protection Board will find a home in a larger agency. I was in city consumer affairs (first deputy to Commissioner Bess Myerson) in 1970, when the state agency was formed by Governor Rockefeller with Betty Furness, formerly with LBJ's White House, as chair.

A great deal will depend on who is chosen to staff the new State Department of Financial Regulation, but it will give Governor Cuomo a piece of the action in a field otherwise likely to be dominated by the new Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, a man who is as ambitious and as enterprising as his two immediate predecessors, the Governors Spitzer and Cuomo.

Let the games begin.

StarQuest #731 1.6.2011 1075 words

A New Low

Paterson Ousts Grannis

From Environment Post

11 Days Before Election


Just when you think an administration cannot get any worse, it does.

After the devastating report by State Inspector General Joseph Fisch on the politics of the Aqueduct racino, we awaited the reaction of the scandal-scarred Paterson regime.

It came unexpectedly last night in the sudden dismissal of Pete Grannis, Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, while he was receiving an award from the New York Water Environment Association, a nonprofit educational group founded in 1929 by professionals in the field of water quality.

The firing of the commissioner, coming eleven days before a statewide election, is so ridiculous that it is difficult to comprehend. It was ostensibly based on the leaking of a memo outlining the consequences of budget cuts proposed for DEC. The memo was innocuous, a standard warning by an agency head of the impact of the loss of hundreds of employees. It was followed by a cordial meeting with the budget director to see how the cuts could be made with minimal disruption of services. That is why the sequence of emails culminating in his discharge came as a surprise.

Why is it that Pete Grannis enjoys such a good reputation, while Paterson's staff is viewed as irrelevant and inconsequential? It is because Grannis has done constructive work over the years to protect the environment, which people appreciate, while the achievements of the others, if they exist, are unknown.

It is not uncommon for outstanding commissioners to be harassed and belittled by executive staff. I endured those slings for years, but Mayor Giuliani was always supportive when disputed matters came to his personal attention. Apparently Governor Paterson is so dependent on those around him that he is unable to protect his own commissioners, even if he has known and been friendly with them for over twenty-five years.

I recall a similar situation about twelve years ago. First Deputy Mayor Peter Powers told the assembled Giuliani commissioners that the budget had to be reduced for almost all agencies. He patiently said that some agencies might feel in good faith that their work would be seriously impaired, that they would be unable to provide the services on which people had become dependent, that the social fabric would be strained, etc. Powers said he could understand how commissioners could feel that way, and if so, he added, "Let's part friends". Those words became Rule 15.

An unsigned, undated memo, revealing no secrets and simply seeking to avoid budget cuts, is nothing to complain about that seriously. You cut the budget if you must, but you do not fire a competent commissioner for explaining the consequences of reductions. One cannot prove who leaked the memo, but it really doesn't matter because there was nothing in it that could not be said in public.

If Grannis were insubordinate and a poor administrator, as is now claimed, why did it take Paterson until ten weeks before he leaves office to fire him? This is the politics of a banana republic, actions taken out of spite rather than reason. If you want to punish Grannis, cut his budget a little more than you would have if he had been on board with the cuts.

One theory is that this action was taken by a failed governor, through a henchman, out of resentment at the public esteem and popularity of a commissioner who had served thirty-two years in the Assembly and four years in the cabinet. Another theory is that Larry Schwartz, who holds the title of Secretary to the Governor, was responsible for the action, with Paterson either misled or too weak to prevent it.

It has been suggested that the real reason for the dismissal is the handling of the Marcellus shale controversy. Schwartz is a strong supporter of hydrofracking, a process for extracting natural gas by shooting water and chemicals to break rocks.

He has pestered Grannis for hasty approval of the project, although a substantive environmental impact statement has yet to be prepared.

Whatever reservations observers may have had with Grannis' performance are dwarfed by resentment of his dismissal, apparently over a trifle, but possibly over Grannis' desire to protect the countryside and watershed from pollution.

In an administration not known for integrity, with a governor facing one investigation after another, all for relatively small matters until the Aqueduct racino blew up in his face, the ouster of a popular commissioner, a few days before the election of a new governor, is unprecedented, even for the most dysfunctional state government in the nation.

We predict that Pete Grannis' reputation will be enhanced by his dismissal, as well as his chance of being retained by Governor-to-be Cuomo. The stain of his participation in the ill-fated Spitzer and Paterson administrations has been alleviated to some extent by his peremptory dismissal.

This is not to say that we agree with everything Commissioner Grannis has said or done in four years. His agency has been criticized for obduracy and for not reining in environmental zealots. (There are such people, even for good causes.) It is, however, valuable when commissioners support the goals of their agencies, and are willing to fight to achieve them in the face of obstacles thrown up by those who would imperil the planet for personal profit.

To dismiss an unquestionably honest, highly regarded environmentalist who has devoted his professional life to public service is a new low for the Paterson-Schwartz administration. Not allowing the Commissioner even to see the Governor is a cowardly flight from responsibility. Both the Governor and Schwartz should be ashamed of themselves, if they are capable of such a feeling.

It is sad to see an administration that began in hope dissolve in scandal. Now it has happened for the second time in four years.

Seventy-one days remain for this troubled executive chamber. They cannot pass soon enough.

Shameful, Not Criminal

Judge Kaye Flays Gov. Paterson

But Finds No Crime Committed



The domestic violence scandal that enveloped the Paterson administration last February, and led to his withdrawal from the race for a new term, has turned a corner with the release of a 57-page report from former Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye excoriating Governor Paterson for his intrusion into the case and his disingenuous testimony. Judge Kaye also found fault with the Governor and his lawyers' failure to co-operate with the probe as they had promised.

Nonetheless, the report concludes that the Governor's conduct does not warrant criminal prosecution, and with that conclusion we agree. The governor paid a political price for what he did: the destruction of his candidacy. Of course, to most of us, his candidacy was delusional anyway in the face of a challenge by State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. The Governor may have saved himself a lot of money and effort by his early (February 26) departure from the race.

Of course, the Governor's actions could be considered as crimes; obstruction of justice, witness tampering, perjury, solicitation, coercion, misuse of state resources and police, breach of his obligation to provide "honest services" to the people of the state. One could go on listing errors of judgment which could be considered crossing the line into criminal behavior.

On the other hand, Paterson did not succeed in coercing anyone, except for the fact that the witness did not show up in court the next day and the charges were consequently dropped. She has recently renewed her complaint, taking the matter to the Bronx County District Attorney, who has jurisdiction. Perhaps the fresh activity is the result of failure to keep promises which may have been made, but a criminal indictment cannot result from such speculation. The Governor did try to persuade the witness not to say anything bad about him, but there is no accusation either of threatening the witness or offering a specific inducement for her not to testify.

The Kaye report also faulted the Executive Chamber for failure to co-operate fully although they had made a public commitment to do so. One example is the considerable delay in the production of documents, which was attributed to work on the state budget, which by now is 120 days late.

What the report basically consists of is a specific public exposition of the entire dreary affair. The decision not to press criminal charges is a matter of judgment. One of the wisest things a prosecutor can do is know when not to prosecute a case even though the defendant's conduct may be less than exemplary.

The matters not adjudicated - the World Series tickets and the Aqueduct racino - are potentially more serious. We can assume that Paterson was mistaken in his account of the tickets, and did not intend to pay for them unless he had to.

But the billion-dollar Yankees should have had the good grace to invite the Governor and his young son to be their guests at the opening game of the World Series, rather than to have him scramble for admission. If a team charges enough, cadging a ticket to the game could be called grand larceny. The following quatrain, whose author is anonymous, dates back three centuries. It may have some relevance to the issue of ticket pricing.

"The law doth punish man or woman
That steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose
That steals the common from the goose."

As to the Aqueduct racino, that too was not within Judge Kaye's scope of work.

It is the most serious of the three integrity issues, and the main reason that it may not be a crime is because the transaction was not consummated.

There are numerous reasons to object to the plan, among the most sensible is that it is an enormous waste of 192 acres of urban land. Donald Trump once put up a sign on West End Avenue at 61st Street, in front of property he owned at the time. It read: "Respect this land. They're not making any more of it."

The racino scheme deserves an article of its own, which it will receive. Suffice it to say at this time that this is one case in which the ends and the means are equally indefensible, and regardless of who ends up with the contract, the plan itself is for what we believe is an unworthy purpose, and is highly unlikely to bring any significant benefits to the surrounding community, as we should have learned from the example of Atlantic City.

Judge Kaye took over fifty pages to describe a pattern of lies and evasions in an attempt to cover up David Johnson's violent assault on Sherr-una Booker. Anyone who believes she made up the allegations should proceed directly to the Brooklyn Bridge, where a nice man is waiting to sell it to you.

The governor's motive in all this was to try to save his main man. He had previously suffered the loss of former Rev. Charles O'Byrne, who had neglected to file income tax returns for five years. Father O'Byrne, an intelligent and decent man, escaped a prison term but was required to leave the governor's service. He had a different variety of ill luck with regard to David W. (D.J.) Johnson, his body man who advanced in influence over the years.

It would not be in the interest of the state or its people to subject its outgoing governor to a sensational show trial. A similar wise decision was made in the case of Paterson's predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, who could have been tried but was not.

It is a wise district attorney or attorney general who knows when to prosecute and when to leave a case alone. Andrew Cuomo showed wisdom in recusing himself and appointing Chief Judge Kaye, and the judge played a constructive role by demonstrating the governor's misdeeds and then letting him off the hook.

The show is not over. It is now up to District Attorney Robert Johnson of the Bronx to decide whether to prosecute David Johnson for his alleged assault on Sherr-una Booker. If he does, we will follow the trial. We would expect a plea bargain, but sometimes things just don't work out, as in the relationship between Johnson and Booker. One cannot blame Ms. Booker for involving the Governor in this mess; it was his minions, and then himself, who called her with encouragement.

CORRECTIONS

As a number of our readers pointed out, there was a typographical error in our article, "Albany Mulls Sale of Wine…" The first sentence in the sixth paragraph shoud have read: "This issue is clearly presented in Governor Paterson's proposal to allow the sale of wine in supermarkets, on payment of a licensing fee to the state." We erroneously typed 'liquor stores' instead of 'supermarkets.' Of course, wine is already sold in liquor stores. We thank Allen Bortnick, Joe Jansen, Arthur Engoron, Ed Silberfarb, Jonathan Piel, Mary Ann Jones, Jeffrey Sussman, Bill Foote, Ernest Rubenstein, and Kenneth Adams, who called or emailed us to bring our attention to the slip of the pen (or the fingers).

Also in yesterday's article, we erroneously reported that Trader Joe's sells wine in its New York stores. That was based on eyeballing their 14th Street store, which appeared to sell wine. In fact, like any other supermarket or grocery store in New York State, Trader Joe's is not allowed to sell wine in its stores. In 2006, however, Trader Joe's was granted a liquor license for a separate wine store (138 East 14th Street) immediately adjacent to its then-newly opened Union Square location (142 East 14th Street). Since current state law only permits one liquor license per owner, corporate or individual, Trader Joe's has been unable to replicate this scheme at its 12 other stores in New York State. Thanks to Adam Greene, Mary Ann Jones, Roger Herz, Teresa Hommel, Jim Grossman, and Judy Bliss for pointing out our mistake.

The Lion and the Fox

Cuomo Selects Duffy,

Rochester Career Cop,

Twice Elected Mayor,

As His Running Mate

Day 58 - without a budget

Readers of this blog know that for the last several years, our reports on New York State government, particularly its legislature, have conveyed a pathetic picture. Some legislators are now convicted criminals, another is being sued by the Attorney General, some are under investigation, and it would be no surprise if other miscreants are found who have so far escaped the attention of law enforcement authorities.

We have repeatedly stressed the need for a stringent code of ethics, stricter regulation and full disclosure of outside employment, an independent redistricting commission and fiscal responsibility, starting with a balanced state budget. We have not seen progress in any of these areas.

A mild ethics bill, which would have been a starter for reform, was passed by both houses but vetoed by Governor Paterson on February 2, ostensibly on the ground that it was not strong enough. Since the bill had passed by overwhelming margins, it was assumed that the veto would be overridden. However, the Senate Republicans, who had voted for the bill, chose to sustain the veto, so now there is no ethics bill, but everyone can claim that they voted for it. To us, this is classic Albany hypocrisy.

That is why it was such a pleasant surprise to hear Andrew Cuomo's remarks to the convention accepting its nomination. You can link to them here.

He came out for every reform we have advocated, denounced the legislature as having lost the people's confidence, and demanded fiscal responsibility without imposing additional taxes. Signs posted at the convention announced the "New Democratic Party". It is clear that Andrew Cuomo is running against the Spitzer-Paterson years as well as the legislature.

His partner in this undertaking will be Mayor Robert Duffy of Rochester. Cuomo's selection of Duffy as his running mate for lieutenant governor has met with general approval. On the basis of press reports and a Google search, Duffy appears to be highly regarded. A career police officer, he rose through the ranks to become chief of police in 1998, a position he resigned in 2005 to run for mayor. He received 72% of the vote that year and was unopposed for re-election in 2009.

Duffy has a reputation as a strong leader, unafraid to take on public employee unions. He sold the money-losing fast ferry service across Lake Ontario to Rochester for $30 million. He is now engaged in a struggle with the United Federation of Teachers with regard to his effort to take over the public school system, similar to the fight that Mayor Bloomberg successfully waged in New York City.

Introducing himself at the State convention on Thursday, Duffy affirmed his commitment to Cuomos reform goals and asserted that he was ready to fight. I relish the opportunity to take on the challenges facing our state, said Duffy. You can watch Duffy's speech here.

The question we ask ourselves is: Is this too good to be true? Is it possible to have a reform-minded governor who is also of sound mind and has shrewd political instincts? We are reminded of the concept of 'The lion and the fox.' This was the title of a biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt by James McGregor Burns published in 1956. Professor Burns's source was the Florentine philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), who wrote, in The Prince,

"A prince must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves."

Andrew Cuomo has roared like a lion, and raised the hopes of New Yorkers, many of whom as opinion polls show, hold their government in contempt. But in Albany, he will be dealing with a skulk of foxes, and he will have to protect himself and his program from the bites and snares of those who are responsive to nurturing lobbyists, obedient to legislative leaders, and desirous of remaining in their gerrymandered districts.

Cuomo's commitments fall into two categories: those that are cost-free and those that are expensive. Reform of the ethics rules and an independent redistricting commission would be difficult to obtain, but they have trifling economic impact. When one tries to balance the budget without imposing new taxes, and place a cap on increases in local property taxes, that leaves a gap in revenue on both the state and local levels. A freeze on state spending, desirable as it would be, will not close that gap.

New York State has been spending more than it has taken in for years, and while the cumulative deficits have been concealed by one-shot revenues, the alteration of payment schedules, and other bookkeeping devices, the day of reckoning is not only at hand but past due.

The candidate has not yet told us what he would cut, but there is a Willie Sutton (not to be confused with Willie Horton) answer. When asked why he robbed banks, Sutton is supposed to have said that he did so because that was where the money was. The big money in the state budget is in Medicaid and education. If there are major cuts, these areas will be impacted.

The Medicaid program is known to have been exploited by substantial fraud and waste. The difficulty, of course, is finding out just where the fraud and waste is, and being able to prove it. That requires vigorous enforcement, and more serious penalties, including prison, for those caught cheating.

In education, we know that some teachers are very good and others are bad. The problem is that it is very difficult to treat teachers differently based on their competence. Also, ability and interest change over the years, sometimes for the worse. This is not to say that teachers, in general, are responsible for students' learning difficulties. We remember from our childhood those teachers who were helpful, kindly, and, in some cases, inspiring. But one should be able to get rid of the bad ones without years of litigation.

Even if every bad teacher retired today, however, there would still be resource issues, questions of class size and costly special education mandates. Hard choices will have to be made between competing needs.

A governor who commands respect, who makes first-class appointments, who decides issues justly and wisely, who is judicious in his public statements, and who maintains a high standard of personal conduct, will have much more influence and gravitas than one whose behavior can be faulted, who is vulgar or crude in speech or manner, whose remarks are intemperate or inappropriate, and whose appointments smack of favoritism, nepotism or cronyism.

We had high hopes four years ago for Eliot Spitzer. We were disappointed. Our hopes for David Paterson were more modest, but they were also unfulfilled. The Pataki Administration pitched three balls. Spitzer & Co. struck out twice. Andrew Cuomo is now at the plate. When he tries to do the right thing, he will find enemies on and off the field.

We do not know how the contest will end, but we do know that, this time at least, the forces of reform are at bat. Armed with knowledge of the failures of the past, they go forth to battle for the future.

The Book of Andrew

Cuomo's Plan for New York:

Restore Trust, Accountability

Our article Friday evening predicted some reform positions Andrew Cuomo was likely to take when he announced his candidacy for governor.

We were pleased and surprised Sunday to read of his support for the entire reform agenda, and his intention to ask candidates for the legislature to commit themselves to his proposals. It is more productive to seek promises from candidates than from incumbents.

The idea of starting a campaign with a 224-page book of proposals is both novel and striking. It lays out an agenda for action in many areas which is unprecedented. It dwarfs the research efforts of other candidates. It shows that his people are familiar with, and have proposals to deal with, long-standing issues.

To those of us who follow state politics, the news appears too good to be true. But only time will tell how much impact a strong governor will have on the dysfunctional legislature. Our high hopes four years ago at the inauguration of Eliot Spitzer were dashed by the convergence of Spitzer's arrogance, intransigence and vulgarity.

David Paterson was overwhelmed both by his own errors and indecision, and by defenders of the status quo who did not share his goals. Cuomo, if he is elected, will be the third governor in a row to attempt to govern in fact as well as under the law. The first two sadly failed.

We will watch and wait. The hopes of civic organizations, reformers and good government groups ride with candidate Cuomo and his promises. Some of his proposals can be implemented directly by the governor. Others require legislative approval. We believe that Cuomo means what he says. We hope that he has the strength and courage to carry out the reform program he is supporting.

There is substance as well in his plans; no new taxes, a freeze on state employees' salaries, fiscal responsibility, consolidation of agencies and downsizing of government. One practice that should end is the imposition of unfunded legislative mandates on cities and counties. Another is the adoption of pension sweeteners by the legislature after unions have bargained collectively and reached agreements with local governments.

New York State was once a leader in government. Laws first passed here were adopted in other states. We were a national model. In the last decade, however, state government has fallen into disrepute. The culture in Albany today is one of favoritism and greed. The legislature has been accurately described as the most dysfunctional in the United States. The Senate is a house of anarchy and the Assembly a house of tyranny, although its members voluntarily submit.

2010 offers an opportunity for change. We cannot wait until January 2011 for "Day One. Everything Changes." We must think of Day One as May 22, the day the Cuomo crusade was launched.? We will get a sense how much he can accomplish even before the election.

The first major decision will be the choice of a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. We do not believe a background in politics should be a prerequisite for this position. Neither should it be a disqualification. The choice should not be made primarily on the basis of gender, ethnicity or geography, although those factors should not be ignored. One factor which was not apparently considered in 2006 was the ability of the candidate to govern, in the event his/her services in that role should be required.

In the recent past, governors have not had much luck in filing this position on the ballot. One lieutenant governor, Al DelBello resigned in the middle of his term because he felt he had nothing to do.? Two others, Mary Anne Krupsak and Betsy McCaughey (Ross) became alienated from their governors and ran against them.? Both women lost.

For this year, Cuomo may be seeking a different kind of nominee.? If he does so, it would be wise.

Ken Lovett of the Daily News reported Sunday: "A source close to Cuomo seemed to send [a] signal last week when he [said], 'This will not be a political pick.? It's about whether this person has competence and integrity and whether he or she is ready to be governor if something should happen.'"

If Lovett's source is correct, that would be good news.? It would also set a precedent in the selection of a lieutenant governor.? By the time you read this, the choice will be made and may have become public.? It will be the first test of Andrew Cuomo's judgment and the qualities he values.?? All New Yorkers should join us in hoping for the best.

THE UPRISING CONTINUES

On a parallel track of seeking pledges of support, Sam Roberts reported in today's Times on the activities of New York Uprising: GROUP FOR IMPROVING ALBANY SENDS PLEDGES TO CANDIDATES.? His lede: ?

"A civic coalition seeking to improve how Albany governs is asking incumbents and candidates for state office this year to pledge publicly to back strict fiscal controls on state spending, stronger ethics and financial disclosure regulations, and a nonpartisan system for drawing legislative and Congressional districts.

"The coalition, called New York Uprising, will not formally endorse candidates, but will publicly recognize those who signed with 'a sign of approval'?

"Former Mayor Edward I. Koch, who was instrumental in creating the coalition, said he believed those who signed would honor their commitment. If they renege, Mr. Koch said, 'we will be hounding them.'"

StarQuest #672 05.24.2010 897wds