News Copy, New York

Back To Basics: Pataki Tells Iowa How

New York State Governor George E. Pataki should focus on his own state before he tries to save the Republican Party throughout the United States.

"There will be a lot of change between now and November," Pataki said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I understand that it will be a tough year, but we have to get back to focusing on what Republicans stand for."

Yahoo, Newsvine and Long Island's Newsday all picked up this Associated Press story.

As he courted local activists, Pataki sought to counter what many see as his biggest weakness — the perception that he's a northeastern moderate in a state where the Republican Party is distinctly conservative.

He's a liberal Republican.  Worse, he's full of fear and self-loathing.

... And people wonder why I public criticize this man's politics.

What do the Republicans in New York State really stand for?

Also, someone explain to me why an unsuccessful liberal governor in an economically flailing state can get more of a national sound-byte -- on conservative politics -- than a conservative Republican running against U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton.

This is where the state and federal lines blur in terms of my own blogging, to be frank.  I have better things to do than learn about Pataki's idealism and it would be nice, for a change, if I could read about him highlighting a fellow Republican in his own state.

This is George Pataki as he is highlighted on the 2008 Presidential Wire.

Pataki never goes after Hillary Clinton.  He never has anything to say about statewide candidates in his state.  He never mentions John Faso or Jeanine Pirro or any other statewide candidate in his own Republican Party.

How about helping Chris Callaghan against Alan Hevesi or -- dare I say it -- John Spencer against Hillary Clinton?

Pataki's real functional problem is that he too often runs alone, rarely carrying a ticket and has spent most of his three terms as governor putting forth an almost non-partisan or liberal Republican image. 

Many other presidential aspirants, including Senator Hillary Clinton, are covered on a daily basis by the same 2008 Presidential Wire.

Last time I looked, New York was still in the country.

This is as much about state pride as it is about politics.

Faso Faults Eliot's Sense of Entitlement

How many different ways does Eliot Spitzer have to waltz around and remind New York that he is the next inhabitant of the Executive Chamber?

As much as another comeback by John Faso would be the stuff of legend, there is a part of me that almost wishes Eliot Spitzer wins -- so that he gets left holding the bag.  Governor Eliot Spitzer will either behave like a reform Democrat or destroy New York State.  The political gun is to his head.  The reality is that John Faso is more qualified and experienced to handle that challenge.  The problem is that most New Yorkers don't care or don't know or have lost that will to politically fight.

Some New Yorkers even want things to remain the same.  It's a mental game of leveraging public funds off what -- in their heads -- they believe are the merits of liberalism.  With a hefty bulk of New York's voters not owning property, particularly those residing in New York City (or those in the five boroughs enjoying the flow of money from Albany), there is no care in the world about the middle-class homeowners paying portions of the urbanite's bills.

Until property owners rise up and revolt, nothing changes.

Glenn Blain of The Journal News had this story yesterday on John Faso's perspective of the entitled Eliot.

"There is an incredible arrogance about Spitzer that he is not going to tell people where he stands on issues until after he is elected," Faso said during an interview last week with The Journal News.

"There's no coronation in America," Faso continued a few moments later. "And there shouldn't be. And it doesn't matter if you are the silver-spoon attorney general. It matters where you stand on the issues, and you owe it to the people to tell them where you stand."

Spitzer won't tell you.

Spitzer's ascendancy depends on a political con-game and a bargain with urban liberals -- who will naturally expect more money from Albany.  The problem is that the fiscal well has run dry and the State's sharks can't keep inflating the State Budget like a pyramid scheme.

So Faso's public questions aren't political.

New York does need to know how Eliot Spitzer intends to re-make New York State.

"We have been dealing with substantive issues for the many months I have been running," Spitzer said. "Trust me, there is no entitlement. There is only one word in my lexicon. I work for everything that I seek. I worked incredibly hard to be elected attorney general. For eight years, I've worked incredibly hard as attorney general."

How will Eliot Spitzer handle Sheldon Silver?

How will Eliot Spitzer handle the unions?

Working hard is not enough.  Spitzer is full of ambition but the roads lead him to confrontations with his own party.  Never has a Democrat had such an easy road to the Executive Chamber and so much silence on the future.  He can work hard, spin well but selling himself as the next governor also means working smart.

It means working smart enough to get rid of Pataki's Republican establishment, changing State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno's existing establishment and more importantly changing/reforming/exorcising the State Assembly of Sheldon Silver.

Does this election become a battle between liberal renters and conservative property owners?

Or is that too petty or narrow an example to throw out as a potential benchmark?

Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, said Faso's strategy was understandable, given Spitzer's huge lead in the polls and the public's relatively positive perception of him.

"Faso needs to find a way to get people to think differently about Spitzer than they already do," Miringoff said.

Miringoff said Faso faces an uphill battle because most New Yorkers don't pay close attention to politics in the summer, and a lack of money limits his ability to spread his message. Faso, according to his most recent financial statement, had only $1.4 million on hand to spend, compared with $16.3 million for Spitzer.

The school tax bill is coming in a few weeks and many homeowners have paid a chunk of the property tax in recent weeks with the mortgage.

The polls are all against John Faso but the sentiments of a lot of sore taxpayers aren't.

The only question is whether or not Faso can find the media vehicle to remind people that a happy socialist who was raised among renters -- with a family fortune made on property in New York City -- has designs on keeping Albany humming like business as usual.

If Faso is serious about this line in the sand, he must take the fight to Spitzer and challenge those liberal sensibilities to find out whether or not Eliot Spitzer is going to be a true new Democrat or a vague fascimile.

GOP Donors Fall Short For Faso

Don't blame John Faso.

He has raised $1.5 million over the past six months.  He has $1.4 million on hand.  He's up against the ongoing malaise of the Republican Party, the sour grapes of Manhattan liberals and George Pataki's paid fundraising army soaking up every available penny from GOP donors.

If you believe John Faso has it bad, consider how the Sunday The New York Times tore apart U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole over her diminished fundraising for the Republican Senate Campaign Committee.

No mention of New York's U.S. Senate race in this article -- but that's spin by omission.  It doesn't help federal races but my point in this specific instance is that such an article doesn't help John Faso or any other Republican either.  Collectively, Republican fundraising is taking a hard hit.

Don't blame John Faso for Republican woes that existed on multiple political levels long before he ever ran for any elected office.  This drought has been with the GOP in one form or another since the late 1980s. 

This New York Times story was picked up by multiple news outlets -- and only serves to feed the current lethargy within the Republican Party (and help other state and federal candidates).

Could it just be that New Yorkers prefer giving more money to Democrats?

Eliot Spitzer's $11 million makes the mountain Republicans have to climb seem extremely daunting.  Tom Suozzi raised $4 million.

It's as bad nationally.

Nationally, Democrats have $37.7 million on hand.  Republicans have $19.9 million.

What are Republicans doing wrong?

Albany Times Union headline: Lack of Faso donors worries GOP

Manhattan's Republican leader, New York County GOP chairman James Ortenzio, told The New York Observer's blog, The Politicker, that Republican leaders should put up for John Faso or shut up.

"They're the ones who said last September that a primary would vitiate our resources," he said, referring to the Faso supporters. "That presupposes that there are resources. Let's see them."

Of course, Ortenzio's own gang of donors could be kinder to Mr. Faso.  Ortenzio's rant sounds more like sour grapes that two-thirds of the State GOP didn't support his horse in the race, William Weld.

"I don't think his filing was particularly healthy. I don't hear of too many events coming up in the future. I don't hear too many statements of support - and he has some major counties supporting him. So what are the Republicans doing for John Faso?"

What are Manhattan Republicans doing for John Faso?

Maybe Ortenzio could put up more dollars out of Manhattan for John Faso?

Robert Hornak of Urban Elephants had these perspectives in Ortenzio's comments.

"... It sounds to me more like he is admonishing the county chairs who backed Faso for not supporting their guy more than he is actually supporting Faso.

And, he's certainly not calling on republicans around the state to support Faso, but rather for those people who pushed for him at the convention, at Weld's expense, to take responsiility for their guy.

Clearly, even those closest to Faso see this race for what it is and don't want to waste resources that can be better used elsewhere."

Meanhile, it does look dire for John Faso in terms of donations.

Yancey Roy out of Gannett's Albany Bureau had the following in The Journal News on Faso's fundraising.

Vincent Reda, a vice chairman on the Republican State Committee, wasn't hitting the panic button.

"We haven't scratched the surface yet" for tapping donors for Faso and that "I'm in no way ready to run up a white flag." But asked if it's been tough to raise money, he acknowledged: "I can't say it's not."

Reda added: "We know some of the major contributors here have sent their money to Eliot Spitzer, which is disappointing."

Major contributors have sent their money to John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.  Many other donors are being pursued by George Pataki.

Wouldn't it be nice if Governor George E. Pataki could just turn to John Faso and say... "My donors are your donors."

Dream on.

Pirro/Mahoney: What Is She Doing?

I had previously expressed my disappointment in Jeanine Pirro not finding a nice thing to say about John Faso.

Now she's comparing herself to Eliot Spitzer?

If Kieran Mahoney thinks this Pataki-lite fawning of Democrats will score his candidates more points in New York State, maybe he should change his registration too.

Urban Elephants noted the following comment in Pirro's first TV ad:

"Like Eliot Spitzer, I'm an experienced prosecutor."

It's clear that Pirro is being positioned to run with Eliot Spitzer and not with her Republican ballot mates.

It's roused a backlash on that partisan blog:

"It looks like a slight to me, Scott. Good lord, what is her campaign thinking? Are they suggesting that Spitzer has credibility BECAUSE he's an "experienced prosecutor"? Why even go down that road?"

---

"It's a sign of her desperation, or of extremely poor advice from her consultants, that she's hitching her political fortunes to Spitzer.  She's broken ranks with the GOP ticket, and John Faso is unlikely to forgive the slight."

John Faso was first slighted by Pirro a little over a month ago during a television interview.

Pirro has no campaign manager.

She has what at least one trusted source close to Pirro described as "obligations" to Governor George E. Pataki, perhaps explaining Kieran Mahoney's continued linkage to her campaign.

My own personal perspective is that Jeanine Pirro remains extremely unhappy with whatever arrangement had been worked out with the governor.

Does she owe money?

Is this some type of wicked quid pro quo or a form of executive extortion by the governor's office?

Sadly, tragically (though some would add "fittingly"), Pirro seems trapped by the same political devices that ascended her so high...

In my opinion, Mahoney's influence borders on the unethical and Pataki's role in this "control freak" game borders on being corrupt.

Ever since a source close to Jeanine Pirro told me that Kieran Mahoney and Mercury Public Affairs were still tapping phones, I have to wonder if an evil game was being played out here.  It's certainly no longer a logical game.  Pirro can win this race but it seems as though her handlers have indeed thrown John Faso under a bus.  There is no loyalty here, only treason.

How much worse can it all get?

Rather than going after Andrew Cuomo's ties to SEIU 1199, Pirro's campaign seems more consumed with duplicating the lackluster prosecutorial stance on Medicaid maintained by Eliot Spitzer.  It smells of a political "fix" between Democrats and Republicans to protect those making millions off New York State's healthcare schemes.

When Pirro disengaged herself from Faso a month ago, the Republican and Conservative nominee for governor was silent.

Will he remain silent now?

Fred Dicker of The New York Post noted this morning how Pirro is going after Andrew Cuomo.

...Like Eliot Spitzer.

Pataki Pension Veto For Naught?

A pension measure that passed 138-6 in the Assembly and 61-0 in the Senate isn't being stopped by a governor's veto anytime -- and George Pataki knows this.

So the governor's veto of a union-friendly pension sweetner is political lip service -- and just another campaign ad for 2008.

The Albany Times Union reported Pataki's budget office estimating the bill could cost the state and local governments $195 million over the next 17 years, including $19 million in fiscal year 2007-08.

"At a time when New Yorkers continue to bear the tax burden associated with ever-increasing pension costs, I am unwilling to approve this costly new benefit," Pataki said in his veto message.

He was willing for nearly a dozen years to allow the political climate in Albany festering such pension inflation.

His vote will be overridden.  He knows it will be overridden.  The State Legislature can override his veto with two-thirds vote in both houses.  It makes for a great press by Governor Pataki but it's a political lie.

The Albany Times Union noted that the measure, known as the 55/25 bill, will temporarily allowed some state workers who are 55 to retire if they've put in 25 years of service. Full benefits are presently available only to those with 30 years of service.

Newspapers wrote about Pataki's veto as if he had stopped the unions at the gate.

The Buffalo News:

Gov. George E. Pataki, citing costs and other concerns, vetoed Wednesday a retirement incentive bill for government employees that several unions backed.

Who are we fooling here?  Pataki spent twelve years feeding on union support.

The governor added that the bill would create an unprecedented, multiyear retirement benefit, instead of the typical offer made during a single year to push more workers into retirement. Such an arrangement could create the setting for the retirement incentive to be considered a permanent benefit, the costs of which - at $150 million annually just for the state - "would be staggering," Pataki said.

The time to stop this bill was before it had been brought to the floor by Joe Bruno's State Senate.

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle:

Gov. George Pataki vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have allowed teachers and other government workers with 25 years of experience to retire at 55 with the benefits now available at age 62.

Both Democrats and Republicans sounded unhappy with Pataki's veto.  Republicans crave the labor vote.  Democrats wouldn't dare turn down labor.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Joseph Robach, R-Greece, who didn't return a phone call seeking comment. It was not clear Wednesday whether lawmakers would try to override the veto.

"We are disappointed in the governor's action," said Charles Carrier, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan. "The speaker will be discussing possible legislative action with members."

The Senate "will try to work something out and get something done," said John McArdle, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, Rensselaer County.

Will there be an attempt to override this veto -- or did every lawmaker in New York State just dive for cover when reporters called?

If Pataki has a way to politically neutralize the State Legislature, he can play the hero.

The New York Times shared speculation about what might have actually transpired here.

The governor’s own proposal, which did not survive budget negotiations, was more restrictive, but was criticized for being tailored to benefit Mr. Pataki’s appointees, though a spokesman for the governor called that criticism “ridiculous.’’

Pataki had plenty of time to keep his "A-Team" employed with well-paying appointments throughout the already debt-ridden public authorities, the type of hires that could stay in positions three to five years beyond Pataki's departure from Albany.

Pataki's priorities, if he has any priorities, border between being sleepy and distracted.

The New York Post took aim at New York's Absent (-Minded) Governor -- this over another public authorities debacle surrounding the Javits Center.

2007/2008 Fiscal Failures; Republicans Fault Already

E.J. McMahon writes today in The New York Post that "the days of wine and roses" should be over -- but they're not.

Democrats will win this "spin" war of words as Pataki's fault.  As much as significant blame can be placed at the feet of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Democrats in the State Assembly, the liberals in coming years will be correct in blaming Republicans.

It's a legacy every Republican could be carrying for a generation.

The remarkable surge in state spending of the past few years is clearly unsustainable in the long run. It's only been made possible by three factors:

* The Bush tax cuts, which pumped at least $40 billion into New York's economy over the last three years.

* Wall Street's resurgence - encouraged in part by those same federal tax cuts.

* The real-estate boom - fed by a combination of both preceding factors, plus low interest rates.

McMahon noted that there is some tax "relief" in the budget - in the form of property-tax rebates, child credits and other "targeted" tax handouts -- that has already been spent four times over.

"Out of all that new money they had available, legislators opted to spend $4 for every dollar returned to New Yorkers in tax relief. The lion's share of the new spending will be sucked up by New York's already well-funded education sector, including $1.8 billion for various forms of school aid, another $1.8 billion for state-bonded school construction in New York City and $1.2 billion for colleges and universities. Added wages and benefits for state workers, including retroactive contract awards, will cost $750 million. Spending on Medicaid will be up $1.5 billion (nearly half of which reflects the cost of capping Medicaid outlays paid by counties and New York City)."

He noted that there is nothing in this year's budget to boost business or create jobs.

Pataki, Bruno, Silver and most lawmakers gave the story away to the unions.  Between Medicaid spending and various healthcare costs, Eliot Spitzer will look like a fiscal conservative fending off the debts of the prior Republican administration.

"Off-budget" spending is approaching $80 million in 2006.

Taxes, fees and borrowing is up 40 percent in the four years of Pataki's final term.

"The 2006-07 state-funds growth rate of 15 percent will be larger than any comparable spending hike adopted under Mario Cuomo. And the budget is on track to grow by at least 10 percent more in the first two years of the next governor's term."

Worse than Cuomo.

That's Pataki's legacy.

It's certainly not going to be the Democrats' legacy, not as long as Joe Bruno's State Senate Majority keep spending like "drunken sailors."

More Spin: Eliot's Been A Bad Boy

I was reading through some of the commentary on various news blogs about Eliot Spitzer's limited comments on next year's negotiating with unions or union-related legislation.

He can't tell us.

Who says this man has a choice?

He's running for governor.  Is he going to spend the next four months deferring to silence each time an issue is to hot to handle?

---

Memo to Eliot:

The working press in Albany has been suffering with a semi-comatose governor for a dozen years who defers to silence ALL THE TIME -- only to then face Tom Doherty shaking them down all day (image of reporters holding the phone an arm's distance from the ear).

Prior to coma-governor's election in 1994, the working press was subjected to an eloquent governor with the flippant tendency to dismiss reporters in mid-interview if he didn't like what they were asking -- and banish them to months of silence.

Unless you want to be reduced to bobblehead status with Joe Bruno, you better start answering the fourth estate's questions.  After Cuomo and Pataki, count on the scribes taking no prisoners with the Executive Chamber.

---

It was obvious to me reading Mike Gormley's take on Eliot's avoidance of the subject in his Associated Press story that Spitzer assumes that the working press is going to be gentle with him.

Eliot can't be everything to everyone.

After reading the rest of New York's state press corps, at least from what they shared on their newspaper's blogs, Spitzer fooled no one.

Yancey Roy of Gannett posted on The Journal News blog, Politics on the Hudson, cut to the chase -- and it sounded to me as if Spitzer won't be friendly to labor next year.

The Democrat opposed the so-called "Wal Mart'' bill, which would have forced large employers to provide a minimum insurance coverage. He also opposed a measure to allow certain day-care workers to unionize and become part of the state workforce.

He said workers'-compensation laws should be restructured but he wouldn't say whether he favors a proposal to end a provision that allows workers who are partially disabled on the job to receive payments forever. He said partial disability would "be a key issue.''

Finally, Spitzer said he needed to study a controversial bill that would grant public-employee unions a 1 percent raise if, during contract negotiations, a government agency was found to have bargained in bad faith.

Spitzer always needs to study.  I bet he likes filing long reports too.

More spin, paper pushing and delaying the inevitable.

When John Faso is finished with Eliot Spitzer, this Democrat ain't getting his landslide, and Mr. Faso is a tenacious type.  He has nothing to lose, chipping away every single day at Spitzer's shell like a woodpecker.

Suozzi's younger but more like a young thoroughbred who will stay right behind the frontrunner every percentage point of the way.

Please don't assume this race is over.

Unions will still endorse him because they believe he will be governor, not due to any ideological commitment, but Eliot Spitzer won't be getting a free ride from anyone.

The honeymoon is over but he's still talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Politically speaking, Governor Eliot Spitzer will cave in to unions and give them everything they want to get himself re-elected in 2010.

The serious question is whether or not the news media will un-mask this pretender in time for Election Day.

Doubtful, since this is New York, but I like underdogs.

The Albany Times Union noted that Spitzer today "engaged in a bout of dodging and weaving" when it came to answering questions about a host of organized labor-related issues.

"Spitzer’s non-answers (oddly reminiscent of responses often offered by the incumbent governor) clearly annoyed some of the press corps."

You know things are bad when Spitzer is compared to Pataki.

Buffalo News reporter Tom Precious: “Eliot, are you saying you don’t know if the Wicks Law should be changed?”

Spitzer: “No. I said I wouldn’t tell you…I can’t tell you that.”

And then he offered this nonexplanation:

“There are decisions that you make about policy shifts that do not and should not be announced immediately because it will have an impact upon the ability to effectuate policy shifts that you need.

There is a degree to which you decide in a strategic sense where you want to end up, how you’re going to get there, when you articulate with greater precision or lesser precision precisely what the policy should be…

There has been, throughout my campaign, no shortage of specificity across the board on the range of issues that we need to deal with, and there will be no lack of specificity at the right moment on every one of these issues.”

What can't he share with the working press, secret plans to re-locate the State Capitol to Milan, New York?

Spitzer's talking as if he is secret agent man, covertly unable to discuss his future plans as governor, since the fate of the planet might be at stake.

"The only bills Spitzer was willing to say with alacrity that he opposed were two measures backed by the union-backed Working Families Party (which has endorsed him for governor) and other labor leaders."

Alacrity.

I had to look that up.

1. Cheerful willingness; eagerness.
2. Speed or quickness; celerity.

The AP reported Spitzer comparing Albany's present stagnation to World War 1.

"I often feel the state government is a World War I battlefield," Spitzer told a chamber of commerce meeting in suburban Albany. "We have dug trenches. We shoot at each other across the battlefield. There's carnage in the middle. And the trenches move 1 or 2 feet and people declare victory."

He digs his own trenches and allies with enough Democrats who have caused their own carnage.

Ben Smith of The Daily Politics noted that Spitzer's campaign is planning an ad campaignm in New York City that portrays a happier and more people-populated New York State.

"Also, worth noting that -- after starting off upstate and down with a Fargo-like landscape of abandoned farms -- they're deferring to conventional wisdom. The ads running in the city are about issues people in the city can identify with."

Trenches and carnage.

No.  Spitzer will lie to the more liberal voters downstate and tell them that everything is okay, that liberal Democrats are G-O-O-D and conservative Republicans are B-A-D.

No stark ads of Brooklyn-based dentists bilking Medicaid of thousands by fudging the number of patients and over-billing.

That would be too honest.

Meanwhile, Spitzer does have a primary against Tom Suozzi and Errol A. Cockfield, Jr. of Newsday's "Spin Cycle" noted that Eliot might turn out to be a tad conflicted.

Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi has been prone to his tantrums about Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Eliot Spitzer, but Suozzi has posed a good question about how independent Spitzer might be as governor if he is raking in so many endorsements from special interests.

Suozzi is no slouch in this area, but today was a good example of how beholden Spitzer may be to unions who are against some of the labor law reforms Spitzer says he will advance (though he has been relatively quiet on this) to reduce the fat state budget.

Of course, there is a quid pro quo.

The attorney general received the backing of the 2½ million-member New York State AFL-CIO. After the Albany press conference, union president Denis Hughes said AFL-CIO would kickoff distribution of half a million pieces of pro-Spitzer literature to locations where union members work.

All this good PR for nothing?

Spitzer said he’s not afraid to differ with unions that have supported him. “It’s not a prerequisite for being close friends and allies that we agree on every issue."

Then don't accept any help on your campaign from these unions, particularly the teachers union (who have some conflicts of their own).

On Spitzer's ridiculous silence on certain issues, Danny Hakim of The New York Times blog, The Empire Zone, parodied the Attorney General's zipped lips with a post entitled "Code Name Delta."

"Political candidates generally wait until after elections to duck questions, but if you’re up 40-plus points in the polls, like Eliot Spitzer, why wait?"

Eliot Spitzer is already acting like an incumbent.

Asked if Governor Pataki had cut the public payroll by too much, Mr. Spitzer said, “I’m not going to weigh in on that at this moment.”

Fred Dicker of the New York Post pressed further, more than once, but Mr. Spitzer held his ground. “I said I wouldn’t tell you. I know, Fred, you like to think that everything I’ve concluded I’ll tell you, but there’s still a little delta* there.”

Huh?

Danny Hakim of The Times translated what a "little delta" is.

*Students of the Spitzer lexicon know that delta does not refer to the airline. As The Wall Street Journal’s online glossary puts it, delta is “a measure of the relationship between an option price and its underlying futures contract or stock price.” In other words, the attorney general is saying there is a gap between what he has decided and what he intends to reveal to reporters.

Oh boy.

In other words, he's very sneaky and downright covert.

And I thought Mario Cuomo's rough rapport with journalists was a problem (one I actually never endured since the radio station where I was news director, WVOX in New Rochelle, had always enjoyed comfortable access to the former governor).

Spitzer sounds to me as if he is going to be so exacting and elusive that the fourth estate is in for a stultifying four years.  Count on the existing press corps in Albany and New York City taking the-man-who-already-believes-he-is-governor to task.

Snot.

This guy is going to be so easy to beat in 2010.

The Un-Done Budget: Unions Unbound

The Ithaca Journal had an editorial on the State tax rebate, aptly entitled, "Keep the money and buy a clue"

There are plenty of things the State Legislature could do with $960 million, including reducing an estimated $50 billion State debt.  Lawmakers want to give it back to property owners, just in time for Election Day.

"Still, dear lawmakers, we'd rather you keep it. Hold on to all that cash in Albany and use it for one very sound investment — buy yourselves a clue. The taxpayers and voters of New York are simply not this stupid."

No comment.

New York State is on pace to elect Eliot Spitzer the next governor of New York State.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noted how this year's budget negotiations seemed like a phony revolving door.

Here's the problem. In even this short retelling of the story, it was necessary to use “closed-door,” “private,” “personal” and the infamous “three-men-in-a-room” metaphor no less than eight times. While is was essential to mention the lobbyists' role, not once did we mention “open public budget hearing,” “extended public floor debate” or “massive public outcry.”

Nothing short of a economically painful fiscal collapse could prompt an adequate response from the voters.

---

Elizabeth Benjamin of Capitol Confidential noted the stark range of rebate amounts.

A Pataki aide noted there’s also an addtional enhancement for people who live in the “Big 5″ cities, which includes Yonkers (!), which just so happens to be represented by Republican Sen. Nick Spano.

Sorry, I just can’t help myself when it comes to political conspiracy theories.

Other counties slated for big benefits are all the suburban biggies where property taxes are particularly onerous…

Benjamin noted that Westchester property owners would be getting a rebate check for $373 and seniors a "whopping" $613.

---

Benjamin is not exagerating when it comes to how far Joe Bruno's State Senate Majority offices have bent over backwards to help State Senator Nick Spano.  It's not a conspiracy.  It's a reality that Bruno has sought every extreme pro-union measure to supposedly assist about a half dozen incumbents like Spano.

The only problem with Bruno's liberal obsession is that I'm still not sold that it will ever help these State Senators win an election.

Did it help Olga Mendez, Steve Kaufman, two Democrats?

Did it help Nancy Larraine Hoffman?

These liberal strategies are going to hurt Senators Padavan, Balboni, Spano and Maltese.

Nick Spano made no apologies for supporting the increased minimum wage debacle in this letter to the editor of The New York Post.

SPANO VS. THE POST

Spano versus The Post?

The federal minimum wage was last raised in 1997, from $4.75 to $5.15. Nineteen states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, now have a higher minimum wage than the federal rate.

Have these states suffered job losses as a result? Not according to a March 2006 report by the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute, which states, "It is clear that higher minimum wages have helped workers get a fairer wage while small businesses have continued to grow."

The New York Post reminded its readers that The Fiscal Policy Institute "was created and is funded in large part by labor unions and liberal organizations."

Spano is only bending over backwards for labor because the Working Families Party might give him that party's line.

1,800 votes.

Spano gains 1,800 from WFP but that many Republicans could either stay home or vote for someone else.

Whether one is talking about the Wal-Mart bill, repealing/softening the Taylor law or handing out any additional taxpayer-paid healthcare benefits, the State Senate Majority has to remember that they are Republicans.

---

Mike Gormley of The Associated Press noted that the givebacks are part of the more than $4 billion surplus in the 2005-06 budget.

But some say the 2006 session could become the gift that keeps on taking.

"It's deliberately designed to make you feel real good in the short term, especially before Election Day," said E.J. McMahon, director of the fiscally conservative Empire Center for New York State Policy. "But it's also loaded with stuff that will give you a nice big hangover in future years."

This is where Bruno's liberal cravings are ticking time bomb.

Among them are approved bills, subject to Pataki's veto, that weaken the state's Taylor Law that governs New York's politically powerful public employee and teachers' unions. The Legislature has agreed to reduce penalties for illegal strikes and to grant automatic pay raises if the executive branch or local schools boards are determined to be bargaining in bad faith.

Another is the "nanny bill" that would provide union protection to 50,000 child-care workers paid by state funds. The Legislature is in the process of overriding Pataki's veto. He said it threatens $315 million in federal funds.

Sheldon Silver is holding charter schools hostage -- in exchange for every wretched piece of liberal "tax and spend" legislation he can get.

The unions were given more than they deserved this year orf next year or the year after that...or many years to come.

"The good things the unions get are hard to dislodge," McMahon said. "If you are a property owner and if you have children between the ages of 4 and 17, you are a short-term gainer ... but you are a long-term loser, and the long term begins in just a few years."

The AP reported that the final state budget is $113.4 billion, up from about $106 billion in 2005-06, up from only a proposed $110 million in April -- and no one is telling me that the three stooges are done yet.

It's apparently the worst increase in spending in 33 years.

Critics say the increase is unsustainable without future tax increases.

"Clearly the most obvious elements of late session has been the flood of union-sponsored bills that drive up taxpayer costs, and any one of these bills would be a startling new imposition on the taxpayers," said Robert Ward of The Public Policy Institute of The Business Council of New York State. "But to see half a dozen of them is truly historic."

Infamous.

Republicans want to run on this nonsense.

Right off the political road.

An "On-Time" Budget: Albany's Dishonest Farce

The State Budget is not done.

Why did anyone accept this as an "on-time" budget?

Someone should come up with a penalty with teeth that strikes some fear in Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno.  George Pataki is only smiling for the national cameras. At the rate all "three men in the room" are going, they won't be done by August.

I'm so sick of the ongoing farce in our State Capitol.

Elizabeth Benjamin had this story in Capitol Confidential on budget dealings.

At some point, I should flow chart the maze of special interests that have run roughshod over the State Budget process these two weeks -- a State Budget process that had supposedly been close to finalized in April/May.

Term limit them all.

Start with term limits for the Assembly Speaker and the State Senate Majority Leader.

Who didn't sell out during this session?

Democrat's "Despicable" DNA Database Downgrade

Pataki is high on DNA these days -- Newsday's Spin Cycle reported on this critical law enforcement initiative.

It has been a common initiative by the governor but isn't this Jeanine Pirro's issue?

The Associated Press reported that Pataki is not happy with Sheldon Silver over what is the usual watering down of law enforcement legislation by Assembly liberals.

"That is just despicable," an angry Pataki said of Silver, a Manhattan Democrat.

The AP reported how Pataki has held two straight days of news conferences with powerful commentary by rape victims, calling for DNA samples the first time a person is convicted of a crime, even the lowest level misdemeanor, which could be the first offense in a violent career.

The Assembly Democrats' proposal would cover all felonies and more than a dozen of the most serious misdemeanors, but exclude certain entry level crimes like minor drug possession cases.

"The (Assembly) bill goes as far as the state is willing to go," Silver said. "The governor can govern by press conference and sound bite all he wants, and probably will a lot more in Iowa and New Hampshire as well."

A lot of things in New York State are despicable.