By Alan S. Chartock

If you were Andrew Cuomo, who would you rather run against: Rick Lazio, the Republican middle-of-the-roader who is as American as apple pie and Howdy Doody, or his conservative, tea-partyish opponent, Carl Paladino? Cuomo is beating the stuffing out of both of them in the polls. You can be sure that this question is being discussed a lot in the Cuomo organization and between Papa and Junior Cuomo.

Lazio is the old, moderate, New York Republican. The former Long Island Congressman couldn’t be nicer. He’s earned his living, post-Congress, as a corporate senior official. His problem is that he hasn’t earned enough to finance his own campaign, which Republicans need to do these days. If I’m Andrew Cuomo, having raised millions of dollars from the usual suspects, I am very happy about the prospect of running against Lazio. Cuomo must believe that no matter what happens, Lazio won’t raise enough money and will never have the funds to mount a credible campaign. Nor will he have a personality transplant and become mean enough to really come after the Attorney General. And no matter what happens in the Republican primary—even if Lazio wins—Paladino will run on another line. Andrew has got to love that.

Of course, if Paladino wins the primary, Lazio will toe the conservative line and history tells us that you can’t win squat in New York as a Republican unless you have both the Republican and Conservative lines. Andrew must like that a lot.

Cuomo has to assume that Lazio is a sure loser. Paladino is a wild card. He’s meaner than a junkyard dog and he’s spoiling for a fight. While he says that he is not a billionaire, he has enough millions to buy whatever he needs to win. He did what he had to do to collect enough signatures to get on the Republican primary ballot. You have to assume he hired the best and the brightest to get that onerous job done. He told me that he has already spent a measly two of the 10 million dollars he has committed to the campaign.

My thinking is that Paladino, with his incendiary right-wing rhetoric, is banking on the fact that this will be another year like 1994, the year of the so-called “Gingrich Revolution.” The American people will be so frightened by the lagging recession, immigration hysteria, gay marriage hysteria and all the other hysterias, they will slam on the political brakes and yell at the top of their lungs, “Enough!” That, after all, is how Gingrich took over the last time and it’s why Papa Mario lost. That’s how people like Jesse “The Body” Ventura got elected as a long, long shot in Minnesota. In order to get elected governor, Paladino is pushing every button, from the great Mosque debate to his conviction that too many poor people are getting too much from the middle class.

So if you’re Cuomo, you’re probably more afraid of the Paladino candidacy than of the prospect that Lazio will be your opponent. What do you do? Of course you say, “I’m staying out of this,” but in some way, you have to find those mechanisms to help Lazio. It could be simple stuff, like getting your friends on editorial boards to endorse Lazio. For example, look for Cuomo backer and Republican Rupert Murdoch to support the more milquetoast Lazio. That will be a sure sign of what Andrew wants. Or Andrew could start to treat Lazio as if he were the more fearsome potential opponent.

Naturally, Andrew would not want to get caught meddling in the other party’s selection process, so if he did anything, he would have to be circumspect. Surrogates must be enlisted to do the dirty work. Everything will be put under a microscope so each option has to be carefully thought through. Paladino is flogging the Ground Zero Mosque issue just as hard as he can, so even if Andrew does the right thing and announces his support for building it, he’ll do so in the most muted terms.

Hey, politics is a tough game and the Cuomos cut their eyeteeth on this kind of 3-dimensional chess.

To answer the original question, Cuomo has got to be more for a Lazio candidacy than a Paladino attempt. Indeed, Paladino may self-destruct and become a laughingstock, but it is also possible that the politics of frustration might give him a chance. Remember how scared people get in dire economic times? Read your history and see just how worried FDR was about some of the nuts that were
running against him.

_

Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

By Alan Chartock

The more we watch these powerful folks in politics, the clearer it is that many of their actions can be explained by “rationalization,” the term we all learned back in our basic Psychology 101 course. For example, when Charlie Rangel is accused of not paying his taxes after having written much of the tax code, or Eliot Spitzer consorts with prostitutes after he wrote and enforced many of the laws against “Johns,” we ask ourselves how they could be so stupid. Or when former Republican Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno skirts the ethical line by selling a nearly worthless nag as a way of having a business associate funnel money to him, we shake our heads and wonder what he could have been thinking.

The answer, I am convinced, is that they truly do not believe they are doing anything wrong. Any lie detector read-out would indicate they were telling the truth when they insisted they had done nothing wrong. Some have described this self-deception phenomenon as a sense of entitlement. Some suggest that when you get very powerful, you think you are owed something by the rest of society. I’ve seen this kind of arrogance in politicians up close and personal, time and again.

Speaker Sheldon Silver says that his house passed a very strong ethics bill that, for some reason, was vetoed by Governor Paterson. The bill was vetoed because it had enough loopholes to drive a semi-truck through. The people deserve to know where every penny a legislator raises comes from. Shelly Silver and his colleagues don’t like that. If that had been part of the ethics bill, the governor would have signed it.

The very powerful seem to act as though the laws are for other people. I know many of these people fairly well and, more often than not, I really like them. They are real characters. Sometimes they spring at you like a Damon Runyon character from Guys and Dolls. When you speak to them, they are just like us. They have foibles. They are human. They have a sense of humor. They have good and not so good sides to them. In some cases, they have flirted with legal prohibitions and enter into a state of denial. In others, they fool themselves on policy matters.

These days, it is fashionable in some reform quarters to speak of Shelly Silver, the top guy in the New York State Assembly, as if he is the devil himself. His former chief of staff, Pat Lynch, is now one of the most important lobbyists in Albany. The word on the street is that if you want something from Shelly, you hire Pat Lynch, his former, most trusted aid. In Albany, true or not, perception is everything. Perception gets lobbyists hired.

When I recently asked Shelly whether lobbyists in Albany are too powerful, he answered that he can show us good laws like “Leandra’s Law,” which was pushed by citizen lobbyists and makes it a felony to drive intoxicated with children in your car. Hey, come on now, Shelly, there is a huge difference between the big boys and girls who push the laws and funnel money to the legislators for their election campaigns and the few good government types who occasionally get a win to make the Legislature smell good.

When I asked the Speaker about the law that the Governor and the Senate are pushing that would “empower” SUNY, he seemed dead set against it. He says, and he is again right, that every time you raise tuition, a young person will be denied the American dream. Under the “Empowerment Act,” SUNY schools and presumably City University schools will be given the power to raise tuition for their schools and will, presumably, be allowed to keep the increase to run their schools.

The problem is that we are in really tough times. The State University has been slashed terribly. To keep the University viable, it makes sense to allow the schools to raise tuition. Otherwise the great SUNY and CUNY systems are truly doomed. The Speaker has the power to make sure that those with the least are given tuition assistance (TAP) funds.

All this proves that both politically and substantively, our public officials are human and can get it wrong.

_
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

By Alan Chartock

OK, class, let’s talk about pork. Pork, of course, is not kosher. Like many, I suspect one of the reasons it was listed in the biblically proscribed list was that if not properly handled, it caused diseases like trichinosis. Once that worm got into your system, you could die from it.

I tell you all of this since there is another kind of pork—that which exists in politics and abounds in New York, where the Legislature has given away more and more money each year. The party in power gets more of this pork (so-called projects and special member items) to give away than the minority party. It’s a big part of the Incumbent Protection Law (IPP) that I’ve been writing about for years. Even those from minority party districts are given a few pieces of bacon or ham to dispense. Clearly, everyone is in on the game. One of the ways that leaders keep control is by strategically giving pork to the more compliant legislators. As Bessie Smith once sang, “There are lots of ways to sell it, baby.”

This year is different because there really is no extra money to give away. The little boy who cried wolf has finally gotten his comeuppance. This time the wolf is at the door, ready to devour the body politic. We all hate the concept of pork, as some important legislators give away vast amounts of public dollars to ensure their own reelections. I always said that if Joe Bruno, former Mr. Big of the New York State Senate, gave one more thing to the city of Troy, the whole place would sink. Some politicians who give away pork are flat-out crooks. They channel pork to projects where they will personally benefit. There are various federal and state investigations looking into the way in which Pedro Espada, the Majority Leader of the Senate, has directed his member items to institutions in which he has a financial stake. This year, he became such an embarrassment to his fellow Democrats in the Senate that they are trying (surely futilely) to bar him from the party.

For his part, Governor Paterson just vetoed thousands of legislative member items because the State Senate would not pass a constitutionally required balanced budget. New Yorkers and their newspapers have wildly applauded his moves. Meanwhile, back in legislators’ individual districts, there is consternation because many of the member items like parks, swimming pools and ball fields that were promised to the constituents now won’t be funded. So, on a local level, some people are really angry, but if you polled the whole state and asked whether pork or member items should be cut from the budget, the answer would undoubtedly be a resounding yes. Why? Because most people don’t like the idea that some districts get goodies that others do not. In other words, if you are going to build a ball field in one district because the legislator asking for it has clout, it doesn’t seem fair to other districts with less powerful legislators. It really isn’t fair and that’s why David Paterson is getting huge backing from editorial boards and citizens alike. He may be late to the game, having delivered a fair amount of pork himself while in the State Senate, but he is doing the right thing.

The problem for the last several governors is that the whole member item thing has gotten completely out of control. They kept asking for more and more member items until the stink has gotten so bad that they had to put minimal controls on the process of handing them out. But, as we can see from the Espada case, where there is a will to pig out, there is a way to make pork.

During times like these when the larder really is empty, it seems like good and reasonable reforms are in order. This is the year of pork reform and legislators are just going to have to suck it up and learn how to behave. Of course, if they do pass a balanced budget, does anyone want to bet that David Paterson will allow them their self-serving pork, and that when they get it (and eat it), they and their constituents may be eaten from the inside by the trichinosis organism? Let’s get politically kosher.
_
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

I have been hanging around the New York State Legislature and watching government as a professor, broadcaster and columnist since about 1965. I’ve seen a lot, but I have truly never seen anything like what I am seeing now. It’s degenerate, disgusting, venal and beyond comprehension. It is particularly bad in the New York State Senate, where a clique of Democratic politicians has grabbed power and captured the top leadership positions.

We are seeing a study in self-deception. These people are totally lacking in redeeming qualities. Their piggishness reminds me of the guy in the desert who walks around for weeks without a drink of water. Just as he is about to die, he comes across a lush oasis with a beautiful, clear stream. He drinks and drinks, and pretty soon he is gasping for breath and expires. He was just too greedy and didn’t know when to stop.

Every day I get email alerts as to what these folks are up to. They are spending a fortune of our taxpayer money on their personal and political public relations. They posture as champions of the people, but they refuse to see that they have endangered their own majority. The present so-called Democratic leaders replaced the disgraced Republicans, who at least knew how to hide their piggery behind a facade of moral rectitude. The Democrats, as disgusting as they are, are convinced that they will win again because so many of the aging Republicans are getting out of office and their seats will have to be defended. So what are the disillusioned and disgusted New York State voters supposed to do?

In California and other progressive states, the voters do have options when things get bad enough. In some places they can mount “recall” elections. You get enough signatures on a petition and you can kick someone out of office. States like California also offer the voters something called “initiative and referendum.” Under this plan, if you can collect enough signatures, you can propose and then pass a law rescinding what the Legislature has done. Of course, there are two sides to this. The big money people can put up all kinds of spurious ballot propositions and then use their money for huge radio and TV campaigns. Nevertheless, tough times like these call for tough measures.

In other cases, voters have imposed term limits on state legislators. In some states they have put the brakes on the self-serving interests of legislators by setting up independent redistricting commissions. Instead of allowing the legislators to design districts that guarantee themselves a win, these commissions act as umpires to set up fair district boundaries.

Let me tell you something: If you were to offer voters any of these options, they would approve them in a New York minute. But you know what? We don’t have the tools to do that and the only way to get those tools is through a Constitutional Convention. The problem is that the same people who run for the Legislature either run themselves or get their friends to run as delegates to the convention and nothing changes. We spend a fortune and have little or nothing to show for the effort.

I think that the present crop of politicians may be cruising for a bruising. When people feel like they have no options, you get political revolution. That is exactly what is happening now. It’s sort of like a pressure cooker. The steam has to go somewhere when you have a defective machine. Entrenched politicians will start to lose in primaries. Someone will start a “throw them all out” campaign. Certain really corrupt legislators will become the targets of district attorneys. Former Senate head guy, Joe Bruno, is one such example. A whole crew of Democrats in the Senate is facing investigation. These folks are so far gone that we can hardly expect them to turn things around. The more they misbehave, the angrier people will become and the more they endanger their own political futures. 

—
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

By Alan S. Chartock

Andrew Cuomo has chosen his candidate for lieutenant governor. He is Bob Duffy, the mayor of Rochester, and a virtual unknown “who-he?” to most New Yorkers.

If one knows the Cuomos and the way they think, which is politically, you had better believe that they have specific criteria for who becomes the number two person in the administration. First and foremost, they need someone they can trust. When Papa Mario ran, he was saddled with Al Del Bello, and that didn’t work out. Del Bello quit in disgust. Mario had great success with his subsequent lieutenant governor, Stan Lundine, a former mayor of Jamestown. Lundine was a decent man but he was about as far removed from the magical rhetoric of Mario as any politician might be. Mario never had to worry about who was holding a knife at his back.

In selecting Bob Duffy as his running mate, Cuomo has chosen a man with conservative (for a Democrat) credentials, a man who was a cop, a man who has tangled with the unions. Let the message go forth: “I, Andrew Cuomo, know that there are tough times ahead and I will choose a man who knows how to operate in tough times.”

If you take a look at the new book of Cuomo positions, “The New York Agenda: A Plan for Action,” you will find some other clues as to why he chose Duffy. One of Cuomo’s most important agenda items is education, and Duffy is a guy who believes in mayoral control of the schools. When the state of education in New York City was in chaos, Mike Bloomberg came along and took control of the schools. He appointed Chancellor Joel Klein, who has managed to change the culture of New York schools for the better. Clearly, the Cuomos have always sought the same thing. Under the State constitution, they can’t have it because the education function goes to the Assembly-controlled New York State Board of Regents. It could well be that part of the Duffy appeal is that he represents what Andrew wants to do with education.

Another way to look at the Duffy selection is to examine whom Cuomo did not appoint. Spitzer thought it sent a good message to appoint someone of color to the number two job. That’s how we got Paterson, a good man saddled with multiple albatrosses around his neck. While Andrew didn’t appoint a person of color, he was smart enough to have a whole phalanx of African-American politicians ready to endorse his selection. Nor did he choose a woman. You may remember that George Pataki appointed Betsy McCaughey as his lieutenant governor and chaos ensued. Maybe Andrew remembered that if that relationship soured he might have had to defend himself against an inevitable, albeit unfair, charge of sexism. In any case, he didn’t do it and he hasn’t taken any substantial heat for his choice.

Cuomo has made it plain that a big part of our budget problem is that we are spending too much because we have too many levels of government. Up to now, that was a luxury we thought we could afford. My bet is that Duffy will be a lead negotiator in combining these governmental entities, including the extraordinary number of school districts in the state.

In any case, Andrew selected Duffy and he seems to have gotten away with it without ruffling feathers. Chalk one up for team Cuomo.

–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

By Alan S. Chartock

Andrew Cuomo is positioning himself to be president of the United States. His chances of getting there will be infinitely increased if he is able to turn Albany into a calmer, less venal, more reflective and genuinely representative place.

Cuomo must win the Legislature’s confidence and at the same time convince the people that he really is going to clean things up. He’ll need to be perceived as being “good” and “likeable” as opposed to “tough guy Andy.” His friends at the radical right wing New York Post know that and they’re spreading around his picture, with his kids and his girlfriend and an atypical smile on his face. Old man Hearst would be proud.

To succeed, Cuomo has to reserve all the perks of being a strong executive. The more power he cedes to the Legislature, the weaker he becomes. He has to toughen the ethics rules. The less double-dealing and inside trading the legislative leaders can get away with and the more truly transparent the process is, the more powerful Cuomo will be. That’s why David Paterson vetoed the quarter-of-a-loaf ethics law that the Legislature was able to dupe the so-called “good government groups” into endorsing. That’s why Cuomo is opposed to allowing the Regents (owned by the Assembly, which is owned by the teachers union) to have the sole say as to who gets a charter school. He appoints the members of the SUNY Board of Trustees and he is not about to relinquish that influence to the legislative chieftains.

Of course, the members of the Legislature know full well that they need Cuomo at the top of the ticket, otherwise they will lose their marginal members. On the other hand, Cuomo knows that he can’t be perceived as being in bed with them. That means a diminution of power for the leaders and their associated lobbyists. He is telling anyone who wants to run on his coattails that they will have to pledge to support reform. Interestingly, he is painting himself not only as a candidate of reform, but as a candidate of bi-partisan reform. He is signaling to those Democrats who want to preserve the old order that he is not above making deals with their mutually exclusive Republican enemies in order to achieve reform.

Andrew has come a long way and he holds great promise. If he wants to go all the way to the White House and to uphold his anointed title as “son of Mario,” he will have to insist that apportionment be done fairly and that gerrymandering be relegated to the past. He will have to put a dent in the power of the institutionalized lobbyists. He will have to do more than the commendable talk his father was famous for, and translate his platform into actions. If I were Shelly Silver, I’d give up a lot to make Cuomo comfortable. Three-quarters of a loaf is better than none should be Silver’s thinking—otherwise he may just end up with none.

–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

We know that obesity is rampant in this country and sugar use by Americans is off the charts. But we don’t tax sugar-laden soda, even though our health commissioner tells us that this is the time to do just that. When people argue that sugar in sodas is the great Satan that is making our population fat, the soda companies reply that there are far worse things than their product. Their allies argue that we are talking trash because proposals to tax sodas that have sugar do not include proposals to tax other drinks, like those with aspartame, which some think is a highly suspicious chemical ingredient.

Meanwhile, type 2 diabetes has become a national epidemic that is scaring the stuffing out of our medical community. But hey, this is America, where enough lobbyists and enough money can put a stop to ideas that protect the public. The unpopular (but often right) Gov. David Paterson is in favor of the tax on soft drinks. He expects that the revenues a new tax could generate will balance the budget. Some members of the Legislature, sensing impending doom in the coming elections, do not want people weaned from their sodas and have pronounced the new soda tax dead on arrival.

The problem for opponents is that there really isn’t enough money to balance the budget. The school districts, hospitals and local governments are all crying the blues. But out of adversity can come some good. I have no doubt that the single biggest problem with passing the soda tax is the fact that the Pepsi Cola Company is a big asset for the state of New York. Our decision makers do not want to alienate the firm. If Pepsi picked up and moved across the Hudson River to New Jersey, New York would be in big trouble.

There is a current libertarian streak running through this country. People know that every time you put a tax on a popular product like soda, the little people are expected to pay proportionately more than their share. Economists call this a regressive tax, and it is. Health Commissioner Richard Daines is wildly in favor of the tax. He feels that it will save lives and he believes that just as the tax on cigarettes has helped cut down on the consumption of that killer product, the same thing will happen when taxes drive up the price of soda.

Mothers and fathers, boards of education and school administrators have already removed soda machines from schools. They know full well that our kids need to be protected. It stands to reason that in removing soda machines from schools, we are acknowledging their potential for harm.

This is a budget crisis year and people distrust the Legislature. As our lawmakers look for ways to protect people from themselves, they may want to think about doing the right thing.

–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

If you are recorded by the FBI saying to a legislator, “If you vote for this bill I will give you this much money,” you are guilty of bribery under the law. On the other hand, if you get money from a well-heeled lobbyist and then vote the way he wants you to but there is no announced quid pro quo, is there anything illegal about that? Of course not. That’s as American as apple pie.

The cabal running the now Democratic Senate seems to have missed the subtlety of the whole game. For years, Republicans were grabbing anything and everything that wasn’t nailed down, but doing so with taste and refinement. When Democrats finally got power, they were like the dying man who gets to the water hole and drinks too much, too fast.

Unfortunately, some of the worst characters among them have gotten their hands on power and become the “leadership.” This crew would rather hold power—even at the potential cost of their majority—than lose their access to the cookie jar.

The problem is that the Democratic Senators, having blown it and repulsed the public, are now panicking. Rather than pass the tough ethics legislation that is needed to sanitize their house, they are running in the exact opposite direction. As a result of their panic, they are looking for the money that is the heart of contemporary politics. Surely they had to recognize that putting a public menu out for all to peruse would lead to shame and dishonor. But no, they thought that the promise of filling their campaign coffers was worth the risk. Well, it wasn’t and isn’t.

Clearly, there is nothing illegal about the whole thing. After all, one of the great myths of the Albany game is that the word “access” is a sanitized version of “bribery.” Everyone now plays the game. Key lobbyists who direct money to key legislators for campaigns have immense power. Even Congressmen, seeking to have their districts preserved in the coming reapportionment, hire “connected” lobbyists to make sure that they get the best districts possible.

Democratic leaders believe that they are so invulnerable that they simply can’t lose the Senate. I am here to tell you that by their misbehavior they have almost assured that is exactly what will happen. Mark my words.

–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

Cuomo the younger has been playing it safe. He has not opened his mouth on the issues of the day. Before Paterson dropped out, he challenged Cuomo to offer his ideas about how to get the state out of its massive fiscal mess. Andrew stayed shut and said only that he would continue to do his job as attorney general. That strategy seemed to work and his polling numbers stayed high, around 70 percent.

Unfortunately for him, something went wrong and Cuomo’s numbers have slipped dramatically. He is still above 50 percent in the polls and still handily beats potential opponents, but if you were a fly on the wall listening to an imaginary conversation between Papa and Junior Cuomo, you had better believe that they are concerned. One possible explanation is that Paterson asked Cuomo to investigate various allegations against him and instead of immediately recusing himself, Andrew agreed to take on the obligation. People didn’t like that, even though the always canny Paterson had asked him to do the job.

Andrew may also be
slipping because when Paterson challenged him about how he would handle the state’s fiscal problems, Cuomo looked too “cute” in avoiding the question. He said he couldn’t think about it until after he investigates Paterson and Pedro Espada. That’s like the time Mario said he couldn’t run for president until he got the budget negotiated in New York. Nobody believed him.

To make matters worse, after the latest round of poll numbers came out, Andrew seemed to panic and announced that he would finally recuse himself from the Paterson investigation. He appointed former Chief Judge Judith Kaye to do the investigation. Kaye, you might recall, was appointed to her job on the Court of Appeals by Papa Cuomo. Perception is everything and some African-American voters may be ticked off by the perception that Cuomo did Paterson in.

When considering Cuomo’s dilemma, it is important to remember that Mario Cuomo was beaten in 1994, another Republican year, by George Pataki, a classic “Who-He?” Since all signs point to a Republican tsunami this year, Andrew Cuomo could be in trouble, particularly if his numbers continue to go down. Since he has punted on the Paterson investigation, it may look as if he’s scared and that doesn’t help him. Not only that, there is a big public opinion poll going around that seems to have been put out by Andrew. If he is just trying to find out
what people want and then give it to them, he may forfeit the impression that he is a leader and not just another politician. He still needs to tell us how to get out of
the mess.

As the old saying goes, “Don’t count your chickens until you actually win the election.”

–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post

I know many of these people and despite what I am writing here, I like them. They are fun, they are filled with ideas and I would drink a club soda with them any time. But the truth is that the whole process has become a self-serving mess. The voters know it and these are very dangerous times for politicians.

Everywhere I go, people tell me that it is time to throw them out and start over. In nearby Massachusetts, a Republican who was given no chance ended up in the U.S. Senate. I just read that Sen. Chuck Schumer is getting nervous as he watches his numbers fall. If our legislators were smart, they would hold their collective finger to the wind and sense the danger. For example, they would disclose the names of every person who hired them in their outside jobs. This they refuse to do. Top leaders have told me that it is unfair, for example, to make a woman who hires a legislator for legal advice disclose that she had gone to him seeking a divorce. Fine, make up your mind. Are you a legislator or are you a lawyer? “Well,” the legislators would say, “If you don’t want us accepting outside work, you have to give us a pay raise.” Not really. Many people would work hard and without conflicts for the nearly $100,000 salary when all the perks are added up.

Of course, Gov. David Paterson knows what the people want and he wants to give it to them. The Legislature passed a tepid series of rules reforms that just don’t go far enough. The message to Paterson was that they would override a gubernatorial veto. Well, I hope he does veto this piece of garbage. The battle lines would be drawn. There would be our David with a slingshot and the legislative Goliath. If the Legislature does the right thing and passes a meaningful bill, they will forever be known as the group that put the “d” back in democracy.

I want to see all politicians come forward. Now is the time to stand up and be counted and not in a muted voice, but loudly and clearly. The more Paterson goes after the Legislature, the higher his poll numbers grow. They should. Let’s hope he inherits the wind. 

–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Tweet This Post