How was NY Gov. George Pataki's state of the state speech received last week? Depends on who you read.
'Speech a hard read: Focus on the past spurs queries on Pataki's future': headline of the Albany Times-Union on the state of the state speech.
'Pataki unveils a bold agenda: Governor plans action on schools, medicaid and economic growth': headline of the Glens Falls Post-Star on the same speech.
'Pataki focus: Achievements, not budget': headline of (Long Island) Newsday.
I'm generally not a big fan of state of the union/state/municipality speeches regardless of who's giving them. Years of following politics have taught me that actions speak louder than words. State of the [entity] speeches are designed primarily to send a message. To the speaker's base supporters. To the political opposition. To the media. But not really to the ordinary people.
State of the [entity] speeches are a laundry list of things the speaker believes or advocates in theory. They have no relationship to the speaker's priorities. These speeches give no indication of which things the chief executive will lobby hard to implement and which things he merely wants the public to think he supports without him actually having to push for.
For example, most of the attention on President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech focused on the half of the speech justifying the impeding invasion of Iraq. However, the first half of the speech dealt with a lot of domestic issues. One of the things the president mentioned was a federal initiative to support research into hydrogen fuel cells.
Shortly thereafter, a Bush-supporting friend of mine wrote me an email saying something like, "A Green such as yourself should be thrilled that Bush advocated this hydrogen cell thing." Implicit in his email was the sentiment, "Why don't you actually praise him in your blog for once?"
As I said before, this is mainly because I give little weight to such speeches, be they by Bush or anyone else. Actions speak louder than words. I told him it was a good thing in theory, but I'd be thrilled to praise Bush when this program was sufficiently funded, supported by the administration and started producing results.
I don't think I've heard the president mention the hydrogen cell initiative a single time since the 2003 State of the Union.
Gov. Pataki's state of the state speech made a number of calls for reform, since pretending to be in favor of reform in Albany is a necessity nowadays. (Though as the blogger NYCO rightly pointed out: Publicly pretending to reform is a big first step toward actual reform.)
As The Times-Union reported: Republican Pataki's speech called for improving accountability and restoring public trust. He called for ending lobbying for state contracts and banning gifts from lobbyists, reforming the budget process to create on-time budgets, capping Medicaid costs for local governments and improving the public authority system.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, a Democrat and Republican respectively, have also fallen over themselves calling for reform.
Pataki, Silver and Bruno have EACH been in power for over a decade, making them the longest serving triumvirate in state history. Needless to say, there's a bit of skepticism at letting the inmates reform the asylum.
The governor also called for an end to 'back door borrowing.' This is another issue that's been in the public eye, thanks particularly to a groundbreaking investigation by the Syracuse Post-Standard.
As that paper explains:
The system works like this: The Legislature creates a pot of money for unnamed projects. Then, Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Majority Leader Joseph Bruno sign a memo in private that splits the money three ways. They direct two state authorities - Empire State Development for the Republicans and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York for the Democrats - to issue bonds for them.
[...]
Then the leaders decide who gets grants. Like all pork-barrel spending in Albany, most of the money goes to legislative districts represented by members of the majority political parties.
The state uses its income tax collections to pay off the bonds.
Again, since Pataki's fellow Republicans benefit from the secret slush funds, it remains to be seen how hard the governor will push this issue.
Since 'publicly pretending to reform' has become mandatory, the legislature is getting into the act as well. The Democratic Assembly passed changes to their internal rules requiring lawmakers to actually be present in the Capitol when they want to vote on bills.
In the past, Assembly members would be counted as voting 'yes' on all bills after they signed in for the day, unless they specifically signaled otherwise. Even if they were out to lunch or in committee meetings.
Only in Albany would requiring legislators to be present while voting be considered revolutionary.
The Republican Senate offered retrograde changes that not only weren't reform, but didn't even present the facade of reform. They tried to require senators to be present in their seats only when they vote no, which has the added benefit of requiring their opponents, the Democrats, to hang around all day to try to block the bills that the Republicans bring to the floor. In other words, they were going to the system that the Assembly just scrapped as too arcane.
Though apparently, public outcry at this absurdity was too much and the Republican leadership in the Senate put the changes on hold for two weeks. Amazingly, this was done after the Republican leader met with his Democratic counterpart, in a rare example of a majority party in Albany actually consulting with the minority.
In another unexpected show of bipartisan consultation, both Assembly leaders announced changes that rank-and-file lawmakers get more time to introduce and try to force votes on bills. Allowing rank-and-file lawmakers to introduce bills is another thing that would only be revolutionary in Albany.
A joint rule would require a budget adoption schedule and public budget negotiating committees of senators and Assembly members. Secretive negotiations have produced over 20 consecutive years without an on time budget, to the serious detriment of local school districts.
Though Pataki's speech talked a lot about "bold, sweeping fundamental change," it's interesting what he didn't mention: some of the state government's most pressing issues.
Not once in his 69-minute speech did Pataki mention the state's estimated $6 billion budget deficit or even hint at impending fiscal difficulties. He even called on the Legislature to phase out tax increases passed two years ago in 2005 rather than 2006.
Nor did he address such major issues as looming deadlines in the federal Help America Vote Act, a health care funding bill that expires this year or a multimillion-dollar transportation aid package that must be renegotiated.
Pataki made only passing mention of court-mandated education reform that will likely require billions more in state aid to New York City schools.
Reform that the legislature was supposed to approve months ago, lest it be referred to a court-appointed panel.
I also have to give a major thumbs up to the state's media outlets. Most newspapers, in particular, have been vocal advocates for cleaning up the morass in Albany. Without them, we'd be completely ignorant of the complex chicaneries going on in the Capitol.
Similiar props are owed to advocacy groups like the New York Public Interest Research Group and Common Cause who have beat the anti-corruption drum for years, long before it become the issue du jour.
No comments:
Post a Comment