A really lame duck

Ever since his announcement that he would not seek a fourth term this November, New York governor George Pataki has been seen by many as a lame duck. However, Pataki has taken advantage of a recent controversial ruling by the state's highest court that gave the governor near imperial power over the state's budget process to re-impose himself on the political scene in Albany.

Pataki is probably the only person to consider himself a viable presidential candidate for 2008. Yet many attribute those ambitions to his recent decision to veto $2.9 billion from the budget approved by the legislature. The governor slashed money destined to help health care for the poor, prescription drug coverage for the elderly and improvements to the state university system.

According to the high court ruling, the legislature can only change the numbers of the budget submitted by the governor; it can't add or delete programs or language.

Pataki claims that about 2/3 of the amount he vetoed can't be overridden under that criteria, though obviously legislators disagree.

Bizarrely, for someone trying to burnish his conservative credentials with GOP voters in Iowa and New Hampshire voters, he also vetoed a $1.7 million (over two years) rebate to payers of New York's notoriously high property taxes.

Not surprisingly, Pataki was blasted not only by his archenemy, Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. But he was also ripped by his fellow Republican, Senate leader Joe Bruno. The majority leader accused Pataki of negoiating in bad faith, saying that he learned of the governor's most recent offer via the newspaper and accused the governor's staff of bargaining by press release.

In other state news, the Albany Times-Union reported that Representatives of the state Senate, Assembly and Gov. George Pataki's budget division routinely sign a pact barring them from disclosing how millions of dollars are spent on "member items,"

A document obtained by the paper mandated secrecy around the process of choosing who would get $200 million in taxpayer money last year from the Legislature's member item account — the discretionary spending account critics say is used for "pork barrel" spending. "Each party will treat information regarding any proposed project as confidential and will not share it with any individual or entity," says the agreement public officials have signed for years, according to the "memorandum of understanding" obtained by the newspaper for member items in 2005.

This is hardly surprising for a body rated the worst legislature in the country by one of the state's most prominent law schools. But it was still condemned by the good government groups who the conscience of the state's political corrupt scene.