David Paterson and the Perils of Speaking the Truth
When governors give their annual State of the State address, much like the president’s State of the Union, it’s generally an occasion for self-indulgent praise and swelling the ranks of mutual admiration societies. Not so in New York this year, where Governor David Paterson took to the podium to scold the state legislature – both houses of which are controlled by his own Democratic Party – for the way they have spent their way to the precipice of disaster. We can debate the political wisdom of his decision all we like, but I must say it was refreshing to say the least.
Dispensing with the ritualized flattery that typically precedes the annual address, Mr. Paterson said that the Legislature’s reluctance to make hard decisions and rein in its own excesses had plunged the state even deeper into crisis.
“You have left me and other governors no choice,” Mr. Paterson, the former State Senate minority leader, said. “Whether it be by vetoes or delayed spending, I will not write bad checks, and we will not mortgage our children’s future.”
To say that his comments were met with less than enthusiasm would be to put it mildly.
The public scolding drew a cold response from lawmakers, who gave Mr. Paterson little applause and rose from their chairs only when he entered and exited the Assembly chamber.
Some sat stony-faced during the speech, while others fidgeted with BlackBerrys.
It’s been no secret that New York’s failure to stimulate any sort of job growth in the private sector was, at least in part, because of their gobbling up of the federal porkulus dollars to patch up gaping holes in the state budget. As that money is rapidly exhausted, the same old budget problems are swelling up and leading to a more than $7B shortfall expected in 2010. Still, nobody has been willing to make the hard choices required to change this pattern.
Is there any political sense to Paterson’s approach to the speech? That’s hard to say. His numbers have been hovering in the twenties and thirties for some time now and the conventional wisdom is that he couldn’t win reelection this year even if the GOP ran an incontinent poodle against him. But Andrew Cuomo is hovering in the background with approval ratings in the 70′s and the Republicans have thus far failed to find a candidate to challenge him besides Rick Lazio, who is still struggling with name recognition problems.
So Paterson may be taking a wild swing for the fences to find a new base of appeal by tackling a difficult problem and challenging his own party. Or perhaps he has just read the writing on the wall, knows that his days are numbered and is just enjoying the chance to throw caution to the wind and speak his mind for a change. Either way, it was good to have someone stand up in public and put the bell on the cat. New York’s management of the public purse is entirely dysfunctional and it’s long past time that this fact was shoved in the faces of the voters.
14 Responses to “David Paterson and the Perils of Speaking the Truth”
I don't know why anyone is blaming Patterson for the state of NY's budget… We have a major recession on our hands and a series of structural problems that have been accumulating for the last fifty years…
Manufacturing jobs have been moved from upstate NY to the South, then on to Mexico and then on to China in the search for the cheapest labor possible. So today what does Upstate New York produce other than some decent wines, and cheap vacation spots?
I was thinking about this driving into work this AM (6 inches of snow and more to come). The same states that are having the most trouble financially tend to be the same ones complaining that the makeup of the Senate doesn't give them enough power.
I was listening to an interview with the governor of North Dakota (do I know how to have fun or what) who mentioned they are doing fairly well through the recession mainly because they didn't dig themselves a hole in the first place. Instead of asking for even more power states like New York and California should be trying to emulate the states that aren't in trouble.
I don't know why, but I kinda like Paterson. He does not seem as oily as the typical pol. Also, I like that he sort of gave Obama a Bronx cheer; he has moxie.
Indiana is in good shape, but it's not allowed to borrow money at all. That might have something to do with it.
What is New York's history like, though? (I've lived in New York and I know the state's reputation, as well as why “Albany” is synonymous with “dysfunctional”; it is a true scandal that anybody should be led to believe that time spent there by a politician qualifies them for high office in the federal capital.)
What we should do in the case of New York (state as well as city) is look at California (complete with its own long-Dem-misled legislature in Sacremento, and a current governor's scolding over fiscal problems).
North Dakota, a state of 650,000 that lives on Agricultural Subsidies is going to tell California & New York to emulate them? Gets a $1.68 for every $1.00 they send to DC…
Just another Welfare State…
Someone should tell that Governor to get his state off the Federal tit.
Good shape? When you start selling the family jewelry, you are not in good shape…
Lost Highway – The foolish plan to sell American toll roads to foreign companies.
Yes, that's been known as rip-off, and no one around there is happy about it (many, in fact, believe it was a political pay-off). Every state has those stories, so you score no points there. They've also picked up on the cute tricks of unfunded county mandates (I call it trickle down taxing), gambling permits for campaign contributions, etc. Find me a state without any of that garbage, and you get a reprieve. A lot of that, of course, could be solved if the gambling restriction had never been removed and the “no bill can cover more than one subject” clause could be enforced (long story), but I bet we're doing better than your state, and I say that not knowing what state you're in.
We're a state that's a net contributor to the federal government and we're not looking around for a hand-out. What have you got?
According to the Tax Foundation, Indiana gets $1.05 back for every $1.00 it sends to DC…
As I have said in the past: if it's a Red State (with the notable exception of Texas) it's a Welfare State…
If by “Red State” you mean one that elected Obama, sure (we're really a “purple” state). I've already shown you the problem with aggregate statistics.
Any State that gave it's electoral votes to Bush in 2000 and 2004 is a RED STATE as far as I am concerned…
Oh. In that case I define all Red States to be the ones that are not getting close to bankruptcy. Now I can safely say that all Blue States are fiscally irresponsible and suffering from their short-sightedness. This is fun!
I didn't know that there were 43 Blue States…
Explains a lot, doesn't it.