Little Difference Between Ds and Rs

Seems there's very little difference between Republicans and Democrats these days, at least when it comes to money in politics. I mean, we've known for a while that our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo believes he flat-out cannot be influenced by money, and we now know that Republicans think they're not influenced by money either.

Cuomo made it very clear a while back in an interview with Susan Arbetter, host of  the Capitol Pressroom radio show, that we need campaign finance reform because elected officials can't be trusted and there's too much money in politics and we need to solve the problem by having tax payer dollars injected into the process to protect us from bad people - but not from the Governor himself, because he is pure.

Cuomo thought it was "baloney" that people would think he'd be more responsive to his donors (the majority of whom have given at least $10,000) or to New York City corporations (some giving "in the hundreds of thousands of dollars" to his war chest) than he would be to you or me. When pressed, here's what he said:

s drummond photo

What the people want to know, what they say to me is, look, we want to know that you're working for us and you're not working for anyone else. Because there are some politicians out there who can be bought for $10, and some politicians who cannot be bought for $10 billion. It's a question of the person, it's a question of character, and it's a question of values. It's not how much does it cost to buy a politician, it's a politician who can't be bought. 

He added

I'm going to make the decision I think is right for them because at the end of the night I go home and I put my head on the pillow and I have to be able to fall asleep and I can't fall asleep if I don't believe I'm doing the right thing.  

You mull that one over, or picture him sleeping through the night on his pillow of righteousness, while I explain how he's just like a Republican.

Steve Kimatian, an occasional contributor to the Syracuse Post-Standard, wrote a recent article about how it was easier to be a Democrat than a Republican. He made it clear that Republicans aren't influenced by money either.

Kimatian's premise, as I noted last week, is that the Dems buy votes and campaign contributions with entitlements (and unfettered access to strip-joint ATMs), and by gutting welfare reform.  He also notes that the Democrat "platform of giving...can be a slippery slope to servitude."

While the Democrat position may appear altruistic, at its core it is essentially self-serving. To appreciate those who give you things is human nature. The Democrat offer encourages a complicit compact with the voter.  If you can befriend a voting block by giving benefits, then you can secure votes and contributions for your re-election. 

Let's replace the word Democrat in Kimatian's essential argument with Republican, and see what happens.

While the Republican position may appear altruistic, at its core it is essentially self-serving. To appreciate those who give you things is human nature. The Republican offer encourages a complicit compact with the voter. If you can befriend a voting block by giving benefits then you can secure votes and contributions for your re-election.

Wow -- that sounds almost exactly the same, doesn't it? And doesn't it ring equally true? Because we all know that the Republicans are not pure, any more than Cuomo is. They just get their influence from a different side of the fence, that's all.  For example:

• What about the Grover Norquist Tax Pledge? You know about that, right? Republicans at every level of elected office have signed onto this, swearing they'll not raise taxes for any reason. Let them even whisper about having a remote thought or a vision in the night about raising taxes, and their constituents will have an email telling them their taxes are going to go up, and suddenly the incumbent Republican is in a primary scrambling to hold onto office, to future security, and to continued altruistic opportunities. Does anyone wonder why the Rs are so afraid of raising taxes?

• What about political organizations, trade associations, unions, and 'social welfare' groups? According to Opensecrets.org, trade associations spent around $60M, unions about half that, and 501(c)(4) groups spent over $250M in the 2012 election cycle. By 'viewpoint', the vast majority of the money was in support of conservative issues. Kimatian raised the dastardly public employee union as one of the things that makes it easier to be a Dem;  and we know that one of those 'conservative issues' that's being addressed with this money is getting rid of public employee unions. No correlation here, right?

• Similarly, Super PAC spending by ideology significantly favored conservatives, $406.8M to $195.5M for liberal issues.  And certainly nothing to see here, either. 

Does the Norquist threat have no meaning? Do these hundreds of millions of dollars from support groups not have any influence on Republicans? Do they not help get Republicans elected, and help keep them in office? How is it that the Republicans can be immune to this?

If  "to appreciate those who give you things is human nature," is the lack of influence all from all this money proof that Republicans aren't human? Hmm...

Perhaps the most important question for Republicans, Andrew Cuomo, and voters alike is a simple one: would these groups be spending this kind of money if they thought there was nothing in it for them?

The answer, clearly, is no.  No person, union, trade association, social welfare group, or political action committee would spend this kind of money if they believed for one second that it wasn't going to benefit them.

As I noted (regarding Cuomo's sleeping habits):

I can't fall asleep at night because our house is noisy and our cats are restless and My Sweet Baboo snores and there's a firehouse down the street and because I lie awake at night sometimes wondering why a politician would take hundreds of thousands, no millions of dollars from corporations when it's people that vote.

You can be sure that the corporations and Super PACS  and unions and social welfare organizations and $10,000 donors wouldn't be sleeping well at night if they thought their contributions and lobbying and interest ads and smear campaigns were not money well spent.

Yeah, it's easy to be a Democrat.  And it sure is easy to be a Republican too.  It's getting hard to tell them apart, isn't it?

Fortune Favors the Bowl

Er, the bold. Not the bowl, fortune favors the bold, that's what I meant to say.

This'll be my last post in the Fortune Favors the Bold series focusing on Governor Cuomo's recent State of the State address.  I could keep going; I mean, he put a lot of stuff out there. But I've hit on the ones that struck a chord with me, or hit a CNY nerve.  Some of the rest of it -- taxes, for example -- I'm sure I'll get to a few dozen times in the coming weeks and months. Here's what the series covered:

• Part 1 gave a general overview of the speech;
• Part 2 talked about collaboration between jurisdictions, and how his most favorite example just hit a rough spot;
• Part 3 touched on Cuomo's move to 'Raise the Age' for juveniles in the adult justice system
• Part 4 was all about my favorite subject, money in politics. 

Today, I want to talk about medical marijuana and drugs.  Not the kind of drugs you typically buy on the street corner, but the kind you get from a licensed medical professional at a licensed hospital.  Because there's a difference, in my opinion between pot you smoke to get a buzz and pot you smoke to treat a medical condition.

In the SOTS, after talking about his administration's accomplishments, Cuomo went on to say

But my friends, even with all of that we still have more to do.  We have to make New York healthier.  Research suggests that medical marijuana can help manage the pain and and treatment of cancer and other serious illnesses.  Twenty states have already started to use it. We'll establish a program allowing up to 20 hospitals to prescribe medical marijuana, and we will monitor the program to evaluate the effectiveness and the feasibility of a medical marijuana system.

And with that, "stupid stoners" sucking our tax dollars on disability all across this great state sort of sat up, said "Wow, man" and tried to lift their bongs into the air, before collapsing into convulsions of laughter, quickly forgetting what they were laughing at.  Or so one doctor at SUNY Upstate would have you believe.

He's Dr. Brian Johnson; he's the director of addition psychiatry, and believes marijuana is a destructive drug. I'm suspect the article didn't have the full story, or at least I hope the doctor would have taken time to talk a little more about this, rather than providing a couple of soundbites. Here's what made it into print:

Hyping it as a medical treatment is ridiculous. You will end up with a bunch of stupid stoners in New York with lung disease who thing that maybe they should go out on disability because they don't want to get off the couch. 

The article notes that Doc sees correlations to the "right to pain treatment" movement back in the day that, in his view, opened the floodgates for the explosion of prescriptions for hydrocodone and other opioid pain killers - which (unlike marijuana) are highly addictive. He notes

People testified back then about the poor mother dying of cancer who could not get oxycodone. Since then opioid prescribing has tripled and accidental overdose deaths are more common than motor vehicle deaths. 

I agree with what he says about prescription painkillers - too many doctors are too willing to prescribe them to too many patients who are addicted to them, a fair number of whom manage to get multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians. Heck, even doctors get addicted to painkillers. We've had a few in our own back yard, including this guy.

Where I don't agree with him is on the overdose part, the addiction part, or the stupid stoner part. Because I don't think that AIDS patients, cancer patients, glaucoma patients, seizure patients, and others who typically might qualify as medical marijuana patients are 'stupid' and they don't become 'stoners' and frankly, even if they did, if it makes them comfortable while they're trying to deal with their illness, who the hell cares?

Some medical professionals (not necessarily this Dr. Johnson) seem to look down their noses at anything that is nontraditional, or not manufactured, or doesn't come with trinkets and junkets courtesy of drug companies; they deny years of theory, study, and practice, including those of native/indigenous peoples. There are thousands of years of records of 'medicine men' in Asian cultures, and hundreds of years of the same in newer countries like ours. Why ignore this, when it might bring relief to your patients?

And I have to wonder why someone would look down their nose at marijuana, whether smoked, vaporized, in pill form (although the pill form is somewhat less effective, I've read), when they are otherwise more than willing to direct a patient to take something that can cause this:

Belching; bruising; difficult or labored breathing; feeling of indigestion; headache; itching skin; large, flat blue or purplish patches in the skin; pain in the chest below the breastbone; shortness of breath; skin eruptions; swelling; tightness in the chest; wheezing, bloating; bloody or black, tarry stools; blurred or loss of vision; burning upper abdominal or stomach pain; cloudy urine' constipation; decrease in urine out put or decrease in urine-concentrating ability; disturbed color perception; double vision; fast, irregular pounding or racing heartbeat or pulse; halos around lights; indigestion; loss of appetite; nausea or vomiting; night blindness; over-bright appearance of lights; pale skin; pinpoint red or purple spots on the skin; severe and continuing nausea; severe stomach burning, cramping or pain; skin rash; swelling or inflammation of the mouth; troubled breathing with exertion; tunnel vision; unusual bleeding or bruising; unusual tiredness or weakness; vomiting of material that looks like coffee grounds; weight loss; anxiety; back or leg pains; bleeding gums; blindness; blistering, peeling or loosening of the skin' blood in the urine or stools' blue lips and fingernails; canker sores; change in the ability to see colors, especially blue or yellow; chest pain or discomfort; clay-colored stools; cold sweats; coma; confusion; cool, pale skin; cough or hoarseness; coughing that sometimes produces a pink frothy sputum; cracks in the skin; darkened urine; decreased vision; depression; diarrhea; difficult, burning or painful urination; difficult, fast, or noisy breathing; difficulty with swallowing; dilated neck veins; dizziness; dry cough; dry mouth; early appearance of redness, or swelling of the skin; excess air or gas in the stomach; extreme fatigue; eye pain; fainting; fever with or without chills; fluid-filled skin blisters; flushed, dry skin; frequent urination; fruit-like breath odor; greatly decreased frequency of urination or amount of urine; hair loss; high fever; hives; increased hunger; increased sensitivity of the skin to sunlight; increased sweating; increased thirst; increased urination; increased volume of pale, dilute urine; irregular breathing; joint or muscle pain; large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs,feet, or sex organs; late appearance of rash without or without weeping blisters that become crusted especially in sun-exposed areas of skin, may extend to unexposed areas; light-colored stools; lightheadedness; loss of heat from the body; lower back or side pain; nervousness; nightmares; no blood pressure; no breathing; no pulse, nosebleeds, numbness or tingling in the hands, feed, or lips; pain in the ankles or knees, pain or burning in the throat; pain or discomfort in the arms, jaw, back or neck; painful red lumps under the skin, mostly on the legs; pains in the stomach, side or abdomen, possibly radiating to the back; pale or blue lips, fingernails or skin; pounding in the ears; puffiness or swelling of the eyelids or around the eyes, face, lips or tongue; rapid shallow breathing; red, irritated eyes; red skin lesions, often with a purple center; red-green color-blindness; redness or other discoloration of the skin; redness, swelling or soreness of the tongue; scaly skin; seizures; severe sunburn; shakiness; skin thinness; slurred speech; sneezing; sore throat; sores, ulcers or white spots on the lips or tongue or inside the mouth; sores, welting or blisters; spots on your skin resembling a blister or pimple; stiff neck or back; stomach cramps or tenderness; stomach upset; swelling in the legs and ankles; swelling of the face, fingers, feet or lower legs; swollen, painful, or tender lymph glands in the neck, armpit or groin; tiny bumps on the inner lining of the eyelid; unexplained weight loss; unpleasant breath odor; watery or bloody diarrhea; weakness or heaviness of the legs; weight gain; yellow eyes or skin; bleeding under the sin; confusion about identity, place, and time; muscle tremors; restlessness, sleepiness; continuing ringing or buzzing or other unexplained noise in the ears; hearing loss; acid or sour stomach; change in hearing; feeling of constant movement of self or surroundings; passing gas; sensation of spinning; stomach soreness or discomfort; appetite changes; burning, crawling, itching, numbness pricking, "pins and needles' or tingling feelings; burning, dry or itching eyes; difficulty with moving; discharge, excessive tearing; general feeling of weakness; not able to concentrate; redness, pain or swelling of the eye, eyelid, or inner lining of the eyelid; seeing, hearing or feeling things that are not there; shakiness in the legs, arms, hands, or feet; sleeplessness; swollen joints; trembling or shaking of the hands or feet; trouble getting pregnant; trouble performing routine tasks; trouble sleeping; unable to sleep; unusual drowsiness, dullness, or feeling of sluggishness.

Folks, those are the side-effects, overdose symptoms, or general crap associated with naproxen, the main ingredient in Aleve, the over-the-counter pain medication I take on occasion.  See, you don't even have to look at prescription pain meds to have the crap scared out of you, and to wonder if we know what we're doing when it comes to medications, and to wonder if we should be looking at other options.

We are a nation of medicators - patients who demand doctors give them a pill or a shot for everything that ails them, and doctors who comply, whether out of sympathy, expediency or as a defensive medicine practice.

We're a society that has managed to convince ourselves that having an erection is a medical necessity that can be handled, pardon the pun, with a little blue pill and a cheap copay.

When we're that far in the weeds with priorities, how can we refuse a sick person a little weed of their own? 

Fortune Favors the Bold (Pt 4)

One of the things Governor Cuomo is a big proponent of is ethics reform,  including public financing of elections. He included a reference to this in his State of the State Address -- take a look:

I propose new anti-bribery and corruption laws, public financing of elections, independent enforcement at the board of elections, and disclosure of outside clients with business before the state of New York.

He's been steadfast in his support of these ideas, and his Moreland Commission came out with recommendations similar enough to Cuomo's ideas that one can't help thinking either he had a hand in writing them, or the Commission plagiarized his writing.  And while his support for reform has not waivered,  his own fundraising has been prolific.  Cuomo has $33 million in his war chest for this fall's election, with who knows how many more opportunities he has on his calendar to rake in more.

In his now famous Capitol Pressroom interview with  Susan Arbetter last week, Cuomo talked about politics and money, in a most enlightening and bold manner. Arbetter noted his successful fundraising to date, and wondered if it was to scare off potential opponents. Cuomo noted (and I'm paraphrasing here) that someone with a ton of money could run for office and win, simply because they had a ton of money, not because of any ideals or anything.  He's not necessarily talking about Donald Trump, but Trump has suggested he'd spend a couple bucks of his own money, if he decided to run.

Where the interview got interesting is when Arbetter pressed the Governor on where his money is coming from:

NYPIRG (Note: that's the New York Public Interest Research Group) noted that 81% of your donors gave at least $10,000, and some of your largest donations are from corporations from New York City who are giving in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (emphasis added).  And the question is does that make you more responsive to those interests? 

In classic Cuomo style, our Sonofa Governor answered:

Well...I think a lot of this conversation is baloney, frankly.

Think about that: 81% of his donations are over ten grand, bigger than you and I could or would afford, and he's got corporations giving hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It's NOT baloney, the question she asked -- it's a great question.  And he didn't stop at the deli counter -- he kept going.

What the people want to know, what they say to me is look, we want to know that you're working for us, and you're not working for anyone else. Because there are some politicians out there who can be bought for $10, and some politicians who cannot be bough for $10 billion. It's a question of the person, it's a question of character, and it's a question of values. It's not how much does it cost to buy a politician, it's a politician who can't be bought.

Now you and I can guess where Cuomo thinks he is in this equation. He believes, "in his heart" that we know he can't be bought, that we know he's working for our best interests and for the best interest of the state, and where the money comes from doesn't matter a whole hill of beans in the overall scheme of things. Why?

I'm going to make the decision that I think is right for them because at the end of the night I go home and I put my head on the pillow and I have to be able to fall asleep and I can't fall asleep if I don't believe I'm doing the right thing.

I can't fall asleep at night because our house is noisy and our cats are restless and My Sweet Baboo snores and there's a firehouse down the street and because I lie awake at night sometimes wondering why a politician would take hundreds of thousands, no, millions of dollars from corporations, when it's people that vote.

Cuomo knows that people like me have perceptions like that, so he thinks that we need public financing of elections.  He does note however, that even making a change like that may not be enough. He can vouch for his own character, but not everyone else's -- and regardless of the dollar limit that ultimately gets attached to any public campaign financing legislation,

if we elect people who can be bought, we're electing the wrong people. 

On that, the Gov and I agree.

On the rest, well, I have different ideas on campaign finance reform, many of which I've shared before. And until we make some really big changes - term limits for starters -- many times, those whom fortune favors are not necessarily the bold.  They're probably just incumbents.

Fortune Favors the Bold (Pt 3)

On October 30, 1990, Robert 'Bam Bam' Lawrence shot and killed Syracuse police investigator Wallie Howard Jr, when an undercover drug deal went bad. Lawrence was 16 years old; Howard was 31.

Earlier this week, in federal court in Utica, a judge reduced Lawrence's sentence from life in prison to 31 years, on the basis of a 2012 Supreme Court ruling determining that a mandatory sentence of life in prison for anyone under the age of 18 was unconstitutional, as it met the criteria of cruel and unusual punishment.  In re-sentencing Lawrence, now 40, the judge noted that he had to take into consideration "the traits of youth" including "immaturity, vulnerability to peer pressure, and the likelihood that his character was not as well-formed' as an adult's would be. Four others, all over the age of 18 at the time, are serving life sentences.

Lawrence is also serving a concurrent state sentence of 30 years to life.

So what's the connection to Governor Cuomo's State of the State address, which is what this Fortune Favors the Bold series is all about? Well, the governor wants to do something about how young criminals are treated.  Here's what he said:

Our juvenile justice laws are outdated. Under New York State law 16- and 17-year-olds can be tried and charged as adults. Only one other state in the nation does that; it's the state of North Carolina.  It's not right, it's not fair - we must raise the age. Let's form a commission on youth public safety and justice and let's get it done this year. 

Liberals and progressives would say that we should not throw away a 16- or 17-year-old child, even one who commits bad acts, by putting them into the adult justice system. The child's decisions-making capacity is not fully formed at that age, according to scientific reports.  And, in 37 states and Washington DC, only offenders 18 years of age and older are treated as adults. Another 11 states would consider a 17 year old an adult, and as our Sonofa Governor mentioned in the SOTS, only North Carolina joins us at the 16 year old level.

The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice is leading the charge on changing how juveniles are treated in the American justice system. They and others have made the case that adolescent brains are not fully developed and capable of valid decision-making; that young offenders too prone to peer pressure and act badly as a result; that mental and behavioral influences help contribute to youth crime; that kids incarcerated with adults don't stand much of a chance in turning their lives around; and that recidivism rates are much higher for adult-incarcerated youth than they are for kids in the juvenile justice program, where significantly more attention is paid to reform, rehabilitation and re-entry into productive society.

One of the MacArthur studies compared statistics in New York and New Jersey (focusing on the New York City area) back in the early 1990s, and found that kids prosecuted in NY's adult courts were 85% more likely to be re-arrested for violent crimes and 44% more likely to be re-arrested for property crimes; in fact, for every category of crimes other than drug offenses juveniles in the adult system were more likely to be re-arrested than their juvenile system counterparts in New Jersey.   A subsequent study in 2001 found more developmental issues with adult-incarcerated youth.

These studies are among the ones being shared by the proponents of raising the age; RaisetheAgeNY has some even more compelling statistics, including:

• 75.3% of the 50,000 16- and 17-year-olds arrested each year, and potentially facing the adult court system, were charged with misdemeanors;
• 70% of the 16- and 17-year-olds arrested are black or Latino; and
• 80% of the ones who end up being sentenced are black or Latino

These are sobering statistics, to be sure.  But so (as just one example) was the behavior of Robert Lawrence;  he committed an adult crime (murder of a police officer) while participating in an adult crime (a deal to sell a lot of cocaine) with the intention of committing yet another adult crime (stealing $42,000, the cash intended to purchase the coke).

This type of behavior -- these or any other serious crimes -- should continue to be treated as adult crimes. And whatever we do let's not become Texas, where blaming wealthy parents is now fair game, just as blaming a poor upbringing is fair game just about everywhere.

Now, the other question here is why we need to "form a commission on youth public safety" to tackle this.

Why not let the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children handle it? They're celebrating 25 years of service, according to their web page. Funny - I see that and I'm reminded of Syracuse's old Frank's Pizza, where they used to say in their late-night ads that they "know what they've been doing, they've been doing it for over 25 years" -- that's experience, folks!

Yes -- let's ask this permanent commission to tackle the Raise the Age issue. Or, heaven forbid, why not ask the New York State Legislature? No one's better at holding meetings than that group.

If we're going to do this, let's look at misdemeanors vs. more serious crimes; let's look at harm to the victims (property vs person, for example) and let's look at sentencing options (including any cases of mandatory minimums).  Let's not lose sight of three-strikes type laws, and make sure that they're reasonable. But let's not mess around pulling together another group, let's use the one that's in place and figure out what has to be done.

And in the process, let's make absolutely sure that families like Wallie Howard's are heard from -- for as much as liberals and progressives are in favor of protecting and promoting and supporting the lives and welfare of the young and the less fortunate, when it comes to crime and punishment, the voice of the victims cannot be forgotten. 

Fortune Favors the Bold (Pt 2)

In his State of the State (SOTS) address, our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo touched on many subjects; see my summary here. One of the things that he specifically mentioned was the uncommon collaboration between Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner and Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney.

Cuomo is familiar with both women. Miner is the co-chair of New York's Democratic Committee, and in her role as our 53rd mayor she's frequently butted heads with the governor on financial issues, among other things.  Mahoney, a Republican, participated on Cuomo's transition team and is also a member of his Moreland Commission to clean up Albany. Here's what he had to say about our leaders:

And there is a ray of hope because there are local leaders who are stepping up to the plate and I would like to take a moment to recognize the great Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney and the Mayor of Syracuse Stephanie Miner who are working together. They are working together to see if they can achieve consolidation and shared services between Onondaga County and the city of Syracuse. We wish them well and we hope other leaders follow their example because that is exactly the right course. 

Well, today we learned that things aren't always perfect with our Dream Team.  The topic that has them on opposite sides, at least for now? Building a new sports facility in Syracuse, primarily for SU.  This article provides a lot of the details on the proposed project, which Mahoney has been working on for a while. Here are some highlights of the deal, now not expected to go through:

• perhaps as much as $200 million in state funding, through an agreement with Cuomo, to go towards a half-a-billion dollar project slated for the old Kennedy Square neighborhood sandwiched between the University Hill medical complex and Water Street.  That area is already being developed as part of Upstate's seemingly endless appetite for expansion and SU's Connective Corridor initiative
• a commitment from the developer of the site to look to get an additional one million square feet of mixed development (residential and retail) near the area for the stadium
• contributions from SU, the 'major tenant', and from the County Legislature towards the project
• a private company to manage the facility.

Given their prior collaborative efforts it seems uncharacteristic that Miner was only brought in towards the end, after much had already been put into motion but Mahoney admitted that was the case. She also indicated that Miner balked, stating

I see this as a tremendous opportunity for the whole region, but I don't want to do it over the mayor's objections.  At the end of the day, she is the mayor and she gets to set her priorities.  My priorities, or the state's priorities, or Syracuse University's priorities for the city don't take precedence over the mayor's priorities. 

Those priorities for the city are mundane things, like replacing 100-year-old water mains before any more of them burst; new police cars, which are being replaced more slowly than they likely should be; mandatory water treatment initiatives; repairs to existing recreational facilities actually used by city residents, as opposed to a stadium that would only be visited by city residents.

I'm sure those priorities also include trying to do something about our neighborhoods and nearly 2000 abandoned properties; our schools; fighting crime; providing services in a city that's close to 50% untaxable, and all those other things that mayors are supposed to worry about.

Miner will undoubtedly have further conversations with Mahoney; she did send questions to SU chancellor Kent Syverud, which you can read here.  Syverud, on his second official day as chancellor, issued a statement, including these wise words:

I would hope that no community leader, including me, would be criticized for asking relevant questions before reaching a decision. 

I couldn't agree more.

Frankly, I'm astonished that Mahoney, the Legislature and all of the other interested parties cooked up this plan without engaging the city - I mean, I can only imagine what Joanie would think if I got together with her neighbors and came up with a plan to put a gazebo in her back yard, then presented her with about 70% of the details and said "Come on Joanie, let's go!" I expect I'd be met with a 'lack of enthusiasm' don't you?

To Cuomo's point in the SOTS, let's hope that other leaders who are looking to follow Miner and Mahoney down the path of collaboration don't take this little misstep as a sign that partnering with other jurisdictions - we have over 10,000 of them in New York, after all -- is the wrong way to go.  It's absolutely the right way to go, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of it here in Central New York.

And to his point that 'fortune favors the bold', one of things that sticks out the most on this is the 'bold' hand of the Governor, the hand that guides things behind the scenes and then presents them for everyone to take in when he's done, whether they like it or not. Reminds me of the old adage, if you can't play nice, pick up your toys and leave.

If  Onondaga County ends up losing hundreds of millions of dollars because Cuomo and Mahoney failed to engage a critical stakeholder, and chose instead to plop a gazebo in the middle of that stakeholder's back yard, shame on them.

Fortune Favors the Bold (Part 1)

(courtesy Gov.Cuomo's website)

The four words in the title of this post were nestled very early in State of the State (SOTS) address, which Governor Cuomo delivered last week.

Cuomo, like most who have the opportunity to give these speeches, started out with what was wrong in NY before he took office three years ago, including 23 late budgets in 30 years, sixty years of state spending exceeding revenues, and a $10 billion deficit. And consistent with how these 'State of the...' speeches go, he touted his successes and laid out his plan for this year.

I'll talk about the successes first.  There have been a lot of them during Cuomo's term; you almost have to give him credit for making a difference, even if you disagree with some of the differences that he made.  Here's the list of things that were mentioned in the SOTS, starting with those related to finances - the state's, or its impact on our own:

• the $10B deficit has turned into a $2B surplus
• spending was held at 2%, below the rate of inflation and below the rate of growth in personal income
• all New Yorkers pay less income tax now than when he took office, and the 'middle class tax rate' is the lowest it's been in over sixty years
• a property tax cap was passed
• a graduated, three-year series of increases in the minimum wage has started
• some 380,000 new private sector jobs were created, ranking us #2 in the nation for post-recession job creation
• a 15% increase in exports was realized
• improved scores were received from all of the major ratings agencies 
• unemployment is down across all regions of the state
• the 'opportunity' for municipalities to work with the state to help solve local financial problems
• state pension reform was enacted
• approval of casino gambling was obtained this past November
• a plan is finally in the works to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge

And in the bucket of public health, education and safety (a loose category of my own design, for the 'all other things we've done'):

• the (highly controversial) passage of the NY SAFE Act
• a reduction in the number of prison beds, and the closing of juvenile facilities
• a decrease in crime (no specifics given)
• enrolling some 265,000 people through the NY State of Health exchange
• marriage equality became a reality 
• teacher standards and evaluations
• the crackdown on DWT, or driving while texting
• creation of the Moreland Commission on Ethics to clean up Albany

Some of these may have been considered bold ideas when first proposed. I think perhaps the better term is 'ideas from a bold person', a man who does not worry so much about how things get done as much as he cares about the getting things done part. 

I'm not sure that anyone thought we would see this much of a financial turnaround in only three years, or that we would see movement on so many things that have just sat our there in the Albany idea cloud without any action - casino gambling, gun control, the Tappan Zee bridge project, and any kind of education reform being just a few examples. 

And the Sonofa Gov plans on more of the same bold ideas - many of which are designed to build on what's already been done - and bold implementation plans going forward.  

In upcoming posts, I'll look at some of these accomplishments and some of the plans for New York's future that Cuomo put on the table last Wednesday.