I'm a production of WAMC News.
From Albany, this is the Legislative Gazette, a weekly half hour review of New York State
government and politics.
Your host is political scientist and syndicated columnist Dr. Alan Sharton of the State University.
This edition of the Legislative Gazette will look back at the recently approved state budget,
not for what's in it, but for how it's put together.
This week, the Major League Baseball season opened, and National Football League teams
announced their schedules for next fall.
If you look closely at those schedules, you'll see that the New York jets are playing
their home games in New Jersey at the Metallands, a stadium shared by another New York team,
the Giants.
Having two New York teams playing out of state doesn't sit well with many New Yorkers,
including Governor Cuomo.
The Urban Development Corporation and its sportsplex subsidiary has been trying to do something
about that by proposing a new dome stadium somewhere in New York.
This week it announced it was ready to accept proposals from developers for a sight in
Queens, not far from Shay Stadium, the former home of the jets.
While many New York sports fans hail the idea, it has caused a rift between Queens, the
home borough of Mario Cuomo, and those would prefer to see the stadium built in Brooklyn.
Bill Graulty spoke with Queens opponent and Brooklyn booster Senator Thomas Bartoshevitz
about the latest proposal.
As far as I'm concerned, I believe that the scheme to build a stadium in Queens is an
economic and environmental disaster.
In fact, it could become Governor Cuomo's version of West Way, but after all these years
still hasn't built.
The truth is that a dome stadium in Queens means that you're going to put 70 businesses
out of business that represents the loss of more than 1,300 jobs.
And any attempt to relocate those businesses into a choir, the land is going to cost lots
of money.
Probably big bucks were talking the vicinity of $70 to $100 million just to require land
and relocate businesses.
That's out of the taxpayers pocket, in my opinion, that's an inappropriate unnecessary
expense.
In addition, there's the likelihood of a lot of toxic waste dumping, which has taken
place over the years, that's untold millions more just to clean up the site.
And that's never before anybody breaks any ground.
So in my mind, this is an economic disaster and it just doesn't make any sense.
You're saying that there's toxic waste dumped on or near that site?
Well, historically, over the years, some of the light industry, which is located on that
site, includes chemical companies and it's the heart of New York City scrap iron industry
when they have to use chemicals in order to melt some of these products down.
So it's very, very likely that they're going to have a massive cleanup effort on their
hands, which is going to cost a lot of money.
Contrast that with Brooklyn, where we have plenty of publicly owned land available now.
That's land, which is for free, where they could start to break ground immediately.
That's not going to cost the taxpayers a dime.
So for sound economic reasons, I just don't think that the f*** are you flushing meadow
proposal makes any sense?
You have been known to favor the Brooklyn location.
What is it that you have heard that is making people favor the Queens location right now?
Well, I don't think it's a coincidence that after three and a half years of not paying any attention to the importance
of sports in New York State's economy, that conscious finally begun doing something about the problem.
He let the jets get away to New Jersey.
That costs us about $33 million a year in economic revenue for the state.
He recently announced that he's going to refurbish Shae Stadium and I don't think it's a
coincidence that he let a few months before the mayoral primary for mayor of New York City,
that he has suddenly taken this interest.
I think it's a political deal that sticks.
Do you think still that the New York City area needs a domed multi-sport stadium?
There's no question about it.
I mean, I've been advocating the building of a domed stadium in Brooklyn for the last four years.
The reason is money.
Sports generate billions of dollars for New York State's economy.
This year's Super Bowl was worth more than $120 million in economic impact
for the city of San Francisco and the immediate area surrounding it.
The fact is that baseball and football may just be games, but sports is a big business.
It thinks about time that we learn to start competing with states like New Jersey,
which has really benefited economically from the construction of the metal left.
Would the jets come back, do you think?
Who knows?
As far as I'm concerned, what we have to do is get the stadium in place before any team,
whether it's football or baseball, wants to play in this area.
The fact is that all along, New Jersey has been very serious about its approach to sports.
It's about time that New York is also.
Let me have you look into the future, then Tom.
Do you think, well, what do you think is going to happen?
Are you going to be able to prevail on this one, you and others who support the Brooklyn site?
On the first place, today's announcement is only an appeal to the public and developers
to come forward with ideas and specific proposals for the development of the stadium.
I believe the decision rests with the governor.
He's been silent on this whole issue.
He hasn't endorsed a site or a concept.
I'm optimistic that he'll see the light.
Senator Thomas Bartishevitz.
Joining us now is Dr. Lee Meringoff.
He directs the prestigious Marist College Institute for Public Opinion
and is our resident pole watcher.
On Tuesday, this past week, Governor Cuomo announced that raising the state's drinking age
from 19 to 21 is now his top priority for the rest of the legislative session.
Now that the budget deliberations are over, the governor is again at work
setting the agenda and advocating an issue which he argues is not as important politically
as it is one which directly affects the lives of state residents.
This is not a new issue.
Last year, the governor proposed raising the minimum drinking age to 21,
but it failed to be enacted.
This time around, the governor has Washington in his corner,
Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole,
which President Reagan's blessing, has announced that the federal government will withhold federal highway funds
from those states who do not have a 21-year-old drinking minimum.
Governor Cuomo and the state legislature are quick to realize the implications
of the potential loss of millions of federal dollars to New York.
Governor Cuomo and the state legislature are quick to realize the implications
of the potential loss of millions of federal dollars to New York.
Governor Cuomo, too, is credit.
He's quick to lead on this issue last year and is now backed by federal pronouncements.
The state legislators may very well step in line.
There is not unanimity, however, on this issue.
Cavern associations oppose raising the drinking age for fear of losses and revenues,
and as soon as the association of the state university of the state of New York
is planning to demonstrate its opposition to the proposal.
The public, as a whole, seems very supportive to the idea.
In separate surveys conducted by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion last spring,
and won in this January, the overwhelming majority of state residents indicated
that they support raising the drinking age from 19 to 21.
For example, 71% of state voters interviewed in random in January favor the proposal,
only 26% were opposed.
Last June, 66% of the state residents supported the idea.
The proposal will enjoy widespread support in all regions of the state.
It support its greatest in the suburbs surrounding New York City.
The least supports for the idea is upstate, but even there advocates outnumber opponents by 2 to 1.
With the backing of the governor, with the threat of losses and further revenues,
with the support of public opinion, this is clearly an issue to watch during this session of the legislature.
It may very well be a proposal whose time has come.
In the meantime, for the legislative to set, this is Lee Meringaugh at the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion in Big Epssy.
Regular listeners may have noticed that another of our regulars, Fred Dicker,
has been absent from this program for several weeks.
Fred was on assignment in Central America for the New York Post.
He returned to Albany just in time to witness the budget agreement,
and a dust up between Governor Cuomo and Attorney General Robert Abrams.
Now we're happy to say he's back with us, whether it's Civil War in Central America
or Civil War in the New York Democratic Party, Fred Dicker of the New York Post.
The most serious clash in recent history between a governor and an Attorney General ended here late Friday,
but the full answer of this but could last for years.
The clash between Governor Cuomo and Attorney General Robert Abrams came in two phases.
The first began about three weeks ago when Abrams announced he had promoted one of his top eights,
Flynnium Dowling, to the post of Special Prosecutor for New York City.
That's an extraordinarily powerful position for one politician to control.
The Special Prosecutor has, for instance, the authority to supersede any and all of the five New York City District attorneys.
The Special Prosecutor's office was set up some ten years ago in the wake of the sensational map commission hearings
and the testimony of police officer Frank Cervigo, threw out police and judicial corruption in the big apple.
Cuomo is furious because Abrams breaking ten years of tradition failed to consult him on Dowling's appointment.
Cuomo argued persuasively that while the law gave Abrams the right to appoint a special prosecutor,
it was a governor's executive order which created the post that's giving the governor a special responsibility for the Special Prosecutor's actions.
I believe, Fred Cuomo, that the consultative process between himself and the Attorney General is not only desirable but essential
since the Special Prosecutor is a vehicle by which the extraordinary act of superseder, which can only be undertaken by the governor, is implemented.
Abrams initially resisted Cuomo's arguments and insisted he'd retain Dowling, which brings us to the second phase of his dispute.
Late last week, the head of the New York State organized crime task force, Deputy Attorney General Ronald Goldstock,
accused Abrams of being a publicity hound to nearly kill the major crime investigation.
The politically damaging unprecedented charge was based on Goldstock's contention that Abrams improperly sought to put his name on a critical organized crime wiretapped application last December,
because, and on quoting Goldstock, he, meaning Abrams, wanted the publicity expected to result.
I asked Goldstock why Abrams might violate the law to do such a thing Goldstock responded bluntly, saying of Abrams the Attorney General, he doesn't know any law.
Goldstock also disclosed that Abrams had tried to fire him, only to have his action blocked by Governor Cuomo, who later praised Goldstock as an able Deputy Attorney General.
Goldstock's job, unlike that of the New York City Special Prosecutor, is filled or emptied by mutual agreement of Cuomo and Abrams.
Goldstock's allegations, combined with hints of similar concerns from another state prosecutor, raised major public doubts about Abrams' professionalism.
And they strengthen Cuomo's case that Abrams should not have appointed Dowling as the New York City Special Prosecutor without first consulting him.
The damage to Abrams from the controversies was enormous. On Thursday, the New York Times, to some believe Abrams is slavishly obedient,
strided strongly with Cuomo in the dispute. The next day, Abrams caved. He announced Dowling's resignation and said that from now on, he'll grant the Governor a prior approval before naming a new Special Prosecutor.
For now, the dispute is over, but Abrams has suffered some mighty political damage. And his status in the eyes of our politically popular Governor, never rolled that high, is now lower than ever before.
Back at the Capitol, trying to keep an eye on the happening is his bread-digger of the New York Post.
By now, we are all aware that New York State has a budget in effect for the fiscal year which began April 1st.
Even casual observers know that the budget is the result of intense negotiations between the Governor and the Legislative leaders.
What casual observers may not realize is this. Much of the budget work is done by staff members, and often, they have a better view of the process than elected officials.
One such staff member is Frank Moral, the top-ranking assembly staff member on budget matters.
What is it that was different about the budget this year, the budget process, than in past years?
I think there were things that were substantively different and procedurally different because of the argument over the Sunsets.
Things happened, let me stop you right there. There are still some people who don't know what Sunsets are.
At the beginning of the year, the Governor and Senator Anderson both proposed personal income tax reductions of about the same size.
The only difference was, the Governor said we can only do these personal income tax reductions if we continue for temporary taxes.
Taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, petroleum, and long lines, telephone, long distance, interstate long distance, call.
Senator Anderson said we can do those personal income tax cuts, and we can also let the temporary taxes die, thus the term Sunsets.
Okay, with this, so you were saying in terms of the difference in the process, the budgetary process this year.
Because of that argument, over whether or not you needed to continue the temporary taxes in order to afford personal income tax cuts, a very interesting process emerged in late February, early March.
It became an argument over revenue estimates, over whether or not you were able to afford the personal income tax reductions without the Sunsets.
And for the first time this year, the three parties, the Senate, the Assembly, and the Governor, really the budget division on behalf of the Governor got involved in in-depth open discussions about their conflicting revenue estimates.
Where the three sides shared with each other's, their equations, their assumptions, it's a process that has never taken effect before.
Let me just stop you, excuse me for a second, Frank.
Each of you had to decide, as every family does, how much money was coming into the pocketbook, so you'd know how much to spend during the year.
And up until now, it's been a fairly guarded process by which each person develops equations, complicated formulas, but they haven't really been shared that much, right?
In the past, it's been basically a black box exercise, where the Senate would throw out a number that was several hundred million dollars higher than the Governor.
The Governor would throw out a number which was more conservative, and there was never really any effort to reconcile those on the merits.
It was mostly a political, public relations exercise with both sides posturing, and in years where one side was more likely to be right, they would split the difference on the high side, and other years they would split the difference on the low side.
We have never really gone public with our numbers, feeling that two black box numbers made the situation confusing enough, and we pushed this year for some reconciliation process.
That effort went on for three weeks. It never reached finality, but it came close enough to establish a framework for a decision.
The second thing it led to that never took place before was an argument over tax policy.
In early March, the Speaker took the position that even if there wasn't agreement on additional revenues, he didn't think we should end the Sunsets.
Even if we had the money, he took the position that if we had the money, we should use it for additional personal income tax cuts.
We had a political problem with the personal income tax package that had been advocated by the Governor and the Senate.
We felt that not enough of the relief went to middle income families and low income people.
We said if we have additional money, let's use it for additional income tax cuts, and let's use it for income tax cuts, focused on middle income families.
The idea that we were able to get into the debate, which has now been adopted as law, is something we call the family adjustment.
It derived from work of our legislative tax study commission that had done work last summer on what they call taxation of the family and low income relief.
In New York, you have a system where you have one rate schedule.
In Washington, for your federal return, you have one rate schedule for single and another for married.
If you have a family with $30,000 income, if they're using the same rate schedule as a single person, they're going to reach higher brackets.
Frank, it has often been said that the staff, and here you are, Secretary, to the ways and means committee, one of the most powerful positions in the legislature, although I know you always win when I say things like that because you're the last guy who takes a lot of credit around here.
But it has been said that the staff has an inordinate power to do this negotiating for their principles. Do you subscribe to that?
Well, I think the way it works for the assembly with the speaker is that we have a lot of interaction with the speaker, and we know very well what it is that he's interested in accomplishing and which direction he wants to go.
And I think we operate well as his agent. So I it might have been true in the past, but I don't think it's true with this speaker that the staff is off doing its own thing.
If the staff is powerful, it's powerful because it has the support of the speaker, and it knows what the speaker wants to accomplish on behalf of the Democratic conference, and it's furthering those things in negotiations.
Now, thank you have done an interesting thing that you've written on and that has been cited in different places, and that is that because you are concerned about these estimates, you have put together a board of advisors. Could you tell us something about that?
Yes, the ways and means committee, a year ago, created a board of economic advisors consisting of economists from several banks, from several universities, the chief regional economist from the Federal Reserve Bank.
And we've worked with them to get their advice as to how to improve our methodology. And we earlier this year, for example, we had a full day session where they spent the full day, where I spent the full day, where all of our fiscal staff spent the full day going over in detail, our equations and our assumptions for our various revenue estimates, and getting their advice as to how to improve our work methodologically and to improve the data series we use.
And we don't pay these people. No, why do they do it? I think they do it out of a sense of public service, because I think academics and people from the Federal Reserve Bank, from some of the other banks, recognize the fact that their institutions have a responsibility to public service, and I think they also have a chance to be involved in something which is perhaps exciting and interesting.
I think I hear you saying that this was a less political year in some ways than in the past. And I use politics in the degenerative sense almost, that there was more public policy going on in this budgetary process than there was hard-boiled politics take it or leave it in the past.
I think it's really both. I think there was more public policy discussion, but I don't know if it was less political. It was definitely a political process, but it was the political process for the purpose of reconciling policy differences.
And I think that the Speaker, Senator Anderson, the Governor, all are political leaders, and they use their political power and their political soap boxes to further positions. But at the same time, things happen substantively that wouldn't have happened in previous years as part of the budget.
The fact that the superfund financing was resolved, the money to clean up hazardous waste sites. The superfund was resolved to clean up hazardous waste sites. The fact that we got a housing trust fund, which was larger than the housing trust fund recommended by the Governor, which dedicated money to both low income housing and to an affordable home ownership program for middle income families.
Those are things that ordinarily would have been put off to post budget time, but because the leaders were involved in this intensive series of meetings, I think they were able, very effectively, to broach issues which were important to the public in New York and to get them done.
We were also able, during this budget process, to get some things done that were innovative and important to our respective political conferences. From the Democratic majority side, we were able to come up with an idea for integrating our various preventive health programs.
And to test it out in high risk areas, where we'll attempt to get greater economy and efficiency by coordinating the myriad of preventive health programs we've established in the last 10 years, ranging from diabetes to hypertension to prenatal health care to nutrition.
Frank, first of all, one quick question. You said that in the past, you said that what was different about this year was that the actual leaders were sitting there discussing these issues.
How does that differ from the last year? It seems to me we've always been treated to the side of leaders walking in and out of leaders meeting.
One thing that all the leaders have said, and I think Senator Anderson has said it more than any, is that there were more meetings by far this year than in any previous year.
There were three and four and five leaders meeting some weeks, and they were meetings at which the leaders were able to focus on the expenditure side of the budget, as well as the revenue side, while the expenditure side broke later.
There was first of all a discussion on revenue estimates, that led to a discussion on tax policy, and later there was a discussion on some of the important spending priorities.
Sometimes in faculty meetings, Frank, I sit around and we debate issues, but I can count the votes before we go in the room and nothing changes. In other words, there's a lot of articulation, but essentially you know how things are going to break.
Now, you've been talking about these leaders meetings, are minds changed based on the merits of the arguments? In other words, does Mr. Finkless and Mr. Anderson say, you know I never thought of it that way, you have a good point and give in based on the reasoning that has been used in the process?
I think that happens. The one thing I've seen quoted publicly in terms of why Senator Anderson changed his position on the Sunset was that with the motor vehicle fee reduction, he said he could be sure that that money was returned to the people.
Now, I don't consider that to be one of the most momentous of the public policy issues we decided, because I'm not sure that either a motor vehicle fee reduction or reduction in the grocery seats tax is the most important thing we could do for the economy, but at least on that one point, which is the point that Senator Anderson was making,
that he wanted to help the automobile driver, he became convinced that you couldn't count on the oil companies to return the money to the people, and that's something that emerged from the discussions.
Very interesting. On the question of the budget this year, you were a little bit late, and in order to avoid workers not getting paid or script being issued, you came up with a temporary budget bill, and I think that's a new innovation, right? Is it a little dangerous?
Well, I don't think it's dangerous. It started with the tax side, though. The cigarette tax, which was one of the four taxes scheduled to sunset, was the first one to expire. It was going to expire on April 1st, and we recommended that there had been already been an agreement to make the cigarette tax permanent, but there wouldn't have been possible to make that permanent in isolation. It had to be done as part of the entire tax bill, which wasn't agreed to.
So as a temporary measure, we proposed the one-week extension of the cigarette tax, and that was enacted without any problem. A few days later, perhaps building on that precedent or that idea, the governor suggested two additional very short term bills.
He proposed an appropriation of Medicaid payments, and he proposed an appropriation which would have covered the April 3rd paychecks. And so three bills were done, all of which had a life of perhaps three days to a week.
And they gave the time in a very narrow band to get the permanent budget done.
Frank Moro's secretary to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. Talking with Frank Moro is always educational. Frank Moro is an intellectual in a political world, a gentleman and a scholar in every sense of the word.
When you talk with Moro, it's as if you were listening to a favorite political science professor back in college. The one who really liked what he was doing and could have cared less about the material rewards of the job, because he or she was so involved in the intellectual side.
To hear Moro tell it, the budget process has become more rational, less secretive, at least between the participants, and less political in the vinyl and pejorative sense.
He seems to say that there is less machoism, less posturing, and more searching for the common good in the process than before. And I am sure he is right.
As politicians turn into statesmen and stop practicing combat for its own sake, the system takes on a nicer hue.
On the other hand, to hear some tell it around the legislature, this was not one of the nicest, but one of the toughest budget years. The almost $39 billion budget included less than a poultry, $100 million, for a record number of member initiatives or items in the budget.
This is the money that individual legislators bring back to their district, the pork of the pork barrel, the political vigorous, that which gets legislators reelected. There was money for the East Harlem School of martial arts.
There was money for the Cold Spring Harbor LaCrosse Club. There was money for just about every conceivable project, including the Museum of Cheese in Rome, New York.
And the conclusion was inescapable, those that asked and pressed and knew the legislators got. The rest went, no connections or knowledge of their political options. Well, they don't get.
But there is an aspect to the budgetary process that I haven't got doped out yet, and that's the element of secrecy. After all, here's a governor in four really two legislative leaders, giving up the py-while arrest of the state looks on.
Theels are made based on political needs, getting marginal legislators elected, as well as on legitimate people needs.
The whole idea of a legislative process is that people are included in a democracy. But people, and 207 legislators, are excluded in the budgetary process until virtually the last minute when they are allowed to vote.
To legitimize what the leaders have done. On its face, that secrecy would seem to be counterproductive. But there is another way to look at it, and that involves packs, and lobbies, and an inordinate pressure from organized interest groups.
The secrecy may prevent the good people from looking in and monitoring the process, but it also prevents the sharks from smelling blood and overturning the whole budgetary boat.
By keeping things secret, you allow the leaders to counsel, to compromise, and to decide. But if you allow everyone in, you practically demand political posturing, and you make things an awful lot harder. As it is now, there's enough posturing to make the job an excedrin headache.
But somehow, year after year, the budget keeps getting passed, and the process keeps evolving. Frank Moro says this year represented some special ways of doing the business of state.
But perhaps that's because of the character of the men doing the business, and not because of any formal system. In the world of the political scientist, there's really no way to conduct a scientific test to see.
That's our show for this week. Join us again next week for another look at state government and politics.
Bill Graulty produces an edits this program, Rick LePkowski is Associate Editor. Please address comments and questions to us at WAMC Box 13,000 Albany, New York 12212. I'm Alan Chartock.
The legislative Gazette is a production of WAMC News. Alan Chartock is executive producer. This program is made possible with funds provided by the State University of New York College at Newport.
you
you
you
you
