“There will be cynics and pessimists who will say we can’t, we shouldn’t and we won’t. Their only job will be to protect the status quo that has worked for them, but not for us. The status quo always has powerful friends. But we in this chamber have our own more powerful friends—we have the men and women of this state who work and struggle each day to give their children a better life than they had. Together, we will prove that even with all the cynicism out there, it’s still possible for all New Yorkers to win; for all their voices to be heard; and for all their potential to be fulfilled.”
With those words, along with the obligatory “God bless New York” that every state politician is forced to include into any speech, our new Governor Eliot Spitzer closed his first “State of the State” speech, outlining his grand agenda for the improvement of New York State following more than a decade of George Pataki’s rule.
The speech outlined many themes that Spitzer touched on during his campaign, most notably the reform of state government and the revitalization of New York’s economy, particularly upstate. For starters, Spitzer has promised to create a dedicated economic development agency designed specifically to deal with the many challenges facing the upstate economy. In areas that have continually seen their population decline for lack of employment, such a move should have been a no-brainer to Pataki. Alas, it took Spitzer to state the obvious.
And though every politician will tell you that they agree with Spitzer’s call for political and governmental reform, these are the very same people who have spent much of the last decade creating the dysfunctional system we have in place today. It is almost certain that some of these same leaders have developed a serious headache over the ethics reforms that Spitzer has outlined. The establishment of an independent, non-partisan redistricting committee, for example, would end the incumbent protection racket that sees Republicans and Democrats alike draw their own safe districts to prevent competition. The end of such gerrymandering no doubt worries many elected officials, regardless of the smile plastered on their face.
The same could be said for Spitzer’s attack on lobbyists and their interests. Lobbyists are often portrayed as the most evil, heinous scum on the earth, but to believe that, you would also have to believe that elected officials are too stupid to know whose checks they are accepting. The lobbyist problem is a two-way street, and Albany’s elected elite have to have their hands out when these lobbyists come to down with their money, otherwise the dysfunctional system doesn’t work. “We are in danger of losing the confidence of those who elected us. To restore their confidence, we must overhaul our campaign finance, lobbying and election laws,” Spitzer said. Restoring that confidence will hit the wallets of those elected officials who, for the time being, are going along with the program.
But the real interesting aspects of Spitzer’s agenda are his more radical positions against the established power interests in the state, such as the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). In his speech, Spitzer called for an increase in the cap on charter schools, which is currently set at the artificial limit of 100. “Not only must we invest in what we know works today, we must continuously experiment with new approaches. Charter schools can play a critical role here. Yet the increase in charter schools must be accompanied by transitional aid for districts—like Buffalo and Albany—that have been most affected by a high level of enrollment in charter schools,” Spitzer said.
The UFT, headed by President Randi Weingarten, has long been hostile towards even the 100 charter schools currently allowed under state law (one of which is run by the union). Charter schools, though funded with public money, are not required to follow many of the curriculum and staffing rules that other charter schools must adhere to, such as hiring union staffers. Weingarten supported Spitzer in his race for governor, but she will no doubt butt heads with him over raising the cap. A lame duck Pataki did not move to raise the cap last year, even though he had nothing to lose.
For Spitzer to make the move would represent the type of radical change observers are expecting from the new administration. Nothing has changed just yet, but on day three the blueprint for that change was slammed down on the table with a resounding thud.
