By Henry J. Stern
January 27, 2006

Normally critics view with alarm rather than point with pride.  It is the nature of journalism to find fault with whatever is the topic of the day.  Certainly there is enough going wrong in the world to justify even a daily column calling attention to a particular evil or the inadequacy of the governmental or public response to a distressing condition.
 
That is why it is such a relief to point out, for a change, that things aren't going all that badly, for the moment.  The mayor gave a rigorous and far-ranging state of the city speech yesterday at the Snug Harbor Cultural Center on Staten Island's north shore.  Yes, Staten Island does have a north shore - it is called the Kill van Kull.  Across the kill is Bayonne, New Jersey.
 
One advantage of a second term is that  it permits the incumbent to complete a circuit of the five boroughs.  It also provides a second opportunity for an administration to survey the city, and to select areas for improvement on the basis of four years' experience.  The newspaper accounts of the speech have been summarized briefly and linked to by Bob Hardt in his useful daily column, the Political 1tch.  You can read, or scan, the full text of the State of the City 2006 by linking here.       
 
The mayor's broad areas of concern are Ground Zero and its lagging development, rising city pension and health insurance costs, gun control, and building affordable housing. Persistent poverty, redevelopment in all five boroughs, major park improvements such as Fresh Kills (the former garbage dump) and the High Line (the former elevated railroad in Chelsea and the West Village), the replacement of Yankee and Shea stadiums, and enrollment of children in health insurance programs were also discussed in optimistic terms.
 
Mayor Bloomberg adopted a more confident and forceful tone than he had in some of his previous speeches.  The tonic of re-election by a substantial majority does wonders for a man's self-esteem, as well it should.  There does not seem to be any near-term threat of the mayor becoming overly afflicted with the grandiosity that can accompany electoral or other popular success.
 
Nonetheless, the outcome of a great number of these mayoral initiatives will depend on the decisions of other people who are not mayoral appointees.  To wit, the New York State Legislature, the City Council and its new speaker, the Bush administration (particularly the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services), the Congress of the United States and its committee chairs, municipal unions, taxpayers, terrorists, and the activist and pacifist judiciary.
 
In this respect, it will be interesting to learn whether a more aggressive mayoral stance will lead to more favorable results for the city and its people than have been attained over the last four years.  With Governor Pataki already beginning his march into the sunset, the Albany balance of power has started to shift.  The 2006 elections may, or may not, result in significant changes in Congress, the Legislature, and the Executive Chamber (that's in Albany).  The new governor's attitude toward the city is an element which we will discover when he submits his first budget.  What he says during the campaign may inspire us with hope, but there is a substantial difference between a promise and a budget that must by law be balanced.
 
In all likelihood, some of the mayor's goals will be attained, other programs will achieve partial success, and some will fall by the wayside, either for financial reasons or because of implacable opposition by those who see themselves as adversely affected by change, and proceed to call in their chats on the legislators they have been supporting over the years.  Since money is the mother's milk of politics, it is not unlikely that those officials who have been sucking at the teats of business, labor or any other cash cows will respond in a Pavlovian manner when their source of nutrients rings the bell.

If the honorable executives and legislators did not bend, on cue, to their donors' will, they would consider themselves ingrates.  Thus does bribery become a matter of principle, as perceived by the bribed, who are, after all, people of integrity.  New York State does not need a Jack Abramoff, there is ample local talent to fill his role, although perhaps in a less sweeping manner.

Our state needs increased attention by the four United States Attorneys, whose districts are the cardinal points of the compass; the Attorney General's office; state, county and local commissions of investigation; sundry inspectors general; and 62 elected District Attorneys, one in each county.  They should show the same interest in political corruption that they manifest with regard to other types of misbehavior.  They can do that by initiating inquiries rather than waiting for complaints, which are seldom forthcoming in cases of bribery, a typical crime of consent.  If the officials named above require support, or if their quarry is powerful or evasive enough to elude their efforts, the governor can appoint a Moreland Act Commission to fight corruption in government.


#279 1.27.06 848wds