"Only Kidding," Says Smith,
Believe Him at Your Peril.
Big Three Nibble at Budget
By Henry J. Stern
August 21, 2008
Three days ago we wrote about Democratic Senate leader Malcolm Smith’s highly unusual remarks to a conference of lobbyists, in which he said that early contributions to the Democrats’ war chest would be similar to participating in an IPO in business. An IPO is an initial public offering, where stock is offered for the first time to the general public, rather than being entirely owned by insiders, often the company’s founders. If a stock rises, the purchasers at the IPO will make more money than those who buy later.
Since taking money to influence one’s vote on legislation is a state crime, there was a problem if Senator Smith’s remarks were to be taken literally. When the story was published in Monday’s Post and a Daily News blog, the Senator explained that it was all a joke, that he was simply trying to entertain the visitors after their golf games were rained out. Calling Senator Jeff Klein "the enforcer" was all in jest, he said.
It is true that Senator Smith was joking, but his joke consisted of telling the truth to the chickens who were being plucked. It is a joke because it is unexpected. Most pols would simply lie while they sucked the prey dry.
The role of wit was first described none other than Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400), who wrote, in Canterbury Tales, “A man may seye full sooth in game and pley”
Two centuries later, William Shakespeare (1564-1616) said it briefly in King Lear, “jesters do oft prove prophets.”
In 1665, a scant 343 years ago, the Roxburghe Ballads contained the saying: “Many a true word hath been spoken in jest.”
The world knows that people, and causes, receive more favorable consideration if they have made appropriate contributions to those in a position to be helpful. So it is, and so it has been for as long as the mind runneth. It is said in Rule 21-O: One hand washes the other. In some cases, anger at graft is a matter of degree – how much is expected compared with how much is given. There is also a matter of timing. A feminist group is called Emily's List. Its acronymic maxim is, "Early money is like yeast."
If there is a disconnect between the parties on the size of the gift or the speed of its delivery, there will be volatility in the relationship of predator and prey, until the gap is at least narrowed. A side gift or two may ease the situation, particularly if they are not reportable.
No one, on either side of a transaction, licit or illicit, likes to be shorted. That is what happens when the cops find a drug dealer or buyer shot to death, and they tell the press that it was "a drug deal gone bad." Or “gone sour.” What then is a good or a sweet drug deal? It is when full value is paid, without skimming, and the drug itself is not thinned or adulterated with cutting agents, and both the buyer and seller are satisfied. In that case, if one of the parties is murdered, it is simply a robbery. It lacks the sinister justification that the victim deserved death as a byproduct of a shameful, unlawful transaction.
Peace Before Primaries: August 2008 Is Unlike August 1914
The Legislature convened Tuesday, August 19, for a special session at the request of the governor, expressed in an unusual 5-minute radio and TV address to the state.. It is in the interest of all three men in the room to come go an agreement that would appear reasonable to the public and to their supporters, whatever it actually is or not.
Senator Skelos wants to hold his tiny Senate majority by showing he is for lower taxes and not an obstructionist. Speaker Silver wants no new conflicts before his Sept 9 primary, and Governor Paterson does not want to appear isolated so early in what he sees as his first term. The triumvirs compromised quickly, rather than after prolonged negotiations, while assuring their supporters and funders they had fought to the end on their behalf, and if they were not there, the outcome would have been much worse.
Governor Paterson came off quite well in all this, showing strength in dealing with both houses in Albany. With President Bush at his weakest, with about 25% approving of the job he is doing and 71% disapproving, according to the LA Times, he is still stronger than Congress, whose rating on Aug 15 is approve 17%, disapprove 73%. It is easier for one man to appear to be doing a good job, rather than an institution with hundreds of members in two different houses.
Other pollsters had different results, NBC Wall Street Journal had Bush at 31-63, and Gallup reported 33-61 for the President. In each case, Congress was far lower. Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has inspired America on behalf of their respective houses.
The result would be similar with the New York State legislature. Quinniapac reports Governor Paterson at 64-14, very favorable result. Voters disapprove, 55-26, of the state legislature, with similar opinions expressed by voters of both parties. It will be fascinating to see what happens if the Senate turns Democrat, we predict it will be no easier to reach agreement if the three men in a room are all from the same party. This is in part because the leaders will feel somewhat responsible to the more extreme members of their conference. Weakness by the leaders, or their successors, would give their colleagues, their natural rivals, the opportunity to adjust the balance of power in their favor.
The basic problem, in California as well as New York, is that there is a substantial structural imbalance in the budget, which almost everyone knows full well.
While the spendthrift Federal government can print and borrow trillions (until someone or something pulls the plug), the fifty state governments must squirrel away their borrowing with a variety of subterfuges. Governor Schwarzenegger is more popular than California legislators, but he requires their assistance to close a $15 billion budget gap. The last time this happened, they borrowed; one time only, they said.
There are different versions as to whether, and if so to what extent, pork was reduced in New York State. We must wait for the budget to be printed and examined by experts before choosing sides. Oral comments are often wrong. One object of budget making is to make everyone feel that they received the best deal possible while spending the least amount of money. That intrinsically requires a measure of deception, so although we may be disappointed, we should not be surprised that public officials speak as they do, on different days and to different audiences.
The strain of campaigning becomes acute as elections approach. Old enemies come out of the woodwork, the trailer park, the towers or the sewers to seek revenge. Sometimes long-held grievances result in unusual endorsements, often more informed by who is being opposed rather than by who is being supported. Some claims have merit, but what is a reasonable time frame? What is appropriate retribution for real or fancied slights? And what is the just result if the accused is more competent than his/her challenger?
#491 08.21.2008 1212wds |