Inequality's Mountains

This week on the Campbell Conversations I'm talking with Pat Driscoll, the operations director for Syracuse’s Say Yes to Education Program.  Three years ago, Say Yes was rolled out with great expectations--words like “transformative” were used to describe the hoped-for impact of this program that blends an extensive in-class and extra-curricular support network with the ultimate promise of free college tuition.  Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, for example, appears to have hung her hat--and perhaps her re-election--on this program.

The program has had past success elsewhere in targeting smaller numbers of children within a school, but it’s never been applied to an entire school district.  I was curious to know whether it's realizing its promise, three years on.  The question is particularly timely, as the program is slated to be financed solely by the city  in 2013, and it would then account for ten percent of the entire school budget.  Given the layoffs we've already seen in the school district, it's likely that continuing this program will mean fewer traditional teacher lines.  I explore that question with Pat, and we also discuss just what makes the program so different from previous efforts to overcome the educational challenges that disadvantaged students face.

This interview left me thinking about those challenges--and just how steep they are for the children growing up in poor neighborhoods.  Study after study has documented the rise in inequality over the past 30 years, and the backpedaling in real terms for those living in the bottom half of the income distribution.  Housing patterns have also become more segregated during the same time period.  All of this further concentrates educational problems in certain school districts and certain schools.  I wonder whether any program rooted in the educational system, however broadly framed, can effectively address the challenges.  If the program ultimately fails to demonstrate significant measurable improvement, it may be more a testament to the difficulty of the task than a breakdown in design and implementation.

What's Good for the Goose....?

This week I'm talking with Syracuse's newly appointed Aviation Commissioner, Christina Reale (she had previously been serving in this post in an interim capacity).  Her position entails the overall management of, and planning for, the Syracuse airport--and there have been a lot of recent press stories related to the airport.  We discuss the plans for the airport's renovation--and the financing for that renovation--as well as the decision to change its governance structure from being city controlled to operating under an independent regional authority.  We also discuss the airport’s long-term fiscal health, the pricing at the airport (for both concessions and flights), the growing role of women in aviation management, and the large-scale changes in passengers’ airport experiences, post 9-11. 

I left this conversation thinking about the twists, turns, and ironies in political arguments.  The argument in favor of an independent regional authority, which the Syracuse mayor strongly supports, is almost precisely the same argument that the Syracuse School Board has made to remain independent of the mayor's office--that having an independent body with one focus (either the airport or the school system) will lead to better decision-making and better management than a structure in which there are many competing objects of attention.  But also note that the new regional airport authority will have a majority of seats appointed by the mayor, so perhaps this is a middle ground of sorts that might ultimately be followed for the school board.

The Silver Lining in the British Newspaper Hacking Scandal

...That is, beyond the obvious silver lining if you're a supporter of the Labour Party, as the association between David Cameron (and Andy Coulson) and Murdoch can only help Labour (note that Blair and Brown courted him as well, but it's the timing that matters in this case). 

What I have in mind here, however, is something less obvious and admittedly, much smaller beer (to use a British phrase). 

Had the plans for the full acquisition of B-Sky-B gone through, News Corp would have had to shed its Sky News channel, in order not to run afoul of the British rules and expectations about impartiality in broadcast news.  Indeed, this move was part of the plan for the acquisition. 

Sky News provides essentially the only real alternative to the BBC's main streaming news channel (aside from CNN), and is a quality product.  But it doesn't make money--it's run instead as a "loss leader" by Murdoch, and is cross-subsidized by other lucrative satellite channels, in particular sports (and even more specifically football).

Having it taken over by another independent entity would have certainly gutted the operation.  So if Sky News is spared, the Brits get to keep one additional quality news channel.

The Dual Masters of a Newspaper

Tomorrow on the Campbell Conversations I’m talking with Tim Atseff from The Syracuse Post-Standard.  Prior to his recent retirement, Tim had worked 46 years for the paper (yes, 46), starting off as a copy boy and working his way up through the art department to become a managing editor, before creating and editing three regional magazines published by the paper’s parent company—Central New York Magazine (sometimes called The Good Life), CNY Business Exchange, and Central New York Sports.  In this interview, he looks back at his time with the paper, and reflects on the new economic challenges the industry is facing.  He also discusses the highpoints and lowpoints of the paper’s performance, its coverage of the Destiny project and its political endorsements, and the business models for the new magazines he created. 

The interview left me thinking about the dual roles of a newspaper—on the one hand a profit-driven business that happens to supply information as its product, and on the other a public-service institution that’s uniquely responsible for providing its community the civic information it requires in order to function democratically.  Both roles were evident in the way that Tim talked about his experiences over the years.  Clearly there are inherent tensions between the two—had there been more time, I would have liked to explore the paper’s coverage of Destiny in more detail, for example.  A former colleague of mine now teaching at Harvard, Tom Patterson, has argued that the profit-driven role leaves the American media poorly suited to fill its public service role (see his book Out of Order, among others).  I don’t have a ready substitute in mind, though in the broadcast world I am a big fan of the BBC (and of course NPR!).  The “Beeb” or “Auntie,” as the BBC is often called, provides several TV channels and a variety of quality radio stations, along with a really fine website.  I think the British citizens get pretty good value for their license fee.  But I continue to ponder the American conundrum.

Yes, there are Internet-based outlets and there are other news publications in Syracuse, and there are of course broadcast outlets, but there really is no competitive alternative to The Post-Standard for the kind of product it supplies--as Tim points out in the interview.  So given its civic role, in some important respects the paper, despite being privately owned, is a unique public institution, and we need it to act like one if it is going to fill its role properly.  It's not clear how well that fits with a business model.

Like Blue Ribbon Commissions? Then Why Not Consider the Real Thing -- The House of Lords

Check out this week's Campbell Conversation from London (my work there has been the reason for the posting hiatus), in which I talk with one of Britain's leading experts on the structure of its political system--its "constitution" (the country has no codified constitution in the American sense).  He's Philip Norton, a Member of the House of Lords.  You can find the interview here.

Lord Norton offers many interesting observations about the myriad of political changes and reforms the country has either made or seriously considered over the past 15 years.  In some ways, the changes bring certain aspects of Britain's system closer to ours.

One such proposed change is to make the House of Lords into an elected chamber, versus the appointed body it is now.  Norton persuasively argues that from the perspective of high-quality policy-making and clear democratic accountability, the Lords fill an essential role that would be ruined by elections, and that an elected Lords would introduce new problems for democracy.

It's a provocative and thought-provoking interview, and given the American penchant for enlisting blue ribbon commissions when the political challenges get toughest, it contains some counter-intuitive suggestions for improving our own democracy.

Somehow, Even More on J-E

In the opening of his 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte--a work about the 1851 French coup d'etat by Napoleon's nephew--Karl Marx, remarking on Hegel's observation that history tends to repeat itself, quipped that "He forgot to add:  the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." 

What about the third time? 

Now the new superintendent of J-E is embroiled in a scandal regarding a contract and an apparent relationship with the director of operations.  This was the superintendent who took what I thought to be a too aggressive and overly closed-off approach toward public comment in the wake of the strong reactions against the board's dismissal of several administrators.

In a separate set of recent Post-Standard stories, it was also reported that there are state-level investigations into actions that occurred while these administrators were in place--the subject of my recent and now missing blog post (see below).  The most significant inquiry seems to be the state AG examining the treatment of student records.  It looks like the outcome of these investigations may suggest that the original decisions of the board were justified, but we'll have to see.  I had wondered about something like this months ago, and wrote as much--things just didn't make any sense otherwise.

But back to this latest development.  Everything has been under microscopes for months.  What was the thinking in drawing up and approving that contract, especially given the other matters suggested by the paper?

The other day I had written--in the now-missing post--that it will likely take a very long time, and some expert outside help from people J-E residents trust, in order for the community to recover from the past year.  Double that now.

Lost Post

I posted something on the Jordan-Elbridge saga the other day, and mysteriously, it is now not here.  Did anyone see it, or did it never appear?  There have been other smaller-scale strange happenings using this basic blog tool.  I will investigate.

A Radical Proposal to Unchallenged Republican County Candidates -- A Real Debate Versus a Campaign

Yesterday's Post-Standard reported that the three top county-wide incumbent elected officials are not likely to face any Democratic Party opposition next fall, and may not even have minor party opposition.

In each individual case there are good reasons why a serious potential Democratic candidate might decide to sit this cycle out, and there are some good overall reasons for this as well.  Some of them are related in the story, which you can find here.  Serious, quality challengers tend to pick their runs very carefully.

My purpose in writing about this is something different, however, and it relates to the small-d democratic concern that the story points to--is it good for our system to have people running unopposed?  The short answer of course is no.  But if it proves to be true this fall, this feature could offer a silver lining--which I propose here as a challenge to the incumbents as well as thoughtful critics in the community.

Official campaigns have become overly guarded, packaged affairs, with the adversaries more worried about not screwing something up than with convincing people to sign on to a coherent and bold set of policy ideas.  The candidates rarely engage each other intellectually.  In other words, we've come a long way from Lincoln-Douglas.

Since this time around the incumbents literally can't lose, why not take this opportunity to have some real conversations in the public interest on the issues that relate to each position?  What I have in mind are a series of debates, or rather let's just call them spirited, authentic discussions, in which the incumbent would pair off with someone in the community who has a view different from the decisions the incumbent has made and the path he or she has followed.  They don't necessarily have to be directly opposed, just different.  This discussion could then lead to a broader discussion of the macro-level ideas and values that guide their more specific policy positions--what H.W. Bush used to call "the vision thing."

So, for example, a retired judge might debate District Attorney Bill Fitzpatrick about evidence and disclosure rules, which could in turn lead to a discussion about philosophies of criminal justice and the best ways to reduce crime.  Or County Executive Joanie Mahoney might debate someone from the suburbs about the proper relationship between the city and the towns, which could lead to a broader discussion about consolidation and the meaning of political boundaries.  Personally, I'd love to see a debate on the role of party, party discipline, and the nature of executive leadership.

Would this still seem risky to an incumbent?  You bet--what if they "lose" the debate?  But if it were set up in the right way, and the participants approached it in the right spirit, I think it's possible to avoid this trap.  The media would have to help out with this part, and it may require an act of great restraint by the paper and other outlets not to report the events as zero-sum games.  But we remember the Lincoln-Douglas debates not because of who "won" them, but because of the importance of the questions, the process used, and the substantive quality of the entire argument.

Incumbents:  What do you think--are you game?  And are there people out there who are up to the challenge?

Can't Anybody Here Play This Change?

I get a lot of partisan communications and solicitations for donations, from all sides and through all mediums.  It comes with the territory.  The messages almost all of them contain are absurd caricatures of their adversaries, and it will come as no surprise to anyone that I've seen no evidence of a tone-down or a fact-up since the "change I could believe in" election of 2008.  Policy has moved, but not politics. 

But I received one such piece the other day that's particularly notable for the irony--hence this post.  It happens to be from the Democrats.  Senator Charles Schumer and Democratic Party Headquarters, on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, sent to a misspelled version of me an alarmist warning about the "Radical Right's" imminent takeover of the U.S. Senate.  The Cracker Jack prize inside the envelope was a notepad with the following line printed at the top of every sheet:  "Stand with President Obama for Lasting Change:  Silence GOP Lies." 

Really?  That's the change we can believe in?  Like I'm going to jot down a note on that and leave it for a work colleague or the UPS guy.  I wonder what the actual President Obama would do with this.  My last thread of civic faith says he tears it up--that's what I did.

The Wisdom of Crowds?

Following the killing of Osama bin Laden, there's been much discussion about the morality of the spontaneous celebrations that broke out in several American cities, most notably New York and Washington, DC, the two cities most closely associated with the 9/11 attacks.  I too had an immediate reaction when I saw the crowds cheering, but my thoughts went not so much to whether it was wrong--or just bad form--but rather to whether it was wise.  Others have since made this point, but I'm sure this footage is being viewed, re-viewed, shared, and stored by some we'd rather not have seen it.  While I understand, empathize with, and even share the impulse that led these folks into the street, a second chance to think on it beforehand would have served us well down the road.

The footage also led me to wonder what the British were doing.  They too have much reason to celebrate bin Laden's death, but they also have much more experience living with terrorism.  I wrote several London friends and colleagues, and none reported hearing of or seeing any kind of public celebrations.

Looking at the pictures of the crowds and observing their youth, I'm left wondering how much of this was a social media celebration--a strange and more trivial bookend of sorts to what we've seen in the Arab Spring.

And circling back to the title of this post, it also bears noting that most of us didn't take to the streets.  In the new media age, however, that basic fact is just context.

Honoring All Our Heroes

My colleague and friend Terry Newell let me join a worthy effort he is helping to organize to make sure, as a nation, we properly honor federal civil servants who die in service to our country.  Shockingly--at least to me--we currently have no policy regarding this.

Please see our Post-Standard opinion piece on the issue, which you can find here.

A Really Neat Conversation

Please check out my recent Campbell Conversation interview with Jan Carnogursky, which you can find here.  It's probably my favorite interview so far in the series.  Jan was a dissident leader in Communist-controlled Czechoslovakia, who was jailed prior to the “Velvet Revolution,” which freed him.  He went on to serve as the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, and then later its Justice Minister.  In this interview he relates growing up in the Soviet-controlled system and becoming a dissident, his experiences in prison, and the exciting and challenging times as a leader of an emerging democracy and a politician who had to learn the political skills required in democratic politics.  He then connects some of these experiences to current revolutions and current politics more generally.  The stories were amazing and he was just a really neat person to talk with.

Say Not?

Our local school district, Fayetteville-Manlius, has a school board election coming up on May 17, along with the annual budget votes.  I recently phoned the superintendent's office to ask if the candidates had held any public forums so that citizens could ask questions, and whether they'd be having any additional forums prior to the election.  The answers, which stunned me, were no and no (there is a budget public hearing on May 9).  I guess it may not matter as there are three seats to be filled, and three candidates.

(p.s.  I've been consumed with work lately and have not been posting--I'm hoping that's about to change.)

U.S. Public Support for the Free Market Has Fallen -- Strange?

I came across this curious factoid today, which I plan to write about more fully in an upcoming newspaper editorial.  Since 2002, American support for the free market as "the best economic system for the future" has fallen, and dramatically so since 2009--at the same time as the Tea Party movement has been picking up steam.  At 59%, our support for the free market is now lower than that found in China or Brazil.  These survey results are from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, and you can find them here. 

Recall that the financial crisis hit in 2007, so the recent steep drop is harder to explain through that lens.  Explanations anyone?

SSO -- What I Want to Know

I had lunch with a friend the other day, and after talking politics and basketball, we got to talking about the Syracuse Symphony Orchestra.  It turns out we were both season ticket holders--one of us had made a contribution during the "keep the music playing" appeal.  And we were now both in the same situation--more than a little miffed, and doubting that we'd buy season tickets again next year, if the opportunity presented itself.  We had similar questions, which have yet to be answered. 

I want to be cautious in any criticism of the board of directors, as they are volunteers who give a lot of their time--and a lot of their own money--to the orchestra.  But if one of the arguments to support the orchestra is that it is a cherished public resource for the community, then the ultimate line of management for that resource needs to be held publicly accountable for its actions.  Here's what I want to know:

--The board keeps talking about cutting back the size of the orchestra, but is an orchestra with an administrative staff that is almost a third as large as the group of core musicians more "administratively heavy" than is typically the case?

--Why have key administrative people been leaving? 

--Why weren't there direct and honest communications earlier on with the season ticket holders, so that we didn't have to become informed about our investment through newspaper accounts?

--What was the thinking, and what were the expectations, behind the decisions of the past few years?

--What's the path forward that is currently envisioned by the board--how and why does it expect that the orchestra will survive?

Feature Guest Post -- U.S. Military Aid in Tsunami-Stricken Japan: A Temporary Relief

The following is a guest post from Alexis Bonari.  She's a resident blogger at College Scholarships, where recently she's been researching Girl Scouts scholarships as well as grants for Asian students. Alexis writes that whenever this WAHM [I confess I had to look this up; now I know] gets some free time she enjoys doing yoga, cooking with the freshest organic in-season fare, and practicing the art of coupon clipping.  One quick editorial comment:  I think this post gets at an interesting and less considered wrinkle regarding the U.S. assistance to Japan.  As always, the views shared here are solely those of the author.

The U.S. military presence has never been more welcome in Japan than it is today, weeks since the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing—and more devastating—tsunami on March 11.  Many Japanese are grateful for international aid, but it is unlikely to do more than temporarily ease the tensions that escalated over the Futenma base in Okinawa last year.  The grudge there is deeper and heals with no band-aid.

Operation Tomodachi

About 20,000 U.S. troops have mobilized for Operation Tomodachi (“friend”) in an enormous bilateral humanitarian mission.  To aid the operation, the Navy has sent 19 ships, 140 aircraft, and 18,282 personnel along with barges of freshwater to cool the volatile reactor.  The Air Force has meanwhile opened its bases for relief flights and sent dozens of planes to help the Japanese observe Fukushima as well as search for survivors.  Although the Army is the branch with the smallest presence in Japan, it’s delivered blankets and supplies. 

The Marine Corps plays one of the most notable roles in the operation, exemplified by the most widely covered and successful operations thus far: cleaning up Sendai Airport.  According to Capt. Robert Gerbract as interviewed by NPR, the airport looked “like if you had left an airport alone for 1,000 years.  It was like an archaeological site.  It was hard to figure out where to begin.” 

The assignment appears to satisfy most of the troops.  “I’d much rather be carrying relief food packages than a rifle, to be honest,” Gerbract added.

Temporary Friendship

Having been educated on a U.S. Marine Corps base in mainland Japan but lived off-base among Japanese civilians, I daresay that I have a unique perspective on the issue of whether this humanitarian effort will change anything in Japanese-American relations in the long run.  Most of the Japanese public appreciated the U.S. military presence in Japan even before March 11.  Tokyo points to lower defense costs and greater security from growing powers such as China and North Korea as notable perks.  While many pacifists and WWII survivors remember only too well the devastation both the U.S. military and then Imperial Japanese government wreaked on the beloved island nation, most of the animosity has faded to a shrug of the shoulders and the occasional fuss over a traffic accident or a bar fight.

It is not, however, mainland Japan that hosts most of the tension between U.S. armed forces and Japanese civilians.  Over 50,000 U.S. troops, mostly Marines, work on the island of Okinawa.  Over 20% of the island is taken up by the military bases that, contrary to agreements made in the 1990s, show no sign of diminishing.  In fact, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama was forced to resign after making no progress in relocating some 8,500 Marines off Okinawa to Guam as was promised by 2014 by Washington; the latter has instead suggested replacing Futenma with another facility before the relocation, which the public opposed.  The sentiment on most Okinawans’ minds seems to be, “Sure, you’re welcome to stay, but why on Okinawa?”

Okinawa was the last place the Marines and other U.S. forces pitched camp before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the ensuing surrender.  It may also serve as a more strategic location geopolitically when keeping an eye on Greater Asia.  Most likely, however, Okinawans have historically faced a prejudice by the Japanese government, and having the U.S. presence there is simply more convenient for Tokyo than having rough-housing Marines spread about the mainland.

Lasting Tensions

The Japanese across all islands are grateful for the U.S. military’s aid, but much of the warmth stoked by Operation Tomodachi will likely change few minds in Okinawa and even the on the mainland.

The question then: Should it?  Had Japan won the war, the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden would have been tried as war crimes, even if aerial warfare was not at the time covered under international humanitarian law (air power was only just developing and diplomatic efforts proved too little, too late). 

Should it be any wonder that in a nation where, within living memory, 500,000 civilians died from the tactical bombings of 67 cities, the presence of foreign military personnel is undesired?  I’ve heard the argument of “revenge for Pearl Harbor” countless times, but the truth is that under 3,000 Americans, most of them military, died on that day, as opposed to the (conservative estimate) of 140,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima.  Then again, most people don’t like hearing that President Roosevelt had the power to evacuate Pearl Harbor well in advance of the attack, and that far too much money had been spent on the Manhattan Project to go untested, even if the mainland invasion hadn’t been scheduled for months later.  For people who have studied beyond the conventional WWII history, the ongoing presence of Marines in Japan as well as the lack of an official apology from the Japanese government is salt in a wound that’s too deep to heal.

“I feel thankful that they are helping us, but I still have reservations about having U.S. troops in Japan,” says Yoko Hiraoka in Higashi Matsushima, near Sendai.  “It doesn’t fundamentally change the way I feel.”

Dan Maffei on the Campbell Conversations -- A Look Forward, and a Look Back

If you're a political junkie or someone who followed the 25th district congressional race with any interest, you won't want to miss this week's Campbell Conversation with Dan Maffei (available on-demand and as a podcast from WRVO).  In his first broadcast interview since conceding to Ann Marie Buerkle, he sorts out the factors that he’s considering in deciding whether or not to run again.  In that process he reflects back on the past campaign and how hard the loss was for him, and assesses his own strengths and weaknesses as a candidate.  He also responds to the recent criticisms surrounding the bonuses his congressional staff received on their way out.  The topic then shifts to potential Republican presidential contenders, and the many ways—according to Maffei—that moderates and moderate political conversations are disadvantaged in the current political system.  Finally, there’s a discussion of our current involvement in Libya.  Much more revealing than most politician interviews, this conversation provides a better insight into the person who was our congressman.

Getting What You Pay For? Reflections on the Budget, Part 2

Here's the second post on Governor Andrew Cuomo's budget speech that I promised the other day.

One of Cuomo's main arguments was that we do not get good value for our tax dollars.  To illustrate, he juxtaposed where we rank in terms of spending in various areas with where we rank in terms of performance in those areas.  One of the canards about New York he was keen to rebut was the notion that yes, our taxes are high, but we get great services and great public resources in exchange.  The numbers he cited were dramatic and disturbing, and can be found here in this video of a similar speech.

It actually turns out that things may be even worse than he says.  I've written about this in past posts and newspaper columns, but the figures are so surprising (at least to me) that they bear repeating. 

First the context:  Although across the Western World, our economies are different versions of the same thing—a system that relies on regulated markets, mixes private and public ownership, and provides social insurance through tax revenues—here in the U.S. we stand at a noticeable distance from the European pack, particularly in terms of our weaker public sector appetite.  Relative to our economy (and therefore our collective income) our government (taking into account all levels) is leaner, and overall, our taxes are lower.  This may be hard for some readers to believe, but it's true.  We look a lot different from countries like Italy, Norway, and France, and in these terms we keep company with Japan, Turkey, and South Korea.

But here's the rub for New Yorkers:  Those statistics are for the U.S. as a whole--in other words, they average across all the states.  But the state-to-state variation is significant.  When you break things down by state, and you look at how much resources, relative to the size of a particular state's economy (and therefore its collective income), government at the state and local level takes up, in 2009 New York surpassed all other states except Maine, and its government was considerably hungrier than other large states like Pennsylvania and California.  (I got these figures by request from Ian Pulsipher of the National Conference of State Legislatures, a distinctly non-partisan and well-respected group.)

Accounting for the state-to-state variations, New York begins to appear more like Britain than it does, say, Texas.  In fact, according to Forbes.com's 2008 international "Tax Misery" Index, a top-earning worker in New York City had the same overall tax burden as a similar worker in Berlin.  However, a top-earner in Texas sat comfortably alongside workers in Uzbekistan and Ireland--8 spots below Illinois, 15 spots below Britain, 20 spots below New York City, and 37 spots below Sweden.

And now here's the final and real rub for comparing New York to those other countries:  Where's the universal health insurance?  Where's the public transportation infrastructure?  The public day care?  The list goes on.

The governor has a point.

Four Thoughts on Andrew Cuomo's Budget Speech

I've just attended Governor Cuomo's road-show budget speech at Syracuse University, and I have four quick reactions, in no particular order.

First Reaction:  2016.  I've seen a lot of pols speak in person, from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Bill Bradley to Mario Cuomo to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to Newt Gingrich to Elizabeth Dole.  This guy is really good, and every time I see him in person he gets better.  Complete command of substance, style, context, and audience.  Better extemporaneously than Obama, I think.  And he's one of the few speakers I've seen--of any kind--who understands how to effectively use PowerPoint.  Ross Perot meets Bill Clinton?

If he maintains a solid record in New York and avoids any scandals--and ultimately gets married--his timing would be perfect in 2016.  He can appeal to the Democratic core as well as craft a more moderate overall message for a general election.  A Democrat making his early reputation as governor as a budget cutter could go far.  Of course, for the resume he'll also need to accomplish something beyond getting the state's finances in order--a set of significant and lasting political reforms could be part of that--but this task is obviously job number one.

Second Reaction:  Although he ran a reform-focused campaign, some of his harsh rhetoric about the Legislature currently in place could come back to bite him.  It makes for some good one-liners, but an advisor might suggest he tone it down a tad.  It's one thing to make a strong argument for budget cutting and reforming the overall approach to state spending (and some of the biggest state programs), and to hold up the long-standing political structure in Albany as a source of the problem; it's another to go after the sitting legislative leaders in the way that he did.  Comparing their approach toward spending to that of his three teenage girls is likely to rankle.  Some might say for heaven's sake, rankle away, but governance must in the end be cooperative in order to be functional--an observation which was in fact another theme of his speech.

Third Reaction:  There's an apparent contradiction in his case that needs to be explained better.  On the one hand, Cuomo repeatedly located much of the blame for our high taxes and spending in the over-influence of "corporations and special interests" over the years, and at one point cited a "permanent government," not of Democrats or Republicans, but of those same corporations and special interests.  Yet on the other hand he sketched out a cycle of state government policies in which taxes are too high, businesses and individual citizens (presumably of higher incomes) leave, prompting the need to further raise taxes, and in turn causing more businesses and citizens to leave, and so on.  We need to make New York more business friendly, the governor tells us.  Both arguments are plausible, but if corporate interests have been driving state government, then have they also been committing slow suicide?  Or is it just some "special interests" that have been the real problem?

Fourth Reaction:  Related in some way to Reaction #3, there was no mention whatsoever of the "millionaire tax," despite the fact that he directly took on the arguments about cutting Medicaid and education.  I was surprised that since he didn't soft-pedal the latter issue he wouldn't also address the former.  Returning to Reaction #1, he might have been gauging the audience.

In a later post I will return to a point I've made in the past about the level of government spending in New York, which fits with the governor's argument about spending levels versus performance.

More on the PBS/NPR/CPB Funding Question -- A Missing Comment

Note:  What follows is a comment from "TW," for which I received an email notice, but which does not appear--at least it does not appear for me--in the post it is supposed to be attached to.  I am looking into this problem.  But it's a thoughtful comment and I am reproducing it here as a guest post.  I'm not personally convinced by TW's argument against funding PBS and NPR, but I also think TW makes many good points.

Disclosures first…I am a registered voter, but not registered with any political party. I trend fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

1. Is the programming on PBS / NPR worthwhile and valuable? Absolutely.

2. Does story selection and commentary lean to the Left? Probably a bit.

3. Does the public ‘trust’ the content coming from PBS / NPR more so than other sources? Maybe.

Yet none of the above elicits my support for continued government / public funding for PBS / NPR.

1. Worthwhile and valuable programming is available from a multitude of commercially successful media outlets (The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Food Network, The Learning Channel, etc), and via the Internet. All of these venues have proven that the American public will support quality programming – as evidenced by their continued operation in spite of the fact that part of their ‘competition’ (PBS) is federally subsidized. Given the quality of the content produced by PBS / NPR, why wouldn’t they continue to be successful with a model that uses commercial (i.e. advertising) support alone?

2. It seems to me that the percentage of programming on PBS that is ‘political’ is relatively small, with the majority being educational, arts, culture, etc. NPR, by its nature spends more of its broadcasting day discussing political issues and news topics of the day. Of course this breakdown is purely my perception, and my exposure to any ‘radio’ is limited to time spent driving. Still, PBS and NPR have existed for several decades, through both Republican and Democrat administrations. All media probably leans in one direction or the other, some of course more obviously then others. That is why it is important to watch / listen to multiple sources to best gain an understanding of the ‘real’ picture.

3. A poll on the PBS website under the ‘About Us’ link lists PBS as “#1 in public trust”. I had gone to this section to look for the Mission and Vision statements. Quite frankly, the fact that someone stands up and points outs how trustworthy they are usually sends up a huge red flag and immediately invites suspicion. How ‘trust’ is measured can be a subject for another debate entirely. Again, for me the best bet is to get information from multiple sources - the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

I believe that when lawmakers created the CPB / PBS / NPR, their intent was to ensure that quality programming was available to the people in a time when television was only in its infancy (or perhaps toddlerhood). Perhaps the fear was that commercial television of the day would neglect the areas of art and education because they wouldn’t be profitable. We know now, that is not the case. Should all government entities remain in perpetuity because their original premise was good, or shouldn’t we revisit things from time to time and ask questions such as; is the mission still valid, has it been achieved, is it still necessary?

TW