Gov. David Paterson

From the New York Post:

Gov. David Paterson has decided not to seek election to a full term amid a roiling scandal over whether he and his troopers intimidated a woman who'd reported domestic violence against one of his top aides, The Post has learned.

Read more.

After State Sen. Mike Ranzenhofer's press conference today on his jobs bill, I spoke with him for a minute about his position on the governor's budget.

My question was, with all of the proposed spending cuts from Gov. David Paterson, why aren't Republicans falling more in line with supporting the governor's proposed budget. Here's what he said:

I certainly support the cuts the governor has talked about and I don't think there's been a lot of push back from Republicans. But what Republicans are concerned about is that...(if) you actually take a look at the budget -- last year it was $131 billion, this year it's $134 billion -- spending goes up this year. Not withstanding all the comments about cuts, cuts, cuts, he's actually spending $3 billion more this year in his proposed budget than what happened last year.

So that's where the criticism is, that you can't say one thing and then introduce a budget that actually increases spending by $3 billion. When you look at the fine print, that's what what it actually does. If there's been any opposition, that's where the opposition has been.

The criticism and the push back is not from the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. When you talk about his low poll numbers, these are the residents our our state who are saying this -- that's their reaction to what he has done because they've seen what he said and compared it to what he did. I mean last year, he introduced a budget that was not that bad to start off, but at the end of the day, the budget he finally adopted was $12 billion in new spending. So people are very leery about what he actually says and what actually gets enacted at the end of the budget session.

The howls of anger and indignation you heard last night echoing from the Bronx to Buffalo is the reaction from special interests throughout the state to Gov. David Paterson's proposed budget.

While raising taxes $1 billion, the plan also cuts spending $5.5 billion.

You don't cut spending that much without stepping on some toes.

Typical of the "cut everybody but us" reaction was captured by the Albany Times-Union:

"Gov. Paterson is to be commended for his leadership in making the tough choices necessary to address a significant budget gap for the upcoming state fiscal year," said Peter Baynes, executive director of the state Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials. " ... NYCOM, however, strongly objects to proposed cuts in AIM funding, as this program is a key element to controlling municipal property taxes."

Paterson has proposed a series of cuts to local governments, including a 2 to 5 percent cut in Aid and Incentives for Municipalities payments (AIM).  Paterson wants to totally eliminate AIM for New York City.

Locally, Assemblyman Steve Hawley got into the act and spoke up for snowmobilers.

"I was pleased to hear the governor call for a moratorium on land acquisition," Hawley said in a statement. "Yet, raiding one million dollars from the snowmobile fund to balance the budget is an unacceptable infringement on upstate sportsmen.  It was unacceptable last year when the governor proposed it, and it's unacceptable this year."

The Buffalo News reports that legislators, especially Democrats, are reacting harshly to the proposed budget, saying it's already dead.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who has been splitting more and more from fellow Democrat Paterson, rebuked the governor's cuts, saying they "go too far [and] make life more difficult" for New Yorkers, especially the "most vulnerable and least fortunate citizens."

...

"He's tried to politically pin everything that's wrong with government on us. I don't like it. I don't think any of my colleagues like it," said Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens.

Besides local government and snowmobilers, the budget proposes cuts to education, health care and the environment.

Education spending would be cut from $21.6 billion to $20.5 billion.  The Times-Union got this reaction:

"This budget proposes the largest cut to our children's schools in the history of the state, and yet again asks our children to bear the unbearable burden of balancing the state budget," said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education.

Turn to any news site in New York this morning, and you will find unhappy people talking about protecting their own interests.

It will be interesting to see what alternative the Legislature puts forward.

The good news is, Gov. David Paterson has second thoughts about new license plate fees; the bad news is, Paterson is still talking about ways to "raise revenue" rather than cut costs, according to Associated Press.

The license plate plan announced last week had been expected to raise $129 by requiring vehicle owners to pay $25 to buy new plates starting next year.

The idea was immediately met with scorn by New Yorkers across the state.

More than 100,000 people signed an anti-license-plate-petition at nonewplates.com

If there's a state regulation that you find burdensome or unnecessary, here's your chance to complain about it and possibly get rid of it.

Gov. David Patterson has signed an executive order forming a committee of top advisers to review state regulations and eliminate any that are outdated or overly burdensome to business.

Agencies are already required to conduct lengthy reviews of new procedures and regulations before they become final. But under the new order, they will also be required to review such rules after they are put into effect.

Officials will be required to invite public comment on whether any existing rules and regulations — no matter when they were enacted — are “unnecessary, unbalanced, unwise, duplicative or unduly burdensome.” The committee would then reconsider rules that have generated the most criticism.

The first round of review will involve seven departments and agencies, including those responsible for environmental, health, liquor and labor regulations.

Some groups, such as labor unions, have previously opposed the governor's office taking on such sweeping power.