|
New York Times,
May 1, 2005
Searching for
Slush in Albany
Editorial
New York's lawmakers passed
a $101 billion state budget recently, and even though it was on time - a
very pleasant surprise for Albany
- we still don't know exactly what is in it. Much of the budget is clear
enough. But as State Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat from Manhattan,
observes, there are also deep, murky wells of money that have the distinct
odor of Albany
slush.
There is, of course, no line item labeled slush. But
Senator Krueger is making a determined effort to find it in the 2006
budget. So far, she has come up with a $90 million "regional economic
development" program, as well as a "technology and
development" program for $250 million, pushed by Gov. George E.
Pataki. Then there's $200 million in outright pork - $30 million for the
governor and $85 million each for the legislative leaders - for so-called
member items, money that is usually spent on projects in certain
legislators' districts. And Ms. Krueger figures there is still $1 billion
left over from previous years' slush funds.
To whom, you might reasonably ask, will the state - or
more precisely the leaders of the state - hand all this money? The answer
is, to political favorites, like business groups with connections, and to
obedient legislators, who will get extra money for their districts. But
don't expect to find out exactly where the money goes, at least not soon.
The state's Freedom of Information Law, an otherwise
excellent measure made even better by recent revisions to tighten its time
provisions, still leaves a lot of dark corners. One is the Legislature,
which has mostly exempted itself from sunshine. The other is the budget,
which has too many unexplained line items, especially those described only
as a "memorandum of understanding" between legislative leaders
and the governor.
Details of these "understandings" can be very
hard to come by. Sometimes the information surfaces only when some local
politician brags about it at a ribbon-cutting. Even the state comptroller,
Alan G. Hevesi, has had trouble getting data, especially from the hundreds
of public-private authorities that help govern borrowing and spending in
the name of New York's
taxpayers.
Despite recent efforts to give more detail and put more
of the budget on line for the sake of transparency, New
York State's
budget is still so difficult to understand that most Albany regulars figure only a dozen
people - most of whom work for the budget office or used to - know for
certain how to find anything in it.
Compare that to the budget of New York City, which cleaned up its act
at the insistence of the state 30 years ago. The city budget is not simple,
but it is amazingly clear to those savvy about such things. The city uses
generally approved accounting principles, the gold standard of corporate
accountancy. What was good for the city should also be good for the state.
When legislators talk about budget reform, a clear and comprehensible
budget should be part of their package.
</tbody>
|
