The state's fourth largest political party is really the third largest. The Independence Party is third only because the name of the party confuses newly registered voters that want to remain independent, and so they unwittingly check off the capital "I" Independence Party. Truly independent voters would check off "I do not wish to enroll in a party" in order to be independent.
So, for the sake of honesty, let's just say the state's “quite large” fourth party is the Conservative Party. The party was formed following the ideological footsteps of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. It was created to push the then left-leaning Republican Party back to the right. The theory was to then disband the party once the GOP moved away from Rockefeller's liberal Republicanism.
Andrew Cuomo is proposing to streamline local governments. It's a bold and interesting idea. For the longest time, Long Island and upstate New York politicians have created these separate government entities as a means to give patronage jobs to friends and supporters.
Now the attorney general is suggesting we revisit all this in order to make government more responsive and less expensive. Mike Long thinks it is worth considering. After all, the Conservative Party's candidates are often not part of the patronage machine. Conservative Party candidates run on their own money and, while they do not often get elected (unless they share a line with Republicans or Democrats), they rarely owe anyone anything in return.
It is for this reason that Long has stayed true to his ideology. People have criticized the Conservative Party for endorsing pro-choice candidates in recent years, but what lights up the core of the party - a belief in a smaller government - still shines. Mike Long doesn't care if Cuomo is a Democrat, he cares that someone is talking about fixing government.
This is clearly an effort by Cuomo to court support for some future race. It is not the work that we expect from an attorney general, but Cuomo is better at policy than he is at campaigning, and so opportunities to talk about policy are important to him. If Cuomo can make the case that he wants to introduce a bold plan to restructure government and save taxpayers money, he is speaking to the right crowd.
For too long, the Conservatives have been stereotyped as people living in another era that belong to a value system not entirely compatible with today's America. Now, with budgets in every state being squeezed and a federal government that spent the last eight years writing blank checks, it appears that the Conservatives were right on many of these counts.
Long may not say if the party is willing to endorse Cuomo, which would be interesting since Cuomo's father was the voice of liberalism - or anti-Reaganism - in the 1980s, but putting Cuomo on their line should be brought with a degree of caution. Remember that Cuomo was once a gubernatorial candidate on the New York State Liberal Party line. When he agreed to drop out of the race, he remained on the Liberal line. He received very few votes (around 16,000) and so the Liberal Party lost its automatic slot on the New York State ballot.
If Cuomo did the same thing on the Conservative Party line, he could, in effect, sink that party as well. Unless that is his ultimate plan, which in this case makes him a genius, or an evil genius…depending on how you vote.
The New York Stimulus, and Avoiding the Need for Future Stimuli
What does the stimulus bill mean to people in New York? There are many reasons to believe that New York will be one of the points in the country that can benefit from the stimulus package – although it may not be accurate to call it “stimulus.” Is it going to stimulate the economy? Well, that depends on where most of the money goes.
The easiest way to stimulate the economy on the consumer front is with tax cuts. The second best way to create some movement in the economy is through investment in infrastructure. Unfortunately, there is less than 10 percent of this package steered toward infrastructure.
A good portion of the plan will go to help people that are facing mortgage foreclosures. This mortgage crisis will be behind us at some point, but where is the president willing to draw the line when it comes to mortgage lending when it involves people that should not be given mortgages in the first place? Remember that it’s groups like ACORN that were calling for mortgage opportunities for the economically disadvantaged. Then they got mortgages. Now they can't pay them.
The president is quick to say that corporate executives need to change their approach to big compensation entitlements. Is he going to say that we need to re-evaluate the way we lend mortgages? Not everyone can own a house, or at least the kind of house that they might want. Fiscal responsibility has to work in both directions.