Why no debate?

Our opinion: If you have not heard discussion on the millionaires’ tax, you have been living under a rock for the past three years,” the governor says. But why would he want to finish that discussion in secret?

Why, it’s Governor Cuomo, freeing himself of the secret ways of state government and offering an intriguing defense of the tactics that brought unusually swift passage of a much-needed overhaul of New York income tax laws.

We can’t say we concur with everything he says. Yet we welcome what could be a blunt and overdue discussion about why legislative action on major issues so often seems to be perfunctory at best.

A governor who should otherwise be basking in the accolades of those who pushed for a fairer tax code instead finds himself fending off criticism from legislators and good government activists alike. The last thing we want is more of the dysfunctional government that Mr. Cuomo is helping to end. But, really, the normal three days required from the printing of a bill to the vote on it is hardly gridlock.

In response, Mr. Cuomo says higher taxes for the richest New Yorkers were, in their own way, a matter of thorough deliberation.

“If you have not heard discussion on the millionaires’ tax, you have been living under a rock for the past three years,” he told The New York Times. “This is probably the most discussed and debated topic that this government has dealt with in 30 years.”

Point taken. No one can claim to be entirely surprised that action was taken, especially when the so-called millionaires’ tax was less than four weeks from expiration.

This isn’t, say, the secret deal that Gov. George Pataki thrust upon the state a decade ago to give well-deserved pay raises to health care workers.

But why couldn’t Mr. Cuomo, and, yes, Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, have allowed the debate to happen in one more place — the Assembly and Senate chambers, where proposed laws should be weighed, not rubber stamped? Why does a governor so right on the merits on his proposal have to resort to what’s known as a message of necessity, leaving legislators to vote without absorbing, understanding and discussing the fine print?

Again, Mr. Cuomo:

“We didn’t do this in three days,” he says. “It took us three years to do this. And government very often acts when it must act, because we’re a couple of weeks from a deadline, because the tax expires.”

Couldn’t the governor, then, have approached legislative leaders earlier, so normal deliberations could have proceeded without the pressure of a Dec. 31 deadline?

There’s a disturbing trend here. A state Supreme Court justice ruled last month that a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of New York’s gay marriage law could go forward. Acting Justice Robert Wiggins took particular exception to the governor’s contention that not allowing gays to marry constituted enough of an emergency that the usual process of letting a bill age for three days before a vote had to be suspended.

Finally, we have this fear. This time, Mr. Cuomo did the right thing, if not entirely the right way. But what happens when he’s wrong on the substance of an issue that’s resolved in secret?

New Yorkers have every right to expect even more from the governor.

2 Responses

  1. Victor Blackthorne says:

    Debate requires a minimal amount of integrity. When you look at your phone bill, your utility bill the sales tax you pay, the tax on liquor, cigarettes, and gambling it will be clear that the existing structure of taxation is designed to keep the voter in the dark about the cost of government. Fair taxation under a system where the voter is uninformed by policy is an oxymoron.

  2. clifjay37 says:

    If honesty and integrity were to prevail we would all agree that our so called tax code is grossly unfair for the average american. The tax code is by and for the rich in this country. The old saw golden rule definition, those that have the gold make the rules is so true. This tax structure is tailored for the rich so that they may continue to enrich themselves and keep more of their riches and not put it back to work in this country. I can fully understand that no one would want to put their money in the hands of politicians who would spend it on projects that will enrich them in the form of corporate dollars to finance whatever it is they are interested in such as bridges to nowhere etc.Politicians do not represent the interest of the people. Once we understand that, then we can begin to make the necessary changes to a better America.