What if we call it gay capitalism?

As I listened to the debate and subsequent vote over the marriage equality act in the New York state Senate on Thursday, I couldn't help but beam with pride as the “yes” votes were cast.

I thought lifting the ban on gay marriage was the right thing for the state to do and I was overwhelmed with emotion that 33 of the state's 62 senators agreed with me.

Yes, I realize that there are many of you out there who disagree and are dismayed at our state Senate. I also realize that this column isn’t going to change your mind. And, to be honest, I’m not one to gloat. But I would like to revel a bit in all the new possibilities.

For one, think of the new revenue streams that same sex weddings can bring into the state. I didn't like this benefit as a reason to pass the bill, but I think it's a great side effect of its passage.

I know we tend to forget what a draw it is, but Niagara Falls – despite its drawbacks – is still a world-class destination for travelers both foreign and domestic. And while I'm pretty sure the ship sailed on it being the “Honeymoon Capital of the World” quite some time ago, there's nothing to say we can't be the gay honeymoon capital of the world.

Same sex couples can get hitched in the Falls, book receptions, motels and spend massive amounts of cash here … on this side of the border. I'm talking about private dollars being spent on private enterprises.

Sad as it may seem, I'm thinking a reality show has got to already be rolling around in someone's head. Maybe they follow a specific couple. Or maybe they follow around a member of the clergy who specializes in gay marriage. I haven't worked the details out in my head yet, but Hollywood's got to be thinking of it.

A reality show based in Niagara Falls would have to mean more tourists, and as such, more revenue for hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like.

And, like it or not, more weddings will eventually mean more divorces. While I certainly can't get excited about this, I can only imagine that divorce lawyers are licking their chops at the new opportunities.

And not just lawyers, but marriage counselors, psychologists, etc. Yes, the downside of marriage is profitable for some.

Again, these side effect benefits aren't reason enough to support gay marriage, in my opinion, but they might help make the concept more bearable for those of you who opposed the idea.

As for me, I'm just happy that gay couples can join in on the party that the rest of us were invited to … just by having been born straight.

Strangely, Thursday night I sat at my desk, listening to the arguments being made and the votes being cast, overwhelmingly happy for thousands of people I'll never meet.

I hope that those of you who disagree with the concept can set aside that difference and be happy for them, too. And if not, try to figure out a way to make a buck on it.

After all, the only thing more American than equality is capitalism.

Government has no role in marriage

Some people have no respect for the sanctity of marriage. They view marriage as something to horde and keep for themselves. To them, it’s a political football to be kicked around Albany — or  Washington, D.C.

There is no logical reason that I can understand why Republicans and Democrats should have the privilege of defining marriage, any more than they should be allowed to define the words “hope,” “love” or “commitment.”

If I believed for a second that politicians understood hope, love or commitment, I may be willing to consider their ability to define marriage. But I have little faith — another word I don’t want politicians defining — that elected officials understand any of these concepts.

There are several dictionary definitions of the word “marriage.” The one I tend to give the most credence to is: “The combination of two things into a new single entity.”

In the current debate over the word marriage, the question is whether it need be a union between a man and woman, or simply a union between two people. See, the state of New York decided a long time ago that marriage is specifically a union between a man and woman. And currently, there are 31 people in the state Senate who seem to want to keep it that way.

The latest census figures say that there are more than 19 million people living in New York. Scientific data says that one in 10 people is gay. Simple math, therefore, says that there are 1.9 million homosexuals in New York who can’t marry their person of choice because of 31 people who call themselves “public servants.”

I’ve always viewed marriage as a commitment between two people — and God. Marriage is a religious institution. Not a state institution. The only reason for the state’s involvement is to oversee the financial ramifications of the marriage, and as is far-too-often the case, the eventual divorce.

The state should be nothing more than a witness to a union created by the church. But as it is right now, there are 31 people objecting to what could potentially be 10 percent of marriages. Not just objecting, mind you, but vetoing them.

In my opinion, if a happy couple can find a church to marry them, the state should not stand in the way.
Many churches won’t want to marry same-sex couples. And I don’t have a problem with their hesitation or refusal to do so. They should not be forced to. They shouldn’t be barred from it, though, either.

Some would suggest that “marriage” be reserved for couples of a man and a woman, while allowing same-sex couples to have “civil unions.” These people are engaging in semantics, essentially creating the “straights-only” drinking fountains of the 21st century.

You may wholeheartedly disagree with me. That is certainly your right. I would suggest, however, that if you don’t want gay marriage, don’t marry someone of your own sex. And leave it at that.

You don’t get to tell other people what they can eat, drink or say in their own homes. We’ve finally reached the point where most of us have concluded that you can’t tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms, either. The next logical step is that we shouldn’t tell people who they can marry in their own churches.

Hope, love, commitment and faith are not things to be hoarded.

Recession finally hits state government

Most of us have had to learn to do with less these past couple years.

I've personally used the phrase, “not in the budget” about four million times, whether it was while out shopping with the kids, or turning down a friend's request to go out to dinner or to a movie or whatever. We all have to prioritize and most often prioritizing means skipping what you want to to in order to afford what you have to do.

“Not in the budget” has become somewhat of a catch phrase. I'm hardly the only one saying it. The recession has affected almost everyone I know in some way or another. Many of my friends have lost jobs, or had to do more at their jobs, picking up the slack left because someone else at their job got a pink slip.

Private companies deal with the pain of recession by reducing their workforce if they can't find other ways to save enough money to make them viable during the bleak economic times that fall upon us from time to time.

Government, it seems, hardly goes that same route.

My budget – much like yours – is determined by my paycheck. My paycheck – much like yours – is determined by how many hours I work, multiplied by how much my employer is willing to pay me for each hour of work done.

Government's budget, meanwhile, is determined by how much they raise in taxes; whether they be sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes or “fees,” which are really just taxes with a different name.

Basically, people get paid what their employer is willing to pay. Government gets paid whatever they want.

This has been the formula for far too long.

One thing that rang out loud and clear from the election is that people aren't fond of that formula. People don't like being told what to do or how much to pay. Government is supposed to work for us. Not the other way around. And many of the people who won their elections in November campaigned on just such a mantra.

It looks like New York State might have gotten that message … to a degree. Last week Governor David Paterson announced that come January 1, there will be 900 fewer state employees than there are right now. The last day of this month, 900 people will get their pink slips and told to move on.

Of course, those 900 people are none-too-happy about this. And the unions that represent them aren't either.

But in Paterson's defense, he did give those unions an opportunity to save those jobs if they were willing to make concessions to save the state money. The unions, however, refused.

Paterson can't force concessions on the unions. They already have a contract. But he can reduce the number of employees. So that's what he did.

It's sad to see people lose their jobs. But it beats allowing the state to be held hostage by public employees unions.

Come January 1, this could all be moot if the incoming governor, Andrew Cuomo belays that layoff order.

If he does, we all might have to get part-time jobs just to pay our taxes. Or we'll have to learn to do with even less.

What about the other guys?

One week from today we head to the polls to choose – among other things – the next governor of the great state of New York.

Most of you already probably know who you're voting for. Like the vast majority of New Yorkers, you'll be voting for one of the candidates of the two major parties. You knew this before the candidates were announced.

The Democrats will be voting for Andrew Cuomo and the Republicans will be voting for Carl Paladino. There will be some exceptions, of course, but for the most part, that's how it will go down.

There are others out there, though, who aren't sure who to vote for yet. The thought of another Cuomo in office scares you. Maybe this one has actually figured out how to tax the oxygen in your lungs. His father was pretty close to figuring that out. And Paladino makes you nervous, too. He's a bit of a loose canon. What might he do if actually elected?

There's been some clamoring on the internet over the last week, asking for a debate between just Paladino and Cuomo. Ever since the circus that was the only gubernatorial debate, the Paladino camp has pushed for a debate between just himself and Cuomo, claiming that people deserve that debate.

Something tells me that it's the Paladino people clamoring for this format because their guy was outshined during the last debate. They want a chance to siphon votes off of Cuomo, who holds what appears to be an insurmountable lead over their guy.

I feel like I know plenty about Andy Cuomo … and Carl Paladino. The last thing I want is a debate between just the two of them. Then again, I already know that I won't be voting for either one of them. I realize this puts me in the minority.

I'd prefer to see a debate between the five candidates we don't know as much about. Now, maybe you feel like you learned enough about them during the first debate and subsequent media coverage since, but compare that to the media coverage we've gotten about Carl and Andy for the past several months. It's a pittance.

I'd rather hear more from Kristen Davis, the former madam who got Eliot Spitzer in all that hot water. I know she wants to legalize prostitution (which I agree with), but I'd like to hear more.

I'd prefer to hear more from Jimmy McMillan, who thinks the rent is too damn high and says you can marry your shoes. He seemed a bit off, but he deserves to be heard.

I'd like to hear more from Howie Hawkins, the Green Party candidate who delivers packages by day. How would he lower our taxes?

I should be able to hear more from Charles Barron, the Freedom Party candidate and New York City Councilman. How exactly would slapping the closest white guy to him help our situation?

And of course, I'd like to hear more from my party's candidate, Warren Redlich. We seem to agree on a lot, but if he's such a good Libertarian, why is he actually a registered Republican?

Unfortunately, my five person “also-running” debate is unlikely. So I'll have to do what I always have to do come election time. I'll have to do my own research and come to my own conclusion.

Those of you who aren't yet sure who you're voting for should do the same. And it probably wouldn't hurt those of you who already know who you're voting for, either. The Democrats and Republicans got us into this mess, don't forget.

Gambling on taxes

One of the many ongoing conflicts I enjoy watching is the fight between the State of New York and the Seneca Nation.

I've mentioned before that I think the state is dead wrong in their refusal to ignore the sovereignty of the Senecas and any other Native American tribes doing business on their own lands. My understanding – or belief, at least – is that Native American reservations are unto themselves their own nations and not part of New York. Just as the Vatican is not part of Italy, or the City of Lockport, although fully engulfed by the Town of Lockport is not a part of the town.

This belief in sovereignty that I have leads me to conclude that the state has no more right to impose its will on Native American reservations than it does to impose it's will on Hamilton, Ontario. Sure, the land is within the state boundaries, but again, so is the Vatican surrounded by Italy.

Of course, the problem with this is that the state needs money in order to pay for whatever it is they pay for. I don't think anyone really knows where they money goes. But each year, they need more and more of it. And I have to imagine this makes the folks in Albany say, “Hey, look at those people, spending money on those reservations … we should get some of that.”

The latest turn of events in this public relations fiasco saw four Albany legislators standing firm with the Senecas as that nation said they didn't want to filter their casino payments to “host communities” through New York State anymore. The Senecas say they want to do this to eliminate red tape and get money to the “host communities” faster. I imagine it's really just a shot across the state's bow.

One of those legislators was State Senator George Maziarz. I don't often agree with George, so I kind of like to point out when I do. Kudos, George. We're on the same team for a change.

The state is upset because the Senecas have been withholding the casino payments since the state's more recent declaration they'd be taxing cigarettes and gasoline sold to non-natives on native land. Governor David Paterson and his ilk say the Senecas have broken the casino compact by withholding $200 million in casino payments. The Senecas, meanwhile, say it was the state who broke the compact by allowing competing casinos like the one at the Erie County Fairgrounds in Hamburg.

This whole thing could have been avoided if the state had simply made the necessary changes to allow casino gambling in the state. But instead of amending the Constitution, they looked for a loophole and gave the ability to the Senecas in exchange for a percentage of the take.

That “loophole” would seem to me to be an admission by the state that tribal land is not part of the state, which is why they aren't subject to the Constitution … and as a result, not subject to the taxes the state is clamoring for.

I have nothing against gambling, but I don't like the whole loophole bit. I've never understood why gambling is illegal unless it's state sponsored … and a sin unless you're doing it in a church.

If the state would just get its act together and legalize gambling from the top down, I wouldn't have this conundrum of being in agreement with Senator Maziarz.

I'd bet they don't get their act together any time soon, but I don't want to break the law.

Winning with less (votes)

Sometimes when you ask a question publicly, you can be very surprised where the answers come from.

Last week I wrote about my thoughts on why Carl Paladino was running for office … especially knowing he was going to lose. I mean, why would someone do that?

A few short days after that question ran in the paper, I picked up the phone to find none other than Ralph Nader on the other end. He wanted to promote a visit he is making the Buffalo today in support of another gubernatorial candidate; Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins.

If someone knows about running uphill against the two-party system, it's Ralph Nader. He's run for president four times with no chance of winning. But as he explained to me there are victories that come from winning even when you lose at the ballot box.

“I'll tell you a few,” he said. “One is there are voters are conscience. They want to vote for someone they believe in. Not for the least worst of the two majors. And you always should have an opportunity for voters of conscience.

“The second is, you can't emerge full fledged if you're going to build a political initiative. You've got to usually start small. If you're not willing to start small, you'll never get bigger. That's the lesson of billions of seeds now fermenting in soil around the world.”

He went on to explain that in Hawkin's case there's a particular initiative that his candidacy is hoping to bring to the light of day. And that initiative, Hawkins and Nader claim, could close the state's budget gap and save hundreds of state workers' jobs.

The initiative is called the “Demand that New York State stop rebating the stock transfer tax to Wall Street.”

“Now this is an amazing situation where they collect $16 billion from the stock exchanges and then electronically rebate it immediately,” he said.

Nader said the working class doesn't get tax rebates on things they buy out of necessity, so there's no reason Wall Street should have their taxes rebated, especially since the tax that's rebated from the stock market is a fraction of a percent as compared to 4 percent state sales tax and approximately 4 percent county sales tax, depending on the county, of course.

Nader and Hawkins will be in Buffalo tonight to discuss the transfer tax rebate and Hawkins' campaign. Nader will also be signing copies of his new book, “Only the Super Rich Can Save Us.”

The event will be held at 7pm at the Dnipro Ukrainian Cultural Center, 562 Genesee Street in Buffalo. For more information on the event, call (716) 479-2351.

Noteworthy: Nader was not the only politician to respond to my column last week. Libertarian candidate Warren Redlich also sent me an email saying he liked the column, pointing me to his website (http://wredlich.com/ny) if I wanted to hear more about him.

“Maybe I can draw attention to some issues (like the budget instead of the mosque),” Redlich said in his email.

I'll share more from Hawkins, Redlich and other candidates who believe they can “win” without becoming governor (those not named Cuomo) in future columns.  

Run Carl Run ... but why?

Politics to me is a sport. And I'm a fanatic just as many are sports fanatics. I'm not just interested in who wins or loses the game, I'm enthralled with the play-by-play and the locker room interviews … and even the cheerleaders.

One of the things I find most compelling in politics is what makes a candidate decide to be a candidate. Specifically, I'm always intrigued to see what makes someone jump into a race they're pretty sure they can't win.

Now in sports, this is easy. The league determines the schedule and you know that every so often all teams end up playing each other. The Bills are a perennial candidate, kind of like Ralph Nader. They can no easier opt out of playing the Patriots than Nader could say “no” to another publicity filled run for president.

The Bills do it because it's required. Nader does it because he's full of himself. Those two are easy.

But what makes a guy like Carl Paladino run for governor? This thought had been plaguing me for a while. Then I heard my friend Chris Smith talk about it on a recent podcast hosted by another friend of mine – and former colleague – Brad Riter.

Chris is a very bright guy and gets politics better than most. Begrudgingly, I might even say he understands politics better than yours truly. And I endured four years of schooling and tens of thousands of dollars in loans studying the topic.

But enough about Chris and enough about me. Back to Carl Paladino, the Republican-ish candidate for governor who has only a slightly higher chance of winning than you do. And I probably don't need to remind you that you're not on the ballot.

Some people run knowing that they'll lose because their political party has offered them a job after they lose. The party wants to save face by having a candidate. The party also wants to make the other candidate spend money. And there's always a chance that the other guy - who everyone knows is going to win – does something really stupid and loses. This does not describe Carl. He created his own party and has no need for a government or political job.

Some people run knowing that they're going to lose in hopes of increasing their profile for another race in the future. Their first run is strictly to get their name out there so that two years from now when people go to the voting booth, they say, “hey, this name looks familiar.” This also does not describe Carl. He has no interest in running for anything else. He just wants to be governor.

Some people run knowing that they'll lose because they want to inject their ideas into the system. As a candidate it's easier to get your message across. Hopefully someone with some authority will pick up your ideas and run with them. This doesn't describe Carl either. He hasn't exactly released a platform of things he wants to accomplish. His whole message is “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.” It's kind of hard for someone to pick that up and run with it.

The best I can figure is that Carl Paladino is running for governor because he likes the attention. And I think he enjoys playing spoiler, having effectively neutered Rick Lazio's candidacy. There's also the possibility that he thinks he can win, but I doubt it.

Basically, Carl Paladino is our own home-grown Ralph Nader.

Hey, look, I'm mad as hell, too. And I'm not looking forward to four or less years of another Cuomo … or Rick Lazio. But I also can't vote for a guy who has poor judgment (his email fiasco) and no real solutions.

So to those of you with the orange “mad as hell” yard signs, do us all a favor and take them down. You're just enabling him and feeding his addiction.

Plus, you look silly.

Redefining "lost"

A story published over the weekend really kind of raised my ire.

For those of you who may have missed it, Neale Gulley's piece in the Sunday paper discussed the recent line item veto's by Governor David Paterson and how they would affect Western New York. Specifically, the piece mentioned a $9,450 procurement from Assemblyman Robin Schimminger to the United Way of the Tonawandas.

The story said the organization “stands to lose $9,450 they already got from Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, D-Kenmore, for a new computer system.”

“We were told the money would be there but we’re waiting for the paperwork,” the organization's director of finance and administration said. “it was submitted a couple weeks ago.”

So if I read Gulley's story correctly, the organization obviously didn't “already got” anything. They were promised it by Assemblyman Schimminger but it hadn't been delivered yet. And since they didn't already have it, they didn't lose it. They just didn't get it.

If I tell you I'm going to give you a dollar and then don't, you didn't lose a dollar. You just didn't get the dollar I said I was going to give you. That might make me a bad guy, but it doesn't really make you a victim.

Since the $9,450 in question here isn't from Assemblyman Schimminger's bank account, maybe he shouldn't have promised it in the first place. Seems to me there's a saying here about your mouth not writing checks your butt can't cash.

Further, the story explained that the money was there for the United Way of the Tonawandas to use, but they hadn't done so by the end of the fiscal year, so they lost out.

If you call me today and ask if you can borrow a cup a sugar, I'd likely say yes. If you fail to pick up that cup of sugar in a reasonable amount of time, I'll probably just end up using it myself. Several months down the road if you happen to stop by and say, “hey where's my sugar you said I could borrow,” I'd probably look at you like you had multiple heads. And if I don't have the extra sugar anymore I'm not going to feel guilty about it.

That's not much different that the United Way's not using the money it had been promised.

You still couldn't tell anyone that you “lost” a cup of sugar that you never had. Especially if it was your laziness or disorganization that prevented you from getting the sugar in the first place.

You may think I'm being hard on the United Way here. After all, they're a great group with great goals and they help a lot of people. But I'm just using them as an example – just like Gulley did. And no matter how good they are, that doesn't mean that we have the money to give them.

The reason for Paterson's vetoes in the first place is because the fiscal state of the empire state is deplorable. And we just can't give money out the way we used to. In fact, had we not been giving this money out in this manner for the last 30 years, maybe we'd be in a lot better shape now.

Someone somewhere will try to make the argument that this is “just $9,450” and considering the size of the state's budget, it's proportionally just a drop in the bucket and they should be able to find the money to honor Schimminger's word.

In all, Paterson vetoed $700 million in expenditures.

I guess it's true what they say, “ten grand here and ten grand there and eventually you're talking real money.”

Deadlines and repercussions

We were all children once. And as we got older, our parents gave us chores. Well, mine did at least.

To be honest with you, though, I didn’t have many chores. On a regular basis, the only things I recall having to do was mow the lawn, stack wood and bring wood into the house. Other than that, mom took care of most of the stuff. Thanks, mom.

My daughters don’t have it so lucky. They have things they have to do.

And if they don’t, they get punished in some way or another. You can most likely recall having a conversation with your parents similar to the type I’ve had numerous times with my girls. It goes something like, “Just make sure you have X done before X time.” Maybe it’s cleaning their rooms. Maybe it’s making their lunches. Maybe it’s bringing wood into the house. Whatever it may be, there’s a duty and a time.

It’s not all that dissimilar from work. Your boss gives you a task and tells you to have it “on my desk by noon Friday.”

Right now my main time-based duty is this one, where I have to have my column written and sent into the editors by a certain time on a certain day each week. I usually procrastinate ... in order to have the freshest topic possible when you read your paper on Tuesday. Or maybe I’m just a procrastinator. But I get it done and I get it in on time. Each and every week.

What do you think the paper would do if I didn’t? You’d have to imagine there would be repercussions, right? Maybe they’d politely tell me they didn’t need my services. Maybe it wouldn’t be so polite. Either way, there would be some sort of fallout.

And what do you think I would do if my kids didn’t do the things they were supposed to on time? More repercussions. Just like when we were young. If we didn’t get that wood stacked when mom or dad said to, there would be no TV that day. Or we wouldn’t be able to go to the field day. Or something.

Point being, there are repercussions to not doing what you’re supposed to do when you’re supposed to have it done.

Unless, of course, you’re the New York State Senate and Assembly.

They’re now more than three months late with the one job they have to do: the state budget.

Thursday night, they packed their bags and headed to their homes, not having the budget process completed.

And to make matters worse, not only don’t they seem to care, they appear to think they’re doing a bang-up job.

“I want to congratulate all of my colleagues for a very exhaustive legislative session,” Senate majority leader John Sampson said after they wrapped their session up.

Know what’s exhaustive? Having to put up with what comes out of Albany year after year.

Where are the repercussions? They’re supposed to come in November when we replace our elected officials with people who might actually do the job.

Unfortunately, that’s our responsibility. And we fail to get that job done. So we will have to deal with the repercussions; having to watch this circus again next year.

Who's the addict now?

Government likes to use code words so they don't look quite so much like the bad guys.

For example, it seems like every couple weeks we hear about a new plan by the state to “raise money” to “fill the budget gap.”

Of course, by “raise money,” what they really mean is, “raise taxes.” And “fill the budget gap” actually translates to “spend more.”

I'm never a fan of government increasing our taxes. Nor am I a fan of them spending more. But some plans, I must confess, irk me more than others.

The latest harebrained scheme by Albany, specifically Governor Paterson, is to raise taxes on tobacco products, including a $1.60 a pack tax increase on cigarettes … and (here we go again) collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations.

Disclaimer: I smoke somewhere between half a pack and a pack a day. Save yourself the time of emailing me about how bad smoking is, okay? I know. I'm not under the impression that cigarettes have Vitamin C in them. I didn't miss the label that says they're bad. I know. But this is America and I have the right to ignore conventional wisdom and do something that's bad for me. Okay? Good. Moving on.

The $1.60 a pack tax increase bothers me by itself. Raises taxes on addicts is more than cruel. It's got to be a sin. Maybe not one of the seven deadly ones, but a sin nonetheless. And the argument that maybe the state will tax people into quitting is flawed on so many levels. If that's the argument, the state is attempting to push it's own moral standards through tax code. Again, that's just evil.

For me, however, there's something worse than taxing addicts. There's something worse than using taxes to push their morals. And that's attempting to levy taxes on sovereign land.

The State of New York has no more right to levy taxes on Native American soil than it does to levy taxes on Florida or France. The many reservations found within the confines of the state are – essentially – each their own country as set forth in the many treaties we've made … and ultimately broken.

Of course, I'm sure Governor Paterson would love to be able to tax Florida and France, too. Just like I'm sure he's trying to devise a way to tax our brainwaves and white blood cells. After all, there's that “budget gap” to fill.

This concept of taxing reservations is not new. It's been pushed hard twice before and floated a number of times. You likely recall parts of the New York State Thruway shutting down over a decade ago over this exact same issue. As much as I abhor violence, I can't blame Native Americans for protecting their way of life. And if they were to do it again, I'd root for them.

The problem is simple. New York State spends more than it makes. The solution is equally simple. New York State should spend less.

The fact that certain people in Albany seem to think it's easier to declare war on the sovereignty of Native Americans than to reign in spending should tell you all you need to know about the disease that infects state government.

A drug addict will steal from loved ones, burglarize homes and even knock off convenience stores to get money to get their fix.

Albany – apparently – is no different.

Rather than allow our elected officials to knock off the metaphorical convenience store that is our Native American reservations, we should get them the help they need. Just like we'd send a drug addict to rehab, we should send our elected officials for their own treatment.

Tax refund holding to be expected

I'll be honest. Sometimes I kind of snap to judgment.

After having a while to think about things, though, sometimes that snap judgment turns out to have been wrong.

Last week, I ran across a story about New York State not sending out refund checks until June in order to temporarily fill a budget gap. Governor Paterson had made the decree and State Senator Bill Stachowski (is he really still a state senator) announced his disapproval of keeping the people's money from them.

I agreed with Stachowski.

Then it occurred to me: If I'm agreeing with THAT guy, something must be wrong. Let me rethink this.

Well, as it turns out, I changed my mind. I'm actually totally okay with the state keeping our income tax returns until June. Or October for all I care, actually.

Now, first things first. Either the original story failed to mention – or I failed to hear – that this would only be for people filing their tax returns after March 1. So anyone who has already filed a return should still get your refund back in a timely manner. And anyone who files by the end of the week will also get your refund back in a timely manner.

In other words, if you haven't procrastinated, neither will the state. And on top of that, if you get off your dupa and file your return by Sunday, you will get your money back in a few weeks. Just like normal. And if you procrastinated and can't get off your dupa … well, who am I to feel bad for you.

But wait, that's not all. There's a far greater and more compelling reason for me to actually like the idea of the state keeping our tax returns.

Yes, as Senator Stachowski states, it's your money and the state is keeping it as though it were an interest-free loan. But … you asked them to borrow it.

Yes. You did.

Okay, maybe this isn't specifically true of you, but a lot of people did. I'd hazard to bet that most people did, actually.

You see, at the beginning of each year … or any time you change jobs, you can ask your employer to change the amount of money that's withheld from your paycheck in state and federal taxes. Personally, I tend to ask my employers to withhold as little as possible so I get to keep more of my money on a weekly basis, therefore getting less (or no) refund the following spring. In other words, I don't want to give the government an interest free loan. I feel I can better manage my own money, thank you.

Some people, though, ask their employers to take out extra money to send to the state and the feds so they get a bigger refund. They could take $20 a week (or whatever) and set it aside in an interest bearing account at a local bank or credit union. But they're too lazy to do that. They'd rather have the government keep it – interest free – cause its easier to let the government take care of them than for them to take care of themselves.

Folks, if you're going to let the nanny state take care of you, you better be willing to deal with the side effects and repercussions that come from it. Sometimes you won't like the way they decide to take care of you. But if you've allowed yourself to become a pet, you better get used to the leash.

And in this case, the side effects – or leash as the analogy goes – is that the government has decided it needs this money a little longer more than you need it back. After all, it's already been allowed to keep your money interest free for 14 months. What's a few more?

Now some of you will think this column to be facetious, but I assure you, this is my true and honest, well thought out opinion. And if you think about it, maybe it'll become yours, too.