Taking issue with elections issues

Everyone should have voted Tuesday. But few of us did.

I was one of those who took the time to get out there and cast my ballot. It was kind of sad how little there was to actually vote for. Many seats in my city were uncontested. That seemed to be popular in many municipalities across Western New York.

Of course, I can’t blame people for not wanting to run for office. I wouldn’t want to deal with the pressure that comes from being an elected official. Aside from a small stipend, you mostly get paid in grief.

But it’s still sad only having one option to vote for. It’s not much of a vote. “Hey kids, do you want broccoli for dinner? Or broccoli?” Seriously. Not much of an option.

There were three “races” in which my only option was broccoli. I chose not to eat. I’ve made a habit of refusing to vote for any candidate who runs unopposed — no matter how much I might actually like that candidate. It’s my protest against the system, I suppose. Plus it saves ink.

My other frustration with the system is that each candidate can run on multiple lines. It’s called “fusion voting.” It should be called “the great scam.” Basically, major party candidates work their hardest to also secure their position on minor party lines. They have to do this because some people just won’t vote “Republican.” But they’ll vote “Conservative” or whatever.

As I told my friend Tim Schmitt from WLVL on Tuesday night, if you will vote for a candidate, but only on a line other than “Republican” or “Democrat,” you need to grow up. Your claim that “I’ve never voted Republican in my life” is juvenile. It’s like Bill Clinton not inhaling or “not having sexual relations with that woman, miss Lewinsky.” Really, you’re no better than Bill Clinton.

My last disappointment from this year’s election was the passage of Proposition 1, the referendum to allow casino voting in New York State. Although I have no opposition to casinos and generally think that anything that doesn’t infringe on others’ rights should be legal, I was offended by the way the ballot measure was worded, as well as how it was marketed.

The propaganda for the initiative pretty much said if you vote against it, you hate money and progress. So of course people voted for it. Well, at least the people who voted. Not that there were many of them.

Scott Leffler is a voter who votes. Vote for him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Savings need to start in Albany

As much as I appreciate the governor’s efforts to save us money, lately his focus seems to be aimed in the wrong direction.

With a $10 billion budget gap, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has decided that the best thing he can do for us is tell local school districts how much money they can spend and what they can spend it on, proposing a property tax cap and salary limits on school superintendents.

As much as I love the concept of my local school districts not taxing me to death, it’s not the governor’s decision to make. Those school budgets come before the voters and we always have the option of turning them down, which we do often.

And as much sense as it makes to me that school superintendents should make less than the state’s chief executive, that’s another thing that shouldn’t be up to that chief executive. If Andy Cuomo is so interested in how school districts run, maybe that’s the job he should have gone out for instead of governor.

Personally, I want Andrew Cuomo making as few decisions about my school districts as possible. The state meddles in the affairs of other government agencies way too much. And frankly, if the state would cease some of that meddling, those local school taxes wouldn’t be as high as they are to begin with.

The multitude of governments we have to deal with is already frustrating. The interaction between those governments makes it downright infuriating. If the federal government would worry about federal things, that’d be awesome. And if the state government would stick to state things, that would be equally fantastic. And that would make it so much easier for our towns, villages, cities, school districts, counties, etc., to do their jobs.

It’s akin to working for a mega conglomerate corporation and having six different bosses, each of them telling you to do something different. Or having your mother tell you to take out the trash right now while you’re trying to bring in the wood that your father told you to bring in. It’s simply impossible to serve two masters. Especially simultaneously.

The power to control your school districts lies in your hands. And if you let Andy Cuomo take that power from you, you will never get it back.

So as much as you may like the idea of saving on your property taxes, you should tell Andrew Cuomo to stay out of your school district’s affairs. And as much as you may think that your superintendent is overpaid, for the sake of simplicity, tell Andy Cuomo to stick that idea in the circular bin ... or wherever you want to tell him to stick it. I don’t judge.

•••

As an unrelated side note, I’d like to wish a prosperous retirement to a friend and former colleague of mine. WLVL’s news director, John Raymond, called it a career last week.

Radio has been good to John. And John made for some great radio.

He made me laugh at times. And he made me livid at times. But I enjoyed working beside him for the better part of seven years.

I’m certain I’m not alone when I say, John Raymond, you will be missed. Thanks for the memories.

Dear Governor Paterson: I never liked you

I have my biases just like anyone else.

Add to that the fact that I'm somewhat vindictive and not particularly forgiving and, frankly, it makes me the type of person whose bad side you don't want to get on. And if you are on my **** list and you fall? Well, I'm not going to feel guilty about enjoying it.

I'm not saying this as a threat. It is merely a disclaimer. Usually you get those at the end in small print, but I like to put mine out front.

I was never a fan of David Paterson. I'm not afraid to call him “the accidental governor.” I mean, let's be honest here. If Eliot Spitzer were a combination of more discreet and less freaky, we still wouldn't know anything about David Paterson. And we'd all be just fine with that, I'm sure.

When Paterson assumed the role of governor, he had a radio tour to introduce himself. I was working for WECK and WLVL at the time and got the same email every other talk show host in the state got; announcing that the new governor might consider being a guest on my show to tell the taxpayers what he was all about.

I called the number on the email, hoping to set up a live interview with the governor, the third we'd had since I had started my talk show several years ago – but the first who had offered to do a live interview. Or at least, I thought that's what the offer was.

I wish I could recall the conversation verbatim, but I cannot. I do remember whoever I talked to telling me that Cheektowaga and Lockport were not important enough to warrant the new executive's time. The woman on the other end of the phone didn't seem to care that radio waves were capable of traveling and just because the stations were licensed to Cheektowaga and Buffalo didn't mean that only residents of those communities would hear it.

“Yeah, we're licensed to Cheektowaga,” I told her, “but the majority of our listeners are actually from Buffalo, the second largest city in the state. You may have heard of it?”

The preceding paragraph is paraphrased, but that was the gist.

It didn't matter. She wasn't buying it. And just as quickly as David Paterson had become governor, I was done with him. Frankly, if his media people were that clueless, I could only imagine how bad he must be.

He didn't disappoint. He struck me as equal to his aide in terms of cluelessness. Honestly, I've been thinking for days of something he did that impressed me or gave me any sort of notion that he may have been more intelligent than I gave him credit for. I came up empty.

The thing that has frustrated me most about Governor Paterson has been his constant insistence that he was “making the tough decisions” by deciding to raise taxes. I've never gotten the impression that any politician ever has lost sleep over deciding to raise taxes.

Now, deciding not to run for a full term as governor cause your administration is plagued with scandal? I'm thinking that might have caused “the accidental governor” to lose a few winks.

So it's been decided that this partial term will be his last. Good for us. I would have to say to the governor, though, “Why wait? I mean, really. Just go now. You haven't accomplished anything yet. And now that you're a lame duck, you're not going to.”

In short, allow me to add myself to what is surely going to be a long line of journalists who suggest to to governor that he should do us all a favor and resign.

If that seems vindictive to you, it's because it is. Not that it matters. He won't care about my opinion. I'm not from a big enough city.