Wayne Zyra wants a dialogue on the budgetary pain of Medicaid. It’s a talk about spreading that pain.

He may have to get over the shouting before the talking begins.

On Tuesday, Zyra – the Republican President of the Monroe County Legislature – submitted legislation that would have county government accept a state solution to the high cost of Medicaid – the sales tax intercept.

We’ve gone over the concept – the county gives up making those fat payments to the Medicaid program in exchange for giving up a fat chunk of its annual local sales tax proceeds. The problem – however – those sales taxes go not just to Monroe County’s budget… but to the budgets of the city, the towns, the villages and suburban schools. (An audio Political Notebook gives another stab at explaining this trade-off… have a listen)

The first-blush reactions are predictable. Predictably negative.

Brighton Supervisor Sandy Frankel (in an email to this website): "I don’t believe that residents in Brighton or any other part of Monroe County want to take a step backwards by having the state or county push mandated costs down the ladder."

Pittsford Town Supervisor Bill Carpenter (to WXXI’s Peter Iglinski last week):  This sales tax "intercept" only shifts the burden down to local governments and isn’t a good alternative.

Other initial reactions are more surprising – only because they show political fissures where you wouldn’t usually find them. County Executive Maggie Brooks, a Republican like Zyra, said about the "intercept" idea – that she doesn’t want to go there… that she’s not on board.

Zyra said the county legislature is taking the only option that seems viable. Brooks, he said, has taken a property tax increase off the table. And, he said, just a few years ago, the Rochester delegation to the state legislature called a proposed sales tax increase of a half penny "dead on arrival."

The state approved this sales tax "intercept" as way to give counties relief, he said. "This solution is within our control… and it fits within the framework we’ve been given," he said.

To Maggie Brooks, Zyra simply said: "Unless she’s going to come up with $50 million another way… she may have no choice."

Don’t tell Assemblyman David Gantt that, however. The Democrat said that the county’s sales tax sharing arrangement was also passed as state law. He believes Monroe County’s desire for the "intercept" is trumped by that previous agreement. (There is more of what Gantt said… to WXXI’s Bud Lowell, here)

But Gantt – like Brooks and Frankel and Carpenter – said it’s not fair to push the costs down to local municipalities and school districts.

Zyra expects this reaction. He wants to talk it over. Yes, the county legislature’s Ways and Means Committee will get his proposal for accepting the "intercept." But he doesn’t expect a quick vote. He wants a discussion – a chance to explain this to other governmental leaders. A chance to let the conversation percolate.

"I want to do more," Zyra said. "We need a community-wide discussion on budget issues across the board."

But he will also make this point: The arrangement of paying for Medicaid costs has never been fair. The state has never seen fit to curb the rising price tag (just as an aside – that involves a governor and state Senate majority from Mr. Zyra’s Republican Party as much as it does the Democrats in the Assembly).

And while the county stares down the possibility of big tax increases to meet the Medicaid problem, other local municipalities haven’t faced the same dire circumstances. We’re in it together, is his point. That means all must suffer the pain, rather than one government in the county.

"There’s an imbalance," Zyra said. "A dialogue on this has to happen. If this doesn’t get it going, I don’t know what will."

Oh… it will. Because… not everyone agrees with his assessment.

Finally a solution for Medicaid costs that Monroe County can control.

And yet should county leaders try and do it – it might bring down the political house locally.

The solution has a rather militaristic sounding name – the "intercept." And it deals with the state sales tax. It works this way (according to the Empire Center for New York State Policy): counties have a one-time option to trade their Medicaid payments to the state in exchange for the state grabbing more counties sales tax take. In other words, the state would "intercept" part of a county’s sales tax booty to assume paying that county’s Medicaid freight.

The state legislature included this solution as part of Medicaid reforms last year. This was the same set of reforms that capped the growth of Medicaid costs to the counties at 3 percent.

But here is the kicker. The report by the Empire Center (an arm of the Manhattan Institute) says that some counties ought to take the offer. The ones that don’t see a growth in the total local share of sales tax that is greater than 3 percent. The reasoning goes what those counties would give up in sales tax money is less than the increases in Medicaid.

Among the counties listed is Monroe.

This legislation gave a short window for counties to accept the "intercept" – from from mid-April 2007 to the end of September 2007.

But that didn’t stop Republican Monroe County Legislative President Wayne Zyra from announcing last week that the county would consider the "intercept."

And predictably it brought howls from local leaders. After all the local share of Monroe County’s sales tax take goes into the budgets of the city, of the towns and villages, and of suburban schools. So no wonder Republicans who run towns, those who represent suburban schools and Mayor Bob Duffy might get edgy.

Zyra’s response: The Medicaid cost is a community problem. It needs a community solution.

But even County Executive Maggie Brooks acted as if the "intercept" idea was radioactive.

This solution, however, isn’t dead. Even with the strong words by Maggie.

"I don’t like the idea of a solution that leaves other jurisdictions in the lurch," said Republican Majority Leader Bill Smith. "But if it comes down to a matter of survival, we may have to do it."

As I’ve written earlier, the county may have no choice but to tap the sales tax to balance a projected shortfall in the next two years that Brooks has estimated to be more than $102 million.

But I thought it would be a sales tax increase as so many other counties have done. Ah… but wait a minute… isn’t this "intercept" just a way to whet our whistle for a sales tax hike? Wouldn’t the threat of losing sales tax proceeds force many in the community to go in the other direction and support a sales tax increase.

Smith said that this stalking horse theory of mine doesn’t wash. Not that he dismisses a sales tax increase. He just doesn’t think that the state legislative leaders would come together to raise a sales tax for Monroe County. For, as you know, any increase in the sales tax would need Albany’s blessing.

This "intercept" puts matters directly into the county’s hands. They can approve whether to accept it or not, by a simple majority vote. This sits well with county leaders who feel as though they are either ordered by the state to accept costs… or (in the case of a sales tax hike) have to go on bended knee for a favor.

The New York State Legislature approved this measure – and put the "intercept" in the county’s hands.

And, should Monroe County really pull that trigger, then some would see them inflicting a "stuff-rolls-down-hill" kind of pain on the municipalities within the county.

Smith simply says: "Go scream at Albany."

Perhaps this is just a way to wake up the slumbering lobbying muscle of others in the county to get on the state for real Medicaid reductions.

Or maybe it’s a way to settle us in for a sales tax hike.

Or perhaps we will really see an "intercept" – and then an inter-county political skirmish that we haven’t seen here in sometime.

Who living in or around Rochester would argue with the city getting its fair share of state aid?

Just look at that show they put on at City Hall on Thursday. All those representatives from business to government to the non-profit arena. How could Mayor Bob Duffy not crow?

All those numbers and charts telling you how Rochester gets rooked when you compare the state money it gets to places like Syracuse and Buffalo. It’s a convincing case, right?

Now let’s see what you think about this story out of Long Island… the other end of this fair state.

Tom Suozzi, the Nassau County Executive (and gubernatorial candidate), says that school districts there have 7.5% of New York’s total school population. But they only get about 4% of the state’s school aid. It’s not fair, he says. He and others participating in a letter-writing campaign, want about $600 million more for those schools.

Just a fair share.

And speaking of "fair shares" – there is still the court decision looming out there that says New York City schools deserve billions more in state aid. It’s a ruling that has put some advocates in mind to take political action on legislation that would get more money to all distressed schools. And opinion-makers say – of course this should be done.

So what’s the point of all this?

Everybody has a case to make for more state aid. And individually they stand up very well. For those three cases noted above, I’m sure there are plenty more around the state. And with all these "fair share claims" being made – just where are the corresponding reductions to pay for them?

What’s that you say?

There likely won’t be reductions?

So then how will New York State really… really… get a handle on rising state expenses?

Just wondering. You have any answers?

Bye-bye Patrick Manning. The tall, lanky Assemblyman from the Hudson Valley has decided to pull back into his district and run for reelection, suspending his gubernatorial campaign.

Say hello to Randy Daniels, the former New York Secretary of State, who invokes the name Reagan whenever he gets the chance. Daniels made a trip to Rochester and talked on WXXI’s Need to Know program.

We finally got the interview to upload… have a listen.

Eliot Spitzer has clearly broken the spine on the book of running way ahead. With poll numbers like he’s enjoyed – it surely makes sense to act like a pacesetter.

He avoids all talk about his primary challenger Tom Suozzi (as documented earlier in this space thanks to Karen DeWitt).

And he doesn’t exactly go out on the stump during these early days and talk about anything radically provocative. After all, how controversial is it to appoint a person who will "depoliticize" investment in science-related business and who calls for investing in the next Erie Canal.

Then you listen to another gubernatorial candidate – and you know he’s been flipping through the pages of book on running from the back of the pack.

Randy Daniels is articulate, direct and eager to speak out. He’s also running third in a three person race for the nomination of the Republican Party, which itself is running behind the Democrats and Spitzer.

Daniels does fighting from behind very well. During an interview on WXXI’s Need to Know program… he exhibited a number of the classic moves of the candidate trailing the field….

I’M BOLD, THEY’RE NOT – "There’s been a lot of tinkering around the edges. Well-meaning programs designed to help foster economic development to attract investment and create jobs. But tinkering around the edges will not solve New York’s problem. That’s what makes me different from everybody who’s running…on both sides of the aisle."

PROMISES BEYOND THE SAFE ONES – "I’m the only one that’s called for a freeze of the budget for three years at its current spending level."

SAYING NO – WHEN IT MIGHT BE UNPOPULAR – When asked about exempting Upstate New York from certain laws, such as the Wicks Law or the Scaffold Law (which have been deemed by business as hindering job growth)… he said, "It does not make sense to carve out regions for special programs. Special programs aren’t going to get us where we need to be."

SAYING YES – WHEN IT MIGHT BE UNPOPULAR – On merging or consolidating local governments, he said: "You have to be able to pay for it every good Republican ought to believe in sound, fiscal policy first and foremost. I believe that the solutions to most problems lie closest to where people are. But we have governments at the local level in New York that cannot be sustained by the tax base that they have."

GUNNING FOR NUMBER ONE, AS IN MR. SPITZER – "You don’t have to destroy a company in order to save it. You don’t have to erode shareholder value because you want press coverage as opposed to negotiating the solution that solves the problem and saves jobs. You don’t kill companies. You don’t kill jobs. You don’t kill dreams to build up your political career. And I believe that has been a byproduct of what he has done. Enforcing the law is not issue. It is enforcing the law and trying to politically benefit from it – that’s the problem."

Hey, what does Daniels have to lose at this point? And surely you have seen some candidates rise from nowhere to compete – because they have been free-wheeling and straight-shooting. (Hello Paul Tsongas… you too John McCain).

But it always seems to change when the back of the pack folks gain ground. Suddenly they throw out the old book and pick up the frontrunner’s copy.

Here’s to hoping that ALL candidates this year decide to go for broke a bit more. A down and out New York could use it.

This gets somewhere soon, trust me on this.

But this week I was able to see the play Inherit the Wind at Geva Theatre. It’s a solid performance by all who performed in the production based on the Scopes monkey trial. The lead characters are, of course, largely based on two giants in American history – Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan.

Bryan’s legacy reached far beyond the courtroom, into politics. He was what would now appear to be an odd mixture of liberalism, populism – and religious adherence. Bryan was known as a titanic orator. And in politics he has a record that includes being the only person (best known person) to lose an election for president three times (see the helpful historical hint from Joe Morelle in the comments section, one that set me on the straight and narrow).

Interesting fellow, that Bryan. And I thought of him as New York City attorney and political veteran Mark Green pulled into town on Thursday. He was here to make official what was already known – that he will run for state attorney general.

Green knows about losing himself. The evidence came as supporters rose in a meeting room at the Hyatt Regency Rochester.

There was Bob Cook, the former Monroe County Democratic Party chair. He told the press about first getting to know Green in 1986 when the latter was running for the U.S. Senate. This was during the primary race, when Green ultimately beat John Dyson, a businessman who was formerly chairman of the State Power Authority. Green’s quest ended at the brick wall that was that Pataki mentor – Alfonse D’Amato. The Republican trounced Green in the general election.

"He was fond of saying he’s not the underdog," Cook said. "He said he was the un-dog."

Cook quickly said Green is not in the same position during this run for attorney general.

Next to speak at the Hyatt was City Councilman Adam McFadden, who recalled getting to first know Green in 1998. This was Green’s second run for U.S. Senate (I remember McFadden striding down Main Street with Green early that year at an event where Mayor Bill Johnson came out extraordinarily early for Green’s candidacy). Green never made it out of the primary race in 1998, losing to Chuck Schumer – who is now a nationally known thorn in the Bush administration’s side.

Add to those Green losses the one he endured in 2001. It was during a sad and tumultuous time in New York City history because of the Twin Towers attacks. But there was also a mayoral campaign. Green beat a field that included Bronx Borough Pres Fernando Ferrer in the Democratic primary. But then, an early lead over Republican Mike Bloomberg evaporated, and he wound up losing.

Green doesn’t shy away from that record.

"I haven’t always won. But I have won major elections," he said, behind signs that called him the "people lawyer". In fact he can claim wins while others running for attorney general – such as Andrew Cuomo and Denise O’Donnell – can not. In addition to winning Democratic primaries, he was elected the city’s public advocate. (Check out the field here)

But get Green outside of the city limits and he’s been less successful. And now, with his third statewide shot, can the liberal from New York City win over the Upstate Democratic faithful? If they pay attention to record, rather than zip codes, Green said. If he gets by the Democrats (no given here, by the way)… can he beat a Republican in November in places north of the New York City metro area?

Green’s hoping that this third statewide run is a charm. Because… Green may aspire for Bryan’s passion on the podium… and maybe Bryan’s populist appeal. But there’s no way he wants something approaching Bryan’s political track record.

p.s. – A colleague of mine just read this over my shoulder… and thought… geez… that’s kind of a stretch. What do you think?

Karen DeWitt – WXXI’s Albany correspondent – has provided us with an audio clip that displays a textbook case for all frontrunners.

DeWitt explained that she and a gang of other Capitol reporters had surrounded Eliot Spitzer after he spoke Monday at the annual New York State Conference of Mayors event in Albany. Spitzer, New York’s AG, is viewed as the man to beat for the Democratic nomination (and, right now, the odds-on-favorite to be New York’s next governor).

But this day comes just after a weekend when Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi announced that he would challenge Spitzer for the Democratic Party line.

Listen in as Spitzer holds on tightly to the frontrunner language – to focus on himself and the issues – even as reporters are pushing him to address the Suozzi challenge.

So Mayor Bob Duffy adds Carlos Carballada to his administration. Put that name next to Tom Richards and Patty Malgieri.

Duffy says that sews up an impressive line-up – what he has no problem calling his "dream team."

That’s a sports analogy. The original derivation of "Dream Team" comes from the first summer Olympic Games that allowed professionals. The year was 1992. The sport was basketball. The U.S. put a team on the court with players like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley. They beat teams by an average of 44 points a game. They lived up to the hype.

The term "Dream Team" continued as a moniker for the U.S. basketball team in subsequent Olympic Games. But by 2004 and the Athens Olympics – the star-studded lineup wasn’t blowing away the opposition. In fact, they lost three games and took home a Bronze Medal. The performance failed to measure up to the talent on paper.

Looking great on paper has been the downfall of a great many sports teams hyped as "dream teams." Look at the Yankees over the past few years – trotting out big names like Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi and Randy Johnson. They haven’t won it all in six years. I’m a New York Mets fan. I remember in 2002, the Mets brought big name players such as Roberto Alomar and Mo Vaughn and Tom Glavine to a team that had been slumping. This was a going to be a big boost. Instead they were a bust. Some of these players were hurt. Some had seemingly lost their skills. Some had lost a desire.

So when Mayor Duffy tells us that he’s assembled a "dream team" for Rochester. That’s a better analogy than he might have thought.

On paper – the names look great. But Rochester has a great many hurdles to overcome. The city has to make tough choices and sell them. The city has to take some chances – and be smart enough to know which risks are worth the gamble. 

It’s great to look at a locker room full of proven stars before the game starts.

Of course, what matters is what they do on the field. That’s where "Dream Teams" live up to the billing – or become nightmares.

It seems like one step forward and one step back for women ascending to places of political power.

One Step Up: Siena Research Institute reports in a poll this past week that nearly two-thirds of respondents believe the country is ready for a woman as president. (See the Siena Poll here)

One Step Back: A WNBC/Marist Poll reports that more than a quarter of respondents would not vote for a woman as president regardless of her political party. (See that poll here)

One Step Up: County Executive Maggie Brooks, Rep. Louise Slaughter, County Clerk Cheryl Dinolfo, Assembly Member Susan John.

One Step Back: 2005 candidates for mayor from either major party lacked a woman…. 2006 candidates for governor from either major party lacks a woman.

What gives? Nora Bredes, director of the Susan B. Anthony Center at the University of Rochester, said the progress can be slow… and halting at times. The increase in the number of women in legislative halls still doesn’t reflect the overall population breakdown. But, she said, those women can influence a change in the way that leadership is perceived so that domination gives up some ground to collaboration.

Hear more from Bredes on this by clicking here.

(Ed. note – a CRX was made about four hours after original post to more accurately reflect what NY EdPac is advocating to do…. MC)

Joe Robach has made a "most wanted" list.

But I don’t think the state Senator from our neck of the woods is shaking in his boots over being targeted like this.

"If an outside group wants to work for something to drive money to New York City…. well, that’s fine," said Robach, about the effort by the New York City based group called NY EdPac.

NY EdPac is gunning for Republican state Senators who fail to embrace an Assembly bill that would increase spending for needier school districts around the state by around $8.6 billion (an amount to be phased in over four years). It’s a funding plan backed by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, yet another group in this mix. You may know this one because they filed the lawsuit against the state that argued that NYC schools were being shortchanged under the current Albany funding formula. The court agreed. The Assembly bill that came after the ruling tries to deal with revamping the education funding across the state to make sure that funding dollars are more equitably distributed.

But the thing is that the state government has failed to act since the court order, which is now under appeal. Gov. George Pataki has dragged his feet. The legislature hasn’t moved either.

So enter NY EdPac. This group – led by two political consultants who previously aided Senate Democrats in 2004 – went the publicity route in hopes of putting GOP state senators on the hot seat. The idea, said Jonathan Rosen, one of the consultants, is to get at the most vulnerable… or, as he put it, the political margins. Republicans in the Senate, led by Majority Leader Joe Bruno, are worried about their status as the majority party in that house. So NY EdPac strikes at senators in districts where the turf has a decided Democratic tinge.

Many of the targets are downstate Senators. And in this context, those senators could be vulnerable. Robach is among a group of upstate senators. This is harder to fathom.

It’s true that he’s in a district that has many Democratic-enrolled voters, so you would think that Robach might be nervous by the challenge. But remember a few things here – Robach is not your typical Republican. He’s the son of a former conservative Democrat Assemblyman, and a popular one, Roger Robach. He, himself, was a conservative Democrat Assemblyman who flipped parties back in 2002 and ran for the Senate as a Republican. And the last time that Robach ran for the Senate (against a Democrat named Bob Ertischek), he was supported by Democrats including then Mayor Bill Johnson and former Democratic Party Chairs Fran Weisberg and Nate Robfogel.

Rosen of NY EdPAC is clear… the organization will spend money on "educating the public" on the CFE school funding issue. And eventually it will spend money to directly challenge some of the targeted Senators. But not all. A viable challenger needs to emerge before the money gets funneled to a specific district. Talk to local Democrats now and they’ll say that they are still in the recruiting phase for this race. But ask them whether they see Robach as particularly vulnerable and they’ll say… not without some outside funding help. Will that change if there is NY EdPac money being dangled in front of them? It would have to be a lot.

Senate Republicans have already taken to dismissing the NY EdPac challenge, calling it partisan and political. They point to the involvement of Rosen and his partner, Valerie Berlin, who once ran Senate Democrat campaigns. Rosen points to the funder of NY EdPac, the Leeds family of Long Island. According to the website PoliticalMoneyLine – Daniel Leeds, the Chair of the League of Education Voters of America registered a new Section 527 organization, the League of Education Voters Political Account. The purpose is “Improving America’s educational system by participating in the political process.”

Rosen said that the Leeds family would target Democrats as well as Republicans to get the state Legislature to make good on the court order.

Opposition to the court order is loud as well. Just listen to John Faso, who is running for governor, talk about how he would defy the court order because the state simply doesn’t have the money.

And Robach said the Senate has already pushed an idea that would create more money for needy school districts around the state, not just New York City as the court order mandates. It’s called the LEARN act, proposed originally in 2004, which would need money from sources such as an expansion of video lottery terminals. This act got bogged down in the overall discussion about changing school funding. And those in the NY EdPac camp say that the solution is inadequate.

Robach said the problem with the court order – where is the money to pay for such a large increase in spending? Rosen points to the $2 billion surplus that New York leaders have announced.

As for Robach being a political target – well, without a real and credible candidate emerging… it’s easy to see him being chopped off that most wanted list. Not that it would matter to him one way or another.