In his State of the Union address, President Obama designated Vice President Biden to lead the Administration’s “moon shot” to attack cancer.  Cancer touches the lives of all of us and is the second leading cause of death in America.  It is one term that covers a very wide range of diseases, including those of the lung, prostate, pancreas, breast and colon.

The President’s effort will hopefully make progress against that terrible disease.  Here in New York, Governor Cuomo advanced his own, though more limited, effort.

In his executive budget, the governor proposes to spend $91 million on a statewide campaign to boost the availability of breast and prostate cancer services.  Breast cancer is the leading form of cancer affecting women.  Prostate is a leading cancer in men.  Yet, neither are the leading causes of cancer deaths.  That terrible distinction is the result of lung cancer.  And the leading cause of lung cancer is tobacco use.

The state has the money to pay for programs to reduce smoking: it receives billions of dollars in revenues from the use of tobacco.  It would make sense to expand the state’s efforts – the state has a real health problem and the money to pay for an appropriate response.

Yet, the governor’s executive budget adds no new revenues to the state’s program designed to combat tobacco use.  Indeed, the state has slashed funding for that program, which now receives less than 50 percent of the funding it received a few years ago, and less than 20 percent of the amount recommended by the national experts at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In addition, there been budget proposals that not only put the state’s tobacco control funding at risk, but other cancer services as well.

New York State offers a Cancer Services Program (CSP) which provides breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings and diagnostic services at no cost to women and men, typically those who lack health insurance.  If the screening test finds something abnormal, diagnostic (testing) services are available for eligible women and men at no cost.

If breast, cervical or colorectal cancer is found, eligible women and men may be able to enroll in the special cancer treatment program to receive full Medicaid health insurance coverage for the entire time they are being treated for cancer.

But that program has never been adequately funded, with experts stating that it only historically offered help to about 20 percent of the eligible population.  Even with the expansion of health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the CSP is still not adequately funded to meet the needs of the uninsured.  In his executive budget, the governor proposes no new funding for this program.

The governor does, to his credit, propose $91 million to expand the state’s breast and prostate services.  And he proposes more money for Roswell Park Cancer Institute.  Yet, his budget does not propose any new funding for the CSP.

Ironically, the experts will state that colon cancer screening is a much more scientifically useful cancer-fighting tool than other cancer screening.  The national experts at the federal government’s U.S. Preventive Services Task Force regularly issue guidelines documenting the best available science to direct medical practice.

In the case of cancer screenings, they rank the efficacy of the effort with a letter grade, an “A” being the service that provides the most benefits with the smallest risks.  According to the USPSTF, colon cancer screening ranks an “A,” grades breast cancer screening with a “B” and prostate screening gets a “D.”  That does not mean that breast cancer screenings are untrustworthy, it means that there is less benefit and greater risks with that type of screening compared to colon cancer screenings.

Yet, unless the governor and Legislature agree, there will be no additional resources for colon cancer screenings.  And, unless they agree, no additional funding for anti-smoking programs, which are the best way to combat the biggest cancer killer.

Does this mean that lawmakers should reject the governor’s cancer services program proposals?  Absolutely not.  It does mean that other cancers, some of which are more dangerous and some of which are better candidates for screening, must get help as well.

New York should follow the lead of the President.  The best way to tackle the scourge of cancer is to rely on the best scientific evidence and to take it on comprehensively.  The governor’s budget is only one step.  Much more needs to be done.

The staggering scandals and collapsing public confidence in state government created an opening for Governor Cuomo’s State of the State address.  Could he advance a comprehensive reform package that was commensurate with the unprecedented ethics, campaign finance and elections failings of the state?  His address was comprehensive:  The governor’s proposals – if enacted – offer significant remedies to those failings as well as to help restore the battered public confidence in Albany.

What is clear is that the central failing of state law is in the area of ethics.  The stunning and unprecedented scandals that have rocked the state Capitol are the direct result of the enormous failures of New York’s ethics oversight system.  This area deserves the most attention by the governor and the Legislature.  Reformers have argued that the central focus of policymakers must be in setting strict limits on outside income; closing the so-called limited liability company campaign finance “loophole,” among other reforms.

The governor’s package tracked those recommendations and added more.  His State of the State proposed reforms in key areas.

First, outside income.  The governor’s proposal goes a long way toward reducing the obvious conflicts of interest that result from allowing elected officials to have significant outside employment.  His proposal tracks the Congressional approach to limiting outside income by capping the amount of income a lawmaker can be paid.

The Congressional system was an outgrowth of the Watergate scandal and has a proven track record of being effective in removing the kinds of outside conflicts that undermines public confidence in representative democracy.

As seen in recent scandals, this potential conflict exists in Albany and the recent convictions of elected officials underscore how lucrative it can be for lawmakers to inappropriately use the powers of their public office for private gain.

Second, treating Limited Liability Companies as the same as other businesses for the purposes of campaign contributions.  The governor proposes to close the so-called “LLC Loophole” in state election law that allows some business entities to donate much larger campaign contributions than other businesses.  The LLC Loophole allowed some to give enormous amounts of campaign contributions and played a part in the recent scandals in Albany.

Third, the governor’s package advanced a number of additional measures designed to strengthen other state laws.  In the area of campaign finance the governor’s plan enhances disclosure by requiring that contributions that exceed $1,000 must be disclosed every 60 days; it requires the identities of campaign bundlers; it lowers campaign contribution limits; and establishes a voluntary system of public financing.

In the area of ethics enforcement, the governor’s plan extends the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Open Meetings laws to the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (“JCOPE”), authorizes JCOPE to seek documents in support of information on financial disclosure statements; increases enforcement authority against lawmakers who failed to comply with JCOPE audits; and creates district attorney oversight over those who submit deceptive information.  Finally, the governor’s proposal allows for the forfeiture of pensions by public officials convicted of corruption.

However, more must be done to fix the structural weaknesses in JCOPE.  For example, the JCOPE board should have a smaller number (and odd number) of appointees; allow for appointments by the state Comptroller and Attorney General; eliminate the legislative “veto” over investigations; and prohibit elected officials from sitting on JCOPE’s board since it regulates the lobbying industry, a tremendous source of campaign contributions.  In addition, the executive director and other staff should not be hired directly from the executive or legislative branches.

In the area of voting and elections, the governor also advanced a plan that allows New Yorkers to vote early in all elections.  We agree.  The plan proposes automatic voter registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”).  However, such a system must be expanded to all state agencies.  Many urban residents as well as those of modest means, do not use the DMV.  The lowest voter participation rates include just those residents.

So the governor proposed reforms across the board, not only to address Albany’s own “Watergate moment,” but to also enhance government openness and boost voter participation.  But actions speak louder than words.  Only time will tell if the governor is planning to fight for his proposals.

In particular, failure to enact the ethics reforms can be seen as nothing less than a failure of Albany’s political leadership.  Here’s hoping that this is a test Albany’s leaders will pass.

The 2016 legislative session kicked off quietly last week. Typically, the governor unveils his legislative program on the first day. His State of the State address serves as the legislative curtain raiser for the session. This year, the governor has chosen to postpone his address for one week and has used that time to make daily announcements highlighting his upcoming initiatives.

As a result, lawmakers returned to a more subdued Capitol to begin the 2016 session. Both houses began their sessions with each house’s leadership discussing the top issues as they see them. Not surprisingly, both the Senate Majority Leader and the Assembly Speaker discussed the looming debate over how to strengthen the state’s ethics.

It was one year ago that the now-former Senate Majority Leader and now-former Assembly Speaker unveiled their legislative priorities. Little did they know at that time that one year later they would both be booted from office and facing prison time for corruption convictions.

But that is what happened and the new leaders had to at least tip their hats to the need for additional ethics measures.

During his opening address, the new Assembly Speaker offered his priorities for ethics reforms. He identified a number of reforms that the Assembly would advance, including closing the LLC campaign finance loophole, limiting the influence of big money in politics, and allowing for the pension forfeiture of corrupt public officials.

He then stated, “Make no mistake – over the coming weeks, discussions around proposals on ethics WILL be a priority of this house. The Assembly is serious about ethics reform and we know that words are not enough.”

Over on the Senate side, the statement was less sweeping and less definitive as to what the Senate Majority would do in the area, but very clear in what it would not do – support public financing of elections.

The Senate Majority Leader did echo the Assembly Speaker by stating that actions will speak louder than words.

And he’s right: For too long, New Yorkers have heard a lot about ethics reforms, but limited actions. The unprecedented corruption convictions create a unique historical moment, a moment that should lead to sweeping changes.

All eyes turn to the governor. His State of the State address this week can offer New Yorkers a glimpse of what may happen. It is the governor that has the power to leverage real changes in the state’s ethics laws.

And it is safe to say that the governor understands that he has this opportunity. In recent weeks, the governor has ramped up his rhetoric about the need for changes.

In a recent media interview, the governor stated that addressing the issue of corruption in state government is a top priority, “The top of my agenda is going to be ethics reform,” he said. “We have done a lot in Albany but we haven’t done enough. And I’m going to push the legislature very hard to adopt more aggressive ethics legislation, more disclosure, more enforcement.”

The governor is right. But soaring rhetoric, while important, does not mean change. As the legislative leaders correctly pointed out, at the end of the day what matters is whether that rhetoric meets the reality found in new laws.

Albany’s soaring reform rhetoric has rarely met the actual changes. The governor’s Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption was disbanded before it ever got off the ground, at least in part because the governor and the legislative leaders wanted a deal more than an independent investigation.

The governor will set the stage this week. How he uses his power will determine whether there is an historic change in Albany’s ethical climate that matches the opportunity.

2015 was a bad year for openness at the state Capitol. It ended with Governor Cuomo vetoing two bills which had been supported by the Committee on Open Government. The Committee is a widely-respected state agency created in the 1970s to offer an independent judgment on New York’s Freedom of Information and Open Meetings Laws.

The bills the governor vetoed were designed to make state agencies accountable for violating the state’s Freedom of Information Law. One bill would have required that state agencies not drag their feet on disclosing information to the public; another raised the likelihood of penalties if the agencies wrongfully denied the public access to public information.

Both proposals were advanced by the Committee on Open Government. Both proposals were part of the agency’s annual analysis examining what should be done to improve governmental accountability.

The Committee issues an annual report every year in December offering its views on the state’s “sunshine” laws and making recommendations on how to make government more transparent. Unfortunately, too often the governors and legislative leaders who receive these recommendations, ignore them. As a result, each year government openness advocates outside of government review the Committees’ recommendations and see if there is any appetite for legislative action.

In December 2014, the Committee on Open Government made a number of recommendations, including the two bills vetoed by the governor. In his State of the State 2015 address, the governor said nothing about the Committee’s recommendations. Thus, reformers focused on the two bills to strengthen the Freedom of Information Law.

Both bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, yet were vetoed by the governor. Why? Largely technical reasons – the type of reasons that are usually worked out. In addition, the governor had a more specific concern that was not easily remedied. In his veto message the governor wrote, “the bills are limited to one branch of government further advancing a fractured system.”

In short, the governor has chosen to oppose piecemeal changes – no matter how necessary – unless he gets everything he wants. The governor’s argument means that he will never approve improvements to the FOIL unless it is also extended to the Legislature.

This is, of course, exactly the opposite of how the governor operates in all other circumstances.

For example, the governor supports closing the so-called “LLC loophole” and is willing to do so without complete overhaul of the campaign finance law.

While the governor is correct that the Legislature should be covered in a manner similar to the executive, to hold all reforms hostage to the one he wants means nothing will get done.

Of course, the governor’s argument would be more compelling if he had been a champion of FOIL reforms. But he has not. As mentioned earlier, the governor said nothing about FOIL improvements in the beginning of the 2015 session.

In fact, in 2015 the governor did something that stunned the government openness community. The governor issued an executive order requiring that state agencies eliminate all emails after 90 days.

Emails are considered records under the Freedom of Information Law. If they are eliminated, those records which would have been accessible to the public, vanish. How can the public be knowledgeable about its government, if certain records are eliminated? They can’t.

The governor’s rationale for the order kept changing when confronted with the facts: At first, the governor’s office argued that the policy was simply due to technological limitations. When faced with the fact that the federal government – which has far more emails than New York – now has a seven year retention policy, the justification changed.

Then the governor said that the policy was something that it inherited. But that turned out to be a flimsy explanation when an internal Administration document surfaced that stated that the “90-day email retention policy was adopted by the State in June 2013.”

A true champion for government openness would not have made that decision. Coupled with the governor’s vetoes of bills advanced by the Administration’s openness watchdog weakens the claims that the governor will champion reforms in 2016.

The governor promises that things will change. We’ll see.

As 2015 recedes into the rear view mirror, it’s time to take stock of the year; its achievements and failures. And it’s a good time to look to the future.

Here are 2015’s the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The good: There were some significant policy achievements at the state Capitol and in the nation. The state broke a long-standing environmental logjam to reform and refinance its brownfields program, which offers assistance in cleaning up hazardous waste sites and then works to redevelop the land. The state approved funding for the Superfund program, which funds the clean-ups of the most hazardous toxic waste sites in New York. The governor and the New York City mayor also hammered out a deal to refinance the lifeblood of the city, its mass transit system.

The U.S. Supreme Court ended the legal debate over marriage equality, although the political debate continues.

The bad: New York’s reputation took a big hit with the unending political crime wave which has gripped the Capitol. Three former Senate Majority Leaders, a Senate Deputy Majority Leader, and a former Assembly Speaker were all among those convicted of crimes. While these all added up to an unprecedented political earthquake, what was more disturbing was the seeming disinterest by Albany’s ruling elite to tackle the problem of ethic reforms.

The ugly: Sadly, 2015 had some shockinglyugly events – most notably the terrible violence both at home and abroad. Also, the tenor of American political discourse took an ugly turn with speeches attacking immigrants and others who seek asylum in the United States.

Ugly as well were the continued attacks on the science of climate change. Leading political figures in the United States refuse to believe in the science documenting how the warming of the planet is the result of human activities – like the burning of fossil fuels. These political figures have done much to undermine the strength of the possible global treaties to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.

Opposing efforts to curb global warming is, in fact, the most violent act of all. If the planet continues to heat up, many millions will face unnecessary disease, hardship, and violence. Droughts will accelerate, exacerbating strife, triggering more violence and death. Low-lying coastal areas will be flooded, forcing millions to move.

Opposing efforts to curb global warming will result in higher levels of air pollution, leading to sickness and disability for many.

If left unabated, runaway climate change could even threaten civilization itself.

How can those who lead, or wish to lead, the nation ignore such a threat?

Because they are putting their political interests ahead of those of the public’s interest.
That is really ugly.

But there is hope. Despite Congressional opposition, the Obama Administration was able to thread the needle and work out a global agreement to begin to tackle climate change.

Here in New York, U.S. Attorney PreetBharara seems to be intent to continue in his quest to clean out Albany’s political stables.

Voters will go to the polls this year to elect a new President, a new Congress, and a new state legislature. Perhaps voters will change things for the better.

New years offer new hope, a clean slate. Here are some New Year’s resolutions for 2016:

1. Combat climate change. Unless we succeed in blocking the fossil fuel industry and developing non-carbon energy policies, millions will suffer. And those who will suffer most are those in the world’s poorest nations – the people who have contributed the least to global warming and are most vulnerable to a changing climate.

2. End inequality. The nation’s festering gap in equality of opportunity and civic participation has widened to a chasm. It will be important to remove obstacles such as those to college, particularly for those of modest means, and to eliminate unfair and predatory financial policies.

3. Strengthen and expand our democracy. From easing voter registration requirements, to demanding enhanced ethical standards for public officials, to opening government to those it is supposed to serve, there needs to be movement to enhance democracy.

It’s an ambitious agenda. But that’s what New Year’s resolutions are for – hopefully these are resolutions that are shared by voters and those whom they elect.